HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4584i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt)e:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ID: 007553980003 TvDeREL
corded: 08/11/2004 at 12:05:08 PM
Fee Amt: $14.00 Paae 1 of 3
Washlnaton Countv. AR
Bette 3tamos Circuit Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 4584 F11e2oo4�00032427
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 04-11.00 TO VACATE AND
ABANDON A 30' UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOTS 67 71
85 AND 9 IN BLOCK THREE AND LOTS 7, 8, AND 9 OF BLOCK
FOUR OF HARRISON'S ADDITION AS DEPICTED ON THE
ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under A.C.A. §14-54-104 to
vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the
City
Council
has determined that the following described
platted utility easements are not
required
for corporate purposes; and
WHEREAS, an easement shall be dedicated a minimum of 10' on each side of
the existing 36" water line that parallels Center Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas in consideration for
petitioner dedicating a utility easement of 10 feet on each side of an existing 36" water
main parallel to Center Street, hereby vacates and abandons the following described
utility easements, abandoning all of its rights together with the rights of the public in
general:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That a copy of this Ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk,
along with the map labeled Exhibit `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be
filed in the office of the Recorder of the County and recorded in the Deed Records of
the County.
PASSED and APPROVED this 6`h day of July, 2004.
By:
DAN COODY, May
„1pannr1�
ATTEST: � SL.
Y F•.�
By: S41tX 66 aFAYETTEyILLE'o
SO DRA SMITH, City erk =`z�•. q� a5;�
L
EXHIBIT "A"
VAC 04-11.00
A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED
AS RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 65 7, 8 AND 9
OF BLOCK 3 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS.
A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED
AS RUNNING ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 7,8 AND 9 OF
BLOCK 4 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS
VAC04-11.00
Close Up View
I �
i
INS
SEQUOYAH COMMONS
RMF-24
-----T, op
-
i
24
RMF-24
-SUBJECT
I l i l i l l l l
lip
. I I RMF-24
,I I
I
I
i
i
IL I
I I
Legend
000
Z000�y�—Ryit,pel Anarlal —RWMAY
m0
tww Smt Ren MiOorAMCW 100Y
I4ew S4eet Plan CaeaCor 50eY
✓� Fre ffixpaswey 0000 lest Curator awe-. UNIT OF STWY
t —! CRY L1Mb - - - BeoaLvie Rave
OD o daCro EM VAC04-11.00
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
-EL
-
RSF
J
IRSF-4
i
t
1- ,L 11
YwIII lI J
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
08/11/2004 12:05:08 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2004-0003242
Bette Stamps - Circuit e
by
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4584
CROSS REFERENCE:
1._. « r%,*^ Document
1
07/06/04
Ord. 4584 w/Ex. A & B
2
06/12/04
memo to the mayor and city council
draft ordinance
memo to Planning Commission
copy of PC mtg minutes
copy of Petition to Vacate
copy of Property owner notification
copy of memo to Matt Casey
memo to Planning Commission
copy of Res. 160-03
copy of minutes - Planning Commission
copy of map - Center Street -r-o-w
copy of One Mile View
letter from EB Landworks, Inc.
Staff Review
copy of Planning Commission minutes Jan. - May
copy of memo to Dawn Warrick
copy of Affidavit of Publication
memo to mayor and city council
MnTFS•
• City Council M•ng of June 01, 2004
CJV4
-t 161ae(
cjSg of
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO VRC 0q-11,
�-1Ue'r iron's
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator
Date: May 12, 2004 WW��
Subject: Utility Easement Vacation for Sequoyah Commons (VAC 04-11.00)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance vacating a portion of two adjoining
15' platted utility easements bisecting the subject property.
The subject property is located between Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue, south of
Spring Street. A 30' utility easement bisecting the property was dedicated with the
platting of Harrison's Addition. The applicant currently has approval for a large scale
development on this property for the construction of apartments with the existing utility
easement impeding the proposed development. The Planning Commission approved the
Sequoyah Commons large scale development on May 27, 2003 with a condition that the
utility easement be vacated.
On October 21, 2003, the City Council considered an appeal from the developer of the
Planning Commission's decision to require that Center Street be extended. The City
Council passed a resolution to modify the conditions of the large scale development at
this meeting. None of the modifications affected the condition to vacate the existing
utility easement. The easement will need to be vacated in order to comply with the
conditions of approval for the large scale development.
Notification was provided to all utility representatives and adjoining property owners.
The Water and Sewer Superintendent required an easement on either side of the existing
36" water line which lies parallel to Center Street, perpendiculer to the subject easement.
The condition of approval for the vacation states that an easement shall be dedicated a
minimum of 10' on each side of the existing water line prior to City Council
consideration.
4ifch a,
• City Council Ming of June 01, 2004
Agenda Item Number
Written and oral objections were received and made at the public hearing from
neighboring property owners regarding the approved development and this vacation
request.
The Planning Commission voted 5-3-1 to forward this item to the City Council with a
recommendation for denial of this vacation request at the regular meeting of May 10,
2004. Commissioners Graves, Clark, Allen, Myres, and Anthes voted "no" with
Commissioners Ostner, Vaught, and Trumbo voting "yes" and Commissioner
Shackelford abstained.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 04-11.00 TO VACATE AND
ABANDON A 30' UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOTS 6, 71
83 AND 9 IN BLOCK THREE AND LOTS 7, 85 AND 9 OF BLOCK
FOUR OF HARRISON'S ADDITION AS DEPICTED ON THE
ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under A.C.A. §14-54-104 to vacate
public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following described platted
utility easements are not required for corporate purposes; and
WHEREAS, an easement shall be dedicated a minimum of 10' on each side of the
existing 36" water line that parallels Center Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas in consideration for
petitioner dedicating a utility easement of 10 feet on each side of an existing 36" water
main parallel to Center Street, hereby vacates and abandons the following described utility
easements, abandoning all of its rights together with the rights of the public in general:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That a copy of this Ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk,
along with the map labeled Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be
filed in the office of the Recorder of the County and recorded in the Deed Records of the
County.
PASSED and APPROVED this 15`h day of June, 2004. t�
APPROVED: OR�
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
VAC 04-11,00
A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED
AS RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 65 7, 8 AND 9
OF BLOCK 3 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS.
A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED
AS RUNNING ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 7,8 AND 9 OF
BLOCK 4 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS
O�
FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of May 10, 2004
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-5758264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: May 05, 2004
VAC 04-11.00: Vacation (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB
Landworks on behalf of Houses Development Company, LLC for property located at Olive Avenue,
south of Spring Street. The property is zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre.
The request is to vacate existing utility easements located within the property to satisfy conditions of
approval for LSD 02-29.10 (Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development.) Planner: Suzanne
Morgan
Findings: See the attached maps and legal descriptions for the exact locations of the requested
utility easement vacation.
Background: A 30' utility easement was dedicated with the platting of Harrison's Addition.
The applicant currently has approval for a large scale development on this property for the
construction of apartments. The existing utility easement bisects the proposed development.
The Planning Commission approved the Sequoyah Commons large scale development on May
27, 2003 with a condition that the utility easement be vacated. On October 21, 2003, the City
Council considered an appeal from the developer of the Planning Commission's decision to
require that Center Street be extended. The City Council passed a resolution to modify the
conditions of the large scale development at this meeting, thereby making three modifications to
the approved large scale development (see attached resolution). The easement will need to be
vacated in order to comply with the conditions of approval for the large scale development.
Should the vacation of the utility easements not be approved, the large scale development could
not be permitted as approved by City Council.
Request: The applicant requests to vacate a portion of the existing utility easement as described
and depicted in the attached documents. The vacation request covers approximately 15 feet on
the east side of Lots 6-9 of Block 3 and 15' on the west side of Lots 7-9 of Block 4 of the
Harrison's Addition.
Of the notified adjacent property owners, one voiced concern regarding the request. Staff has
contacted the owner to gain more thorough understanding of these concerns.
The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the
City. The results are as follows:
E
r-I
u
UTILITIES
Ozarks Electric
AEP/S WEPCO
Arkansas Western Gas
SW Bell
Cox Communications
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE:
Water/Sewer
Transportation
Solid Waste
Engineering
RESPONSE
No Objections
No Objections
No Objections
No Objections
No Objections
RESPONSE
See Conditions of Approval
No Objections
No Objections
No Objections
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed easement vacation 04-11.00
subject to the following condition:
Condition of Approval:
1. An easement shall be dedicated a minimum of 15' on each side of the existing 36" water
• line that parallels Center Street prior to City Council consideration of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date: May 10, 2004
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
Title
Date
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 3
VAC 04-11.00: Vacation (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy
Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Houses Development Company, LLC for property
located at Olive Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned RMF-24,
Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to vacate existing utility
easements located within the property to satisfy conditions of approval for LSD 02-29.10
(Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development.)
Ostner: The first item on the agenda is VAC 04-11.00 for Sequoyah Commons, if
we can have the staff report please.
Shackelford: I am going to recuse myself from this vote. I have a business relationship
with the owner.
Morgan: This property is located east of Olive Avenue and south of Spring Street.
It is zoned RMF-24. A Large Scale Development was brought forward to
the Planning Commission in May of last year and was proposed with
buildings which were shown to be constructed within two 15' utility
easements which is shown on page 1.17 of your report. The Planning
Commission approved Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development on
May 27, 2003 with a condition that the utility easements be vacated. The
City Council approved this item with modifications on October 21, 2003.
These modifications, however, did not alleviate the requirement to vacate
the utility easement. The easement will need to be vacated in order to
comply with the conditions of approval for the Large Scale Development.
Should the vacation of the utility easements not be approved the Large
Scale Development could not be permitted as approved by both the City
Council and the Planning Commission. The vacation request covers
approximately 15' on the east side of lots 6 through 9 of block 3 and 15'
on the west side of lots 7 through 9 of block 4 of the Harrison's Addition.
Staff has received comments from two neighboring property owners and
these comments have been included in your report. Also, notification was
submitted by the applicant to the utility companies as well as to the city.
There were no objections. However, comments were received from the
water and sewer department and they are reflected in the condition of
approval. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed easement
vacation subject to the following conditions: 1) An easement shall be
dedicated a minimum of 10' on each side of the existing 36" water line
that parallels Center Street prior to City Council consideration of this
request. Originally this condition stated 15' but it has been modified to
10' to be consistent with the fourth condition of approval for the Large
Scale Development, which can be seen on page 1.8 of the staff report.
Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present?
Bunch: Good evening, my name is Mandy
Bunch
and
I'm
here representing
House's Development
Company
tonight
in
the
vacation request
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 4
represented by the staff report, which is pretty lengthy. Since the Planning
Commission has last seen this there was a discussion with the City
Council regarding street improvements. Basically, that came out in a
wash because there wasn't appropriate right of way existing to expand
Center Street as was originally approved by the Planning Commission.
That's how things have come out in a wash and the units have been
significantly reduced. I believe we had 51 in the original and he has gone
down to 42. There were originally two buildings over here. Here is the
nearest adjacent property owner. There were originally two buildings
stacked in this area and what we've done is moved this building further
and taken one building totally away so that there is a better buffer in that
area and we can maintain more trees adjacent to them. Basically, the
easement that we are looking to vacate runs through the center. There was
an old road that was abandoned years ago in this location and there was a
utility easement dedicated at that time. This easement needs to go away so
that the property can develop in accordance with the Large Scale. The
orange area is where we dedicated easements for the utilities. None of the
utility companies or city department representatives have any objections to
this. I'm here to answer any questions I guess. We are just here to try to
comply with the requirements of our Large Scale.
Ostner: Thank you.
At
this point I
will open it up to the public. Is there anyone
who would
like
to comment
on this Vacation request?
Thomas: Good evening, I'm Mike Thomas. I live at 106 N. Olive. That is one
house away from where the apartments are going to be put. I didn't know
about the last meeting that they had. I know that it is in the paper and
everything but the last I heard was Mr. House would have to continue
through Center Street and make it a complete full through street instead of
a dead end there. That's where I thought we were. If you put 42 units or
51 units or wherever we are now, that's a lot of traffic on a short span of
street that we are really worried about with a lot of children growing up in
that area and that's kept us concerned through the last meetings I've been
at for about a year on this issue. We've put in a lot of hours as neighbors
on this exact issue. It really scares us how badly it is going to ruin that
area up there. I hate to use the word rape but it seems like it is really
going to rape that area up there and be totally different where we have a
lot of greenspace. I notice the goals for 2008 is a beautiful city clean and
green. This goes against that totally, I guarantee you. I have lived there
for twelve years and we are going to have to move if it happens. If they
expand our street that wide to accommodate the apartments we are going
to lose two huge maple trees in our front yard. It will just be too close.
They are right there. It is going to go over into our front yard so far that
we will lose both maple trees that are on about a 3' diameter right now
that cools our house in the summer and really protects us a lot and create a
lot of beautiful color in our front yard. One is red and one is yellow in the
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 5
fall. Also, this politically correct word, multi living housing, is about 100'
or so from the confederate cemetery. It is such a historic district there that
I don't quite understand that they could put something like that in that
area. Right now it just seems bazaar and surreal to me that something that
large scale could be put in that area. They are just single dwelling homes
there. I know this is not the City Council but I just wanted to let my
thoughts be known and be part of your decision making. It feels to me
that the meetings that we have and many times the neighbors have met and
we've just been kind of placated by the Commission and the City Council
and then the big developer comes in and does whatever he wants. None of
our demands or anything that we've seen so far on that sheet that we had
when Mr. House met with us, which I respect him a great deal for. He has
met with the neighborhood three or four times now. Each time we give
him a compromise and demands and now it seems like that's all been
thrown away and we are just back at where he originally wanted to be,
except not the 51 units, I will give him that. I just don't see how that
neighborhood can withstand that kind of impact, especially on a dead end.
One of our main requests is that if he is going to do it, it's his property, but
it is still our neighborhood though that is being changed forever, is that
that street continue through there to relieve some of the pressure. I ask
you to look at how many bedrooms are in there, not just the units but
bedrooms will decide how many cars are going to be in that area. It is
going to just totally change that neighborhood and the people who are
living in that neighborhood. I appreciate you taking that into
consideration.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Thomas. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on
this issue?
Bryan: Hello, Holly Bryan, 107 N. Olive. Excuse the way I'm dressed. I have
just returned from South Carolina. I found out about this meeting Friday
evening when I called home and my mother said that there had been a sign
placed at the end of Olive Street. I immediately sitting in the North
Carolina airport this morning, called City Planning to enquire on what was
coming before the Planning Commission this evening. She helped me
walk through some things. I apologize if I'm not up to date entirely on
what is actually in front of you. I believe it is the utility easement which
was vacated probably about 20 years ago I believe. I've been opposed to
this development. I would implore you this evening to think about how
this vacation would affect other people in the neighborhood. Other single
family homes developing later on, those on Center. I'm not familiar, like I
said, I didn't have the map and I don't know where everything falls on the
map. Just keep in mind all of the other additional property around Mr.
House's property, what that is going to do if that is going to have an affect
on someone else being able to develop. Thank you.
Planning Commission •
May 10, 2004
Page 6
Chaddick: I'm Susan Chaddick and I live at 423 E. Olive. I'm on the corner of Olive
and Spring Street. Pardon me, I live on Spring Street, not Olive. I am
looking at having huge traffic at that particular comer. I'm here simply to
state my opposition to the development. I see this as an opportunity to
close the door on such a large scale development and I just simply want to
voice my opposition to the development and my opposition to vacating
those easements.
Gable: I'm Julie Gable, I live at 106 N. Olive. I just want to echo my neighbor's
sentiments. As a native of Fayetteville I just really hate to see this happen.
Please take that into consideration and thank you.
Ostner: Would anyone else like to comment on this Vacation request? Seeing
none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I
would just like to again, by making sure we all understand that the
development has been approved, and we do not have the authority or the
right to go back on our approval. This is about a vacation which is part of
a development that has already been approved.
Warrick: Just to further clarify what you just stated, as far as the chain of events on
this particular project, as Suzanne stated in her report, it was approved by
the Planning Commission with certain conditions. One of those
conditions specifically was appealed by the developer and that was the
connection to Center Street. The project was then forwarded to the City
Council for further consideration on that appeal. At that time, this was
October, 2003, at that time the Council heard the request on the Large
Scale Development with the changes as proposed by the developer. I
would just like to read a statement from the minutes that kind of clears it
up and synopsizes what the changes were at that point. "The motion was
to reduce the density to 26 units, 42 bedrooms, eliminate the requirement
for Center Street to be built and to have Olive Street evaluated by our City
Engineering and Planning staff for the appropriate designs that addresses
traffic flow and drainage for this development." That motion was
seconded and approved on a 7 to 1 vote at the Council level. One of the
conditions of this Large Scale at the Planning Commission level, as well
as the City Council approval level, was to vacate this existing utility
casement. There are no utilities in this easement and in order for the
development to be built as shown on the plans the easement needs to be
vacated. Staff is recommending that .with the condition that an existing
36" water line have easements dedicated to satisfy the city's needs to
maintain that particular water line. That water line runs along side the
Center Street, which if there were right of way, would extend further to
the east. That's why the condition is stated the way that it is. It does
reflect what has been consistent through this Large Scale staff report from
the time that it was at Planning Commission, through the time that it was
heard at City Council. At this point that is the request that is before you is
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 7
a vacation of that utility easement. Vacations are unique in that they are
items that are required to be heard by the Planning Commission.
Regardless of your recommendation, however, they will go forward to the
City Council for final action. The Vacation of an alley easement or right
of way requires an ordinance at the Council level to be approved.
Ostner: Thank you. Commission?
Clark: If I'm understanding, I'm new here. Whether or not we approve this
proposal, this development has been approved so that is moot at this point.
We inherited it, I inherited it. All we are talking about is just the utility
vacation, that's it, end of story?
Ostner: Yes.
Clark: Ok, I just wanted to be clear. Will we see any plans for the development
of Olive to the street standards?
Warrick: No Ma'am, that was left in the hands of the City Planning and Engineering
staff to review. The Engineering Division will have to release that project
once construction documents have been reviewed and approved.
Clark: Will the neighbors have any input into this process?
Warrick: That is not part of the standard process.
Clark: Ok, but will the neighbors have any input into this process?
Warrick: Probably not.
Clark: What happens if in widening this street, this is probably way off the point
since it's moot, what happens if widening the street causes destruction like
Mr. Thomas was talking about with trees in the front yards and property?
Warrick: Let me ask the City Engineer address that and talk a little bit about their
process when they are reviewing construction plans.
Coover: I'm Gary Coover, City Engineer. When we review the plans for this
development we will be looking at all applicable city ordinances and
design requirements. I know we have actually walked the street with Ms.
Bunch and looked at some of the locations for some of the curbing and
how the drainage will be handled through there. We have also looked at
some of the tree preservation along that. We will be looking very
carefully when the plans are finalized on that to make sure that it meets all
city requirements.
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 8
Williams: At the City Council level this was handled by a resolution. Let me read
you the resolution. It says that the developer shall be required to improve
Olive from Center to Spring up to residential street standards which can be
modified or altered at the discretion of the Director of Planning,
Engineering and Code Compliance (Tim Conklin) to avoid drainage
problems and adverse impact to the established homes along Olive Street.
I do think that probably there will be some input from the neighbors to Mr.
Conklin in order to avoid this adverse impact. That's unusual. Usually
we just require building up to street standards. In this case it was obvious
that if we built to minimum street standards and put sidewalks on both
sides that we were going to interfere with people's front yards and ruin
their trees. I would expect the city staff, especially Mr. Conklin, to
actually consult with the neighbors in order to try to ensure that there is
not this adverse impact. That is very unusual but this is an unusual
situation.
Clark: It seems that we are going to face it more and more if we are talking about
infill. This to me seems to speak to that issue. I would hope that Mr.
Conklin would talk to the residents throughout this widening process
because there are some beautiful trees along that street.
Coover: There is some
beautiful landscaping that people have
put out in
the right
of way too and
we would like to retain that as much as
possible.
Clark: They have been there forever so that is definitely a concern. That's Tim
Conklin.
Bunch: Just to address that situation, the reasons that the changes to the Olive
Street improvements were even started was Greg bringing it up because
we had been out there several times. There had been a lot of concerns
from the neighbors on the west side, which is where Ms. Bryan's property
is. There is a very steep slope going to her house. That's one of the
reasons that we were hoping for a little levity with the Engineering and
Planning Department to work with this. There is a 60' right of way on
Olive. You would never know it because it is about 20' wide now but that
is why we will be working with them. We actually had been working on
trying to get it surveyed to get started on that since early December.
That's where we are now and that's why this is coming back to you. We
were delayed a little bit with our schedule and some of the other issues
that were at hand. We are waiting on one utility company to come back
and one other that I realized today. That's why we are a little delayed in
this process too. This would've been a lot easier if we would've kept
going down the chain at that point. I just wanted to bring that up with the
street improvements because that was our side that brought that up. We
plan on working with them.
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 9
Allen: I understand what staff has told us tonight. However I was the lone
descending
vote with this project
before because
I feel that it is
inconsistent
with the neighborhood.
I had some
safety and traffic
concerns. I
know that this is just kind
of a holding my
own ground sort of
thing to do,
but consequently I will be
opposed to the Vacation.
Clark: I like your ground and am going to join you there.
Vaught: As this is a continuation of a previously approved LSD at this level and at
the City Council level that has undergone lots of scrutiny, I will move for
approval of VAC 04-11.00.
Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Vaught, is there a second?
Trumbo: Second.
Ostner: I have a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion?
Anthes: I was present the evening you voted on this originally. I guess I'm
perplexed because a lot of the decision to go ahead and approve the
density was predicated on the second outlet to Center Street. I'm rather
disappointed that we dropped back in the number of units but we didn't
drop back in the number of units that would be equivalent to half of the
traffic outlet of the project. I just want that recorded in the minutes. I
want to thank the neighbors for showing up again. Thank you.
Vaught: That was something that at our level we did go with the second outlet and
that was a City Council decision. In my opinion since they made that
policy decision at their level it is not something today that is a factor on
my decision on this. They are a higher level than us and have that say and
they did.
Ostner: If I could ask staff, could you all fill us in more on the reasoning of
Council to eliminate the Center Street extension?
Warrick: You have the minutes in your packet. The amount of right of way that the
City believed to be existing in that location through research, turned out
not to be existing. There was not right of way sufficient to install even a
modified street to make that connection.
Ostner: As I recall, I believe the discussion at the Council level required
condemnation and the creation of right of way for that extension and they
did not see that as appropriate. I would tend to agree. The information that
we were given at this level was the right of way is there, it is very old, do
we want connectivity or not. That was a simple question to me at this
level. If I had known there was not right of way I am not sure I would've
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 10
voted to extend Center and condemn possibly a resident's home to make
that connection. That's just my opinion. I just wanted to share that with
the Commission that it's not cut and dry.
Clark: Would that knowledge have affected the debate and discussion about
whether or not to even approve the Large Scale Development if there
wasn't the possibility of an outlet. Olive Street is one of the trickiest
streets in Fayetteville to maneuver. It has got a lot of kids on it and it is a
beautiful street. If you put that density, density being defined to me as
more people on that street, seems disaster. At that point if you knew you
couldn't get to Center Street, period end of quote, Olive was your only
outlet, would that have changed the whole course of debate at that point?
Hind sight is 20/20 and it seems like the City Council is going to have the
final word anyway. Just because this body has made a decision doesn't
mean we have to confirm it just because we did it once. That is as my
mother taught me when I jumped off the roof for the second time and
broke my ankle. You don't do an unwise thing twice. I'm thinking put
this much density in an area on a street that is almost shorter than this
room is according disaster. If the Vacation is key I'm going to oppose the
Vacation.
Ostner: On that point, I don't believe turning down this Vacation will stop this
development.
Myres: I need some clarification. There is a sentence in this report that says
should the vacation of the utility easement not be approved the Large
Scale Development could not be permitted as approved by City Council.
It seems to me that yes, if we do choose to deny this vacation that that
would require something.
Vaught: The City Council hears vacations. They will hear this after us and they
can override us.
Myres: Right, they can but that would basically throw it in their lap.
Ostner: Can I ask Mr. Williams for a clarification of if we turned this down?
Williams: One of the conditions of approval of the Large Scale Development was the
vacation. Therefore, if it is not vacated then one of the terms and
conditions have not been met. I think in fact, that both this body and the
City Council, by voting in favor of the Large Scale Development, agreed
to the vacation. Although, not formally and so that is why it is now back
formally in front of you and will have to go back formally in front of the
City Council. It basically was approved by both bodies on the front end
and I would recommend to this body not to re -litigate something that has
happened already in the past. The decision has been made. This is not the
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 11
decision about the Large Scale Development. This is a decision about
vacating a utility easement. For that consideration you need to know
whether or not this utility easement is needed. If it is needed then don't
vacate it. If it is not needed, as all the utility companies have said, then it
is appropriate to vacate it. That will be the same issue that the City
Council will be looking at and those are sorts of issues that you need to be
considering rather than trying to re -litigate something that has already
happened before.
Trumbo: Being a member of the Commission and an ex -neighborhood of Olive
Avenue I appreciate the neighbors coming. I think the reason I am going
to vote for this is what Mr. Williams just said. We are here to decide
whether this property should be vacated, not to stop the development. At
this point in time I don't know what you can do but there are a lot of
pieces of land on that hillside that are zoned with higher density and to the
neighbors that are here and listening on T.V. I would suggest a planning
map to see what your neighbors are zoned and possibly start at that point
before this happens to someone else. I will be voting for this.
Graves: I appreciate what our esteemed city attorney stated as far as having
implied the extended agreement of sorts potentially that this vacation
might be approved if you are making it a condition you are in some way
maybe saying that you are going to approve that condition whenever it
comes back before the body. I also think that at the time this was
originally approved there were a number of other conditions that were
impliedly believed to have been a part of that project that are no longer
there. They are no longer present. I, for one, do not necessarily feel, while
I normally try to appreciate what I think would be a precedential effort by
former members of the Planning Commission and City Council, or current
members, this wasn't before me. I doubt that would've voted for it to
begin with. I understand that the Large Scale Development is not what is
before us, the vacation is what is before us. It is a condition on a Large
Scale Development that was approved based on a number of conditions
that turned out not to be true. I don't necessarily feel that my hands are
tied and I am going to oppose this for those reasons.
Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion on this
issue?
Myres: I call the question.
Ostner: Renee?
Planning Commission • •
May 10, 2004
Page 12
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of
VAC 04-11.00 to the City Council failed by a vote of 3-5-1 with
Commissioners Myres, Clark, Anthes, Allen and Graves voting no and
Commissioner Shackelford abstaining.
Thomas: The motion fails.
Warrick: Before everybody leaves if I might just remind everyone that a vacation is
an item that does go forward to the City Council regardless of the
Planning Commission's recommendation so this will be heard at the
Council level.
PETITION TO VACATE UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED IN LOTS SIX (6), SEVEN(7), EIGHT (8)
AND NINE (9) IN BLOCK NUMBERED THREE (3) AND LOTS SEVEN (7), EIGHT (8) AND NINE (9) OF
BLOCK FOUR(4) ALL IN HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS.
TO: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and The Fayetteville City Council
We, the undersigned, being all owners of the real estate abutting the utility easements
hereinafter sought to be abandoned and vacated, lying in Lots Six (6), Seven(7), Eight (8) and
Nine (9) in Block Numbered Three (3) and Lots Seven(7), Eight (8) and Nine (9) of Block Four (4)
all in Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, petition
to vacate utility easements which are described as follows:
Easement Description #1:
A Fifteen (15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the eastern property line
of Lots 6, 71 8, and 9 of Block 3 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Easement Description #2:
A Fifteen (15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the western property line
of Lots 7, 8, and 9 of Block 4 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of the Utility Easements are Lots 5,
6, 71 8, and 9 of Block 3 and Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Block 4 all in Harrison's Addition to the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas used by the public for a period of many years, and that the public
interest and welfare would not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the above
described easements.
The petitioners pray that the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above
described real estate, subject to the dedication of appropriate easements as required and that
the above described real estate be used for their respective benefit and purpose as now
approved by law.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned petitioners respectfully pray that the governing body of the City
of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above described real estate, subject to the
dedication of appropriate easements as required, and that the above described real estate be
used for their respective benefit and purpose as now approved by law, and as to that particular
land the owner be free from the easements of the public for the use of said drainage
easements.
Dated this First (1 st) day of April. 2004.
Gam-, -. 4. %,m
Printed Name
I
APR 0 1 2004
1*19
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FORM FOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALLEY, AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
Date: 4/1 /04 Address of vacation Eastern 15' of Lots 6. 7. 8. & 9 of Block 3 and Western IS'
of Block 4 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville
Adjacent Property Address: End of Olive Street South of Spring Street
Lots: 6. 7. 8 & 9 Block: 3_ Subdivision: Harrison's Addition
Lots: 7. 8 & 9 Block: 4_ Subdivision: Harrison's Addition
REQUESTED VACATION:
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following: Utility Easements
described as follows:
Property Description:
NUMBERED SIX (6), SEVEN (7), EIGHT (8). AND NINE (9) OF BLOCK NUMBERED THREE (3) AND
LOTS NUMBERED SEVEN (7), EIGHT (8). AND NINE (9) OF BLOCK NUMBERED FOUR (4), ALL IN
HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS PER PLAT OF SAID
ADDITION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO RECORDER OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY
OF RECORD.
Easement Descriptions:
Easement Description #1:
A Fifteen.(15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the eastern property line
of Lots 69 79 8, and 9 of Block 3 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Easement Description #2:
A Fifteen (15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the western property line
of Lots 7, 8, and 9 of Block 4 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS:
n
I do not object to the vacation described above.
I do object to the requested vacation because:
35
Signature of Property Owner(s)
APR 1 20,
FAYETTEVILLE
THE MY OF FAYM-rEVILM ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Matt Casey, Engineering ^ -
From: David Jurgens, Water/Sewer
Date: May 31, 2003
Subject: Easement Vacation Request, Sequoyah Commons
I have no objection to vacating the north -south easement/right of way north of Center Street
between Fletcher and Olive, on the following conditions:
1. The easements for the existing water lines be expanded to meet all current easement
objectives (a copy of the current easement policy is attached).
2. Water for the proposed subdivision be installed so that all customers have adequate
water pressure, that is not to be less than 45 psi at the meter for any address. This will require
the development get its water from the Mt. Sequoyah pressure plane.
3. Adequate space is required for a sewer main to run downhill on the Center Street right
of way. This sewer line is in the future plans as a significantly better routing from up hill in the
vicinity of Fletcher, Summit, Texas Way and Lighton Trail. It may be we need to require this
line be constructed as part of this subdivision, if the sewer mains downstream are too small or
inappropriately located to receive more flow. If the mains downstream run under or very near to
houses, it would be inappropriate to add more flow to them.
These issues must be met via the large scaleldevelopment process for the easement vacation to
be valid.
Attachments: Easement Vacation Request
I'd BBLL-bbb-GL4 SMJOMpuel 93 e81:01 40 so Few
0
• LSD 02-29.10
Page 1
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CrrY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of May 27, 2003
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: May 27, 2003
LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons) was submitted by Mandy
Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located
between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units
proposed (48 bedrooms).
Findings:
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct seven (7) buildings containing thirty-nine (39)
units consisting of one -bedroom apartments and two -bedroom townhouses for a total of forty-
eight (48) bedrooms. Included in the development are the proposed improvements to Olive
Avenue, construction of a connection to Walnut via Center Street, and the construction of fifty-
six (56) parking spaces.
Parking -
Total Spaces
Standard Spaces
ADA Spaces
Bike Racks
Required
48
48
3
2
Proposed
56 on -site
52
4
4
Proposed
9 on -street
9
-
. 1.35 parking stalls per bedroom
Existing Development: Vacant
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single family homes
R-2, Medium Density Residential
South
Vacant
R-2, Medium Density Residential
East
Duplex, Single family homes
R-1, Low Density Residential
West
Vacant
I-2, General
Industrial
1%IRepo U0031PCREP0R7S105-271LS0 02-29. 10(SEQUOYAH COMMONS).do
LSD 02-19.10 • •
Page 2
Water & Sewer: Available along Olive Avenue
Right-of-way being dedicated: No additional right-of-way dedication is required. There is
currently 60 feet of right-of-way for Olive, 30 feet of right-of-way for Center, and 60 feet of
right-of-way for Fletcher existing.
Street Improvements Proposed: Olive Avenue will be extended to Center Street. Center Street
will be extended within existing right of way west to Walnut. (See attached letter from applicant,
May 6, 2003.) The applicant will also widen portions of Olive Street which are currently
narrower than 20'.
Access: Access is proposed by means of Olive Avenue which is currently substandard both in
width (18'-20') and in surfacing (gravel adjacent to development). With the extension of Center
Street, a second means of access is being provided.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: None
Tree Preservation: Existing: 100.00%
Preserved: 21.25%
Required: 20%
Mitigation: None Required
Solid Waste & Recycling Division: Support the applicant's request, with one recommendation:
Place one dumpster container at proposed site and the other in a more convenient location
between buildings 1,2 and 6,7.
Background:
The original proposal by the applicant in the LSD review process requested that street
improvements would be made only to that area located directly adjacent to the subject property.
Staff is recommending in the Conditions of Approval that the applicant include in the proposed
development the extension of Olive Avenue and connection to Center Street west to Walnut to
fulfill the goal of the City's adopted policy of Connectivity in the General Plan 2020.
At the April 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a concept plat
for this project in order to give the applicant some direction regarding required street connections
and improvements (Minutes are attached). The Planning Commission voted to require the
extension of Center Street west to Olive and the construction of Olive Avenue along the entire
western boundary of this project.
The applicant is requesting that the City participate in the construction of the Center Street
extension.
City Council Resolution 94-96 Minimum Street Standards August 06 1996
Section 1-2 City Participation in Street Extension Costs:
K. IRepor&0003WCREPOM105-2711SD 02-29. 10 (SEQUOUH COMMONS).do
• LSD 02-29.10
Page 3
The City may participate in the construction ofstreets either adjacent to a
Development or on a street leading to a development if the need for such improvement is not
totally caused by the Development in question. The appropriateness of any such cost sharing
between the Owner/Developer and the City shall be determined by the Planning Commission
based on City Ordinances governing the cost sharing ofstreets.
In no case shall the City participate in Local or Residential streets within
Developments.
Where streets classified as Collector or higher are required to be constructed as
part of a Development, the Owner/Developer shall be financially responsible for their share of
the cost ofthe higher classified street. The developer's share shall be that cost which bears a
rational nexus to the needs created by the development. In no case shall the developer be
responsible for less than the cost of a standard 31 foot local street. In all cases, regardless of
the developer's cost share. the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the granting ofall
street right of way required by the higher street classification.
City participation in any cost sharing project shall be dependent upon the
availability off ands.
The attached letter from the applicant and a memo from Staff dated April 18, 2003 address these
cost -sharing alternatives.
On May 15, 2003, the Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the
full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments. Public comment and Subdivision
Committee discussion included density, traffic, parking, shared costs for street improvements,
and sidewalks.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the large scale development with the following conditions:
Conditions to Address / Discuss:
Applicant shall improve Olive Street its full width adjacent to the proposed project with
curb and gutter on each side. Sidewalks are to be constructed on the east side only in
accordance with City standards.
2. Applicant shall provide a connection within existing street ROW for Center Street
between Olive and Walnut Streets to include a 20' paved section.
Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which
runs north/ south through the property.
4. A utility easement shall be granted a minimum of 10 feet on each side of all water and
sewer lines to provide for maintenance of the line.
K.-IReparu120031PCREPORZY05-27USD 02-29.10 (SEQUOUH COMMONS).do
• • LSD 02-29.10
Page
5. All buildings will be required to meet setbacks based on height.
6. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, away from adjacent residential
properties.
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 $15,327 (39 units (a) $393).
10. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the
City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Date: May 27, 2003
Comments:
yes Required
Approved Denied
K. IRepons120031PCREP0R7Y0i-2711SD 02-29. 10 (SEQUOYAH COMMONS).doc
• LSD 02-29.10
Page 5
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page three of this report, are accepted in
total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
Title
Date
K:IReport 120031PCREPOR7S105-2TLSD 02-29.10 (SEQUOYAH COMMONS).d"
RESOLUTION NO, 160-03
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF GREG
HOUSE FOR HIS LSD 02-29 SEQUOYAH COMMONS
AS MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby grants the appeal of Greg House in LSD 02-29 (Sequoyah Commons)
under all the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission with the following
exceptions or changes:
A. The developer will not be required to build or participate in the
cost of building Center Street from Olive to Walnut.
B. The developer shall be required to improve Olive from Center to
Spring up to the residential street standards which can be modified or altered by
the discretion of the Director of Planning, Engineering and Code Compliance to
avoid drainage problems and adverse impact to established homes along Olive
Street.
C. The Preliminary Plat is modified pursuant to the offer.by Greg
House (developer) to reduce the density from 39 dwelling units with 48
bedrooms to 26 units with 42 bedrooms (including the elimination of one
building and the possible slight movement of another to provide more buffer to a
neighbor's single family home).
;.^ PASSED and APPROVED this the 21s' day of October, 2003.
APPROVED:
By:yu.dt> �N rwu�il✓
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
DAN COODY,
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 2003
PLANNING DIVA
I
NEW BUSINESS:
City Council Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 3 of 15
Houses Development Company, LLC: An appeal of Large Scale Development proposal
LSD02.29.10.
Tim Conklin, Planning: Mr. House is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to require
that Center Street be extended. His appeal is about whether or not he has to construct Center
Street from Olive to Walnut. We originally thought there was 30 feet of right of way but it is our
opinion that only 15 feet of right of way exists between Olive and Walnut Street. This is a
change that the city staff and the developer were unaware of. Mr. House would have to acquire
additional right of way to allow the street connection to occur. If the City Council does not
approve a cost share for this street improvement the developer would be required to construct the
street. The property owners would have to sell right of way to allow the street connection to
occur if that doesn't happen then the City Council would have to go forward and make a decision
whether or not to condemn property to provide additional access in this area and make the street
connection. The city could also participate in a cost share to help build that street. The
preliminary estimates were around $100,000 for the project cost.
Tim Conklin explained the easements, right of ways, and the current ownership of property in
the area of the proposed project. There was also discussion on how this would affect current
property owners. Mr. Conklin said allowing this development without requiring additional street
construction and connections would limit future development within this area.
Alderman Thiel: Was there a reduction on the improvements that were originally required on
Olive?
Tim Conklin: Yes, staff did recommend a trade off with Mr. House, instead of developing
Olive Street to a residential street standard; we recommended that it be improved to at least 20
feet and in exchange to building the street connecting Olive to Walnut, building a 20 foot street
in that section and not a standard city street. The standard city street would only occur in front of
his development which would allow some on street parking.
Alderman Thiel:
If we
approve this appeal is there
any way to go back and acquire the things
that were required
before
this trade off was made?
Tim Conklin: Yes.
Alderman Marr:
We
are asking a property
owner to
acquire right of way for off site
improvements that
do not
adjoin
his property, can
we legally
do that?
Kit Williams: There is some question about whether we legally can require that,
constitutionality we can if we can prove the rational nexus in rough portionally of our demands.
There is some question as to whether we can require him to go beyond his property limits to
build infrastructure for the city.
Alderman Rhoads: The $100,000, did that include the purchase of right of way?
City Council Mnutes
October 21, 2003
Page 4 of 15
Tim Conklin: That did not include the purchase of right of way. A ball park figure for right of
way"would be around $2.30 per foot. The $100,000 is what the developer came up with; I have
not had a chance to verify that.
Greg House: Mr. Conklin told us that improving Center Street to Walnut would be necessary
for his support of our large scale development. We informed him that the project would not be
economically feasible if we were required to do that so we would consider a smaller project that
was less than an acre so that we would not have to go through large scale development. Mr.
Conklin after some thought said if we would bring our project to large scale development he
would back off of big request to improve Center Street and we would work to find an alternative
means of ingress and regress by improving Olive. We went to large scale and then Mr. Conklin
changed his mind; we objected but agreed we would go along provided that our company would
not be forced to carry the whole burden of paying for these off site improvements. We would be
improving traffic flow for developable property that is unimproved in the surrounding area that
had nothing to do with our project. Mr. Conklin proposed that the city might be responsible for a
certain portion of these improvements because they didn't completely benefit our property. We
submitted our rational nexus cost sharing proposal as a means of trying to move this project
forward. Our concern was provided the Planning Commission agreed and we were approved and
we came before the City Council, we might not be approved for the cost share or if we were
approved the city might not have funds immediately and then our project would be stalled until
the city had funds. We felt the Planning Commission should look at this either or, if we get the
cost share approved we go down Center Street, if not let us.go out Olive and improve Olive to
residential street standards. We submitted an alternative as to connecting with Center Street and
that is by going out Olive, by improving Olive as a residential street. This is supported by an
independent traffic engineer study that shows there is more than enough capacity on Olive to
meet the demand that our development and existing homes will place on Olive. Should there be
future development there may be a problem, but that is the time that we need to deal with
someone buying right of way or putting in an extra street. Our development does not over
burden the traffic on Olive, if it is improved to residential street standards. Now that it has been
determined that there is not enough right of way to improve what use to, be Center Street,
Planning staff has suggested that we buy the right of way. That is economically unfeasible and
from timing prospective, it is not feasible.
A discussion continued on the project.
Mayor Coody: What is the difference between the existing streets that is there now on Olive
versus a residential street what is the difference between the two?
Greg House: Most of the street is already 20 feet wide in pavement; there are a few areas that
are 18 feet wide which we could bring up to the 20 foot wide pavement portion. A residential
street takes 24 feet back to back of curb. By us adding curb and gutter system it will bring it up
to residential street standard as far as the street is concerned. We presented an independent study
from a traffic engineer supporting the traffic loads. The city has yet to come up with why the
engineer is wrong or some alternative study to show that our traffic is too much.
Tim Conklin: When we started this process
there was
a lot
of unknowns as
we progressed
through the process and understood the issues
that faced
these
neighborhoods,
staff thought it
was more important to try to provide additional
access into
these
areas.
City cowcil Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 5 of 15
A discussion followed on this project.
Alderman Marr: I think the Planning Commission was very reasonable when looking at this
request. The road should handle the number of units proposed.
Alderman Marr moved to approve the request for appeal. Alderman Rhoads seconded.
Mayor Coody: How do we deal with the storm water run off onto other property?
Tim Conklin: They would be required to meet our storm water ordinance and our city street
standard ordinance.
Alderman Davis: I hate to see Olive Street extended to where it would connect with Center at a
future date in this point in time. The land to the south of the area we do not know what is going
to happen there, I would hate for someone else to latch onto your extension. I think we have to
be careful of the length of the extension.
There
was a
discussion on future development in the area and
the length of the extension of
Olive
Street.
There was also a discussion on the drainage issue.
Kit Williams: Was your motion simply to eliminate the need for the Center Street right of way
construction, but all other conditions as required by the Planning Commission would stand as
approved?
Alderman Marr: It was that but also to get Olive Street built to the original residential street
standard requirements.
Kit Williams: I thought there was some discussion at Planning Commission that with the
driveways coming down into Olive that if they built a sidewalk, that might affect some of the
property owners?
Tim Conklin: That is correct; there would be some transitional issues with driveways in order
to get that sidewalk in, with regard to the sidewalk you would have to redo driveways also in
most likely in those areas. I think the motion needs to state what the recommendation was by
Planning Commission for Olive Street if Center Street wasn't constructed.
Alderman Thiel: If Center Street moves within a few feet of Mr. Bryant's home, are we
obligated then to buy the entire property, we can'tjust destroy the property for the street and not
go ahead and buy the whole property.
Kit Williams: If we acquire right of way on the Bryant side, certainly the impact on their
property would be part of what we would have to pay. If we are acquiring right of way on the
other side so that we are using existing right of way and then buying right of way farther away
from their house I am not sure since we don't adjoin their property they would be entitled to the
diminution in value to their home because of having a street right next to it.
City Council Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 6 of 15
Alderman Marr: Is the primary concern the property owners on Center, or is it the drainage to
the west side of Olive.
Alderman Thiel: I am not concerned about the drainage so much. My concern
Bryant's and the Center Street condemnation possibly and the people that live on Olive.
Kit Williams: If this appeal is turned down we can not put on a developer an impossible
condition, only the City Council has the power to condemn property. We can only require a
developer to pay that amount off site work, his cost share, we can't require anything more.
Alderman Marr: My motion was to grant the appeal not requiring Center Street and
requiring Olive built to residential street standard and all other conditions of the Planning
Commission.
Is this the type of infill that we would be looking for?
Tim Conklin: You could develop multi -family within these areas, it would probably be built a
little differently, maybe a little less dense in order to meet some of the standards they are looking
at right now. This type of parking design does meet our current regulations.
House would you consider less density on your property?
Greg House: I would consider that if we could make an agreement this evening and not have to
start the process over. I have offered to reduce the bedrooms to 42 and change the configurations
from mostly one bedrooms to two bedrooms and have 26 units instead of 39 and keep the
parking the same as we have it now. I think we are going to aggravate the problem on Olive if
we have to curb and gutter it on the down hill side.
Tim Conklin: I do not approve development the Planning Commission does. What he is
suggesting does not change what the Planning Commission looked at to the point that it would
have to go back to the Planning Commission.
Kit Williams: Do you have enough from what Mr. House has described, that would be the final
approval in this process.
Alderman Marr: Do you still support curb and gutter on Olive?
Tim Conklin: Residential street standard
additional work with regards to the driveways.
Would it also include storm water control and drainage?
Tim Conklin: We would have to address that. It would have to meet our res
standards because anything less without looking at it in detail, I am not prepared
recommendation.
City Council Minutes
October 21, 2000
Page 7 of 15
Alderman Marr: I would like to change my motion to reduce the density to 26 units, 42
bedrooms, eliminate the requirement for Center Street to be built and to have Olive Street
evaluated by our City Engineering and Planning staff for the appropriate design that
addresses traffic flow and drainage for this development. Alderman Davis seconded. Upon
roll call the motion passed 7-1. Alderman Lucas, Jordan, Thiel, Cook, Marr, Rhoads and
Davis voting yes. Alderman Reynolds voting no.
Resolution 160-03 As Recorded In The 0j]1ce Of The City Clerk.
Use Of Skateboards And Skates Upon Sidewalks: An ordinance to repeal § 74.08 of the
Fayetteville Code and enact a replacement § 74.08 to clarify and expand the prohibition of using
skateboards and skates upon sidewalks next to commercial, religious, governmental and
industrial buildings and most City streets.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance
Larry Olsen, a Fayetteville resident asked the council to reconsider the part of the ordinance
that would not allow the skater to skate on the sidewalk or along the side of the road. He also
asked the council to consider installing lights at the skate park to allow skating at night.
Rob Sharp a Fayetteville resident: It is already illegal for people to vandalize other people's
property with a skate board or anything else. We just need more common courtesy between the
skater, property owners and city officials. Skate boarding and roller skating should not be
discouraged. I am concerned that if we pass this law people are not going to stop skating, they
are going to go somewhere where they are not supervised. Streets belong to everyone. I really
appreciate the new skate park. The skate park is great but it is not a substitute for skating on the
streets it is just an extension of that.
Brian Casino a resident: Spoke against the ordinance.
Alderman Reynolds: We are not trying to discourage skateboarding. I am willing to drop
section A from the ordinance and leave B, C and D.
Kit Williams: The current ordinance says no person upon roller skates or riding in or by means
of any coaster, toy vehicle or similar devise shall do upon any roadway. That was passed in
1965. If you repeal this section and repeat Section A of the proposed ordinance you will be
making a significant change in the law.
There was a discussion on Play Streets.
Tim Conklin: Our traffic superintendent said his authority to designate play streets was
removed from his duties several years ago, because there are no play streets in Fayetteville.
Kit Williams: I would recommend that play street be deleted then.
Alderman Marr: I understood that it would be a significant policy change if we struck section
A. I would support elimating Section A from this.
I
IIIIIIIIIt J&
I
I
I
1
VELMA T. BLOCK CITY OF FAYEEI
112 N. PUvG.I.S. MONUM
22205BA515 OF ELEVATION5: CITY OF FAME
G.IS. MONUA
PLAT PAGE 485
EV
O)
PP <06197-002-ZONED: R2
I� VEu T. BLOCK
1 12 N. PLAZA DRIVE
LIME ROCK, AR 72205
87'33'55"E
r---
1 2626—OAR —
I
_..� 320 OM
26. OAK
__
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
J
971E OFIB• SDK-35
PVC ® 016% it
I 1
I 9
t t
13 1
I
I ° za anon
> 1 vaa+urr m„y,a
/I I ENTRY 1 c
It,� 4 I I
13UILDI G 4 24• / Qom„ u11 5EI
I �1' SERVICE GAS
rowrl u Im q // °B%mvsRAx�r I BUILDING 5 eNIRr F
I ONE -BEDROOM VNLM
S` '1 1 z ONE -BEDROOM .5' -- �,J UNLM III WCST END 9
3.357 5P O
PROPOSED (t I ENIRAN Q I
rYfIRAN(t� —)_ I IJ
pOj,IP51 —.{— 15• "LIW EASeMENi ro BE VACATED 5•
w W I ,n I ew
APPRO%_C MATE LOCATION PR rI Is w W W 5
30" WATERLINE Nr I o AT TO I
PROV De
W w N87'28'58"W 342.50' P) 350.00=W W
E Ey E E E
--APPR°IMATE LOCATION / C 20 WATERLINE E N TER S T R E ET,5.F . O. W.
(NOT CONSTRUCTED)
----------------------1=--
3745 - ZDLM:R2 �nl�<33%<i = LONcbZi 'r------ ----- ----
EARD MM LEARD PM. <03J43-0 1 ZONE0:R2 PM. <0379q - ZONEO:R2
NY 329 1656 B . 329 JE551E BRYAM VENDA WATSON, ABCNIE 1 MMUEL BUCNAIW
N, AR 71632 XDJEEN, M 71932 i 417 E. CEMER 17M N. IEveReIT
E� LandWorks,*lnc.
PO Box 3432, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-3432
phone 479.444.7769 fax 479.444.7793
May 1 8, 2004
Mrs. Sondra Smith, City Clerk
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Via email: ssmith@ci.favetteville.ar.us
(Followed w/ Hard Copy via U.S. Mail)
RE: Utility Easement Vacation Request
Sequoyah Commons
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Dear Mrs. Smith:
On its May 10, 2004, the Fayetteville Planning Commission heard the request to vacate
a utility easement within the subject property referenced above. The City Council
approved this Large Scale Development with conditions, at their October 21 , 2003
meeting with Resolution No. 160-03. Part of this approval included the requirement to
vacate the easement.
The Planning Department will be forwarding this item (VAC 04-1 1.00) to the City
Council to be placed on their agenda. Please accept this correspondence as the official
request for this item to be placed on the June 15, 2004 Council Agenda.
Please call me if you need additional information, or have any questions.
Best Regards:
th
Mandy R. Bunch
c: Mr. Greg House, Houses Development Company, LLC RECEIVED
Mr. Rob Sharp, Architect MAY 19►
;ITY OF FAYETrEVILLE
�-ITY CLERK'S OFFICE
STAFF REA FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLATION
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: June 1, 2004 V�115 y Avz'
FROM:
Dawn Warrick
Name
Planning
Division
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
CP&E
Department
Mi
VAC 04-11.00: Vacation (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks
on behalf of Houses Development Company, LLC for property located at Olive Avenue, south of Spring
Street. The property is zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to vacate
existing utility easements located within the property to satisfy conditions of approval for LSD 02-29.10
(Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
onHead D e e Di �sion H
� GIs -IY-o4
City At y I Date
_foo I
Department Director
%
Ainanke & Internal Services Dir.
Date
S-0-
Date
4
Date
Received in Mayor's Office
Cross Reference:
Previous Ord/Res#:
Orig. Contract Date:
Orig. Contract Number:
New Item:
S 17/0 .
Date I
Yes No
EAYETTEVI L1E
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: City Council
Mayor Coody
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: June 15, 2004
RE: VAC 04-11.00 (Houses Development Company)
Vacation of Utility Easement near Olive Street
Normally the City Council's decision whether or not to vacate a utility
easement is almost totally discretionary as long as the statutory requirements
have been met (no longer needed for corporate purposes). However, the
vacation of the utility easement for Greg House's Large Scale Development
presents a different issue.
The City Planning Department recommended approval of Sequoyah
Commons as a Large Scale Development (LSD) with conditions of approval
#3. "Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility
easement which runs north/south through the property." The Planning
Department also required: "4. A utility easement shall be granted a
minimum 10 feet on each side of all water and sewer lines to provide
maintenance of the line."
Although there was considerable public opposition to the density of
this project from neighbors, there was no objection to vacation of the
existing easement and replacing it with utility easements where the water
and sewer pipes would be located.
The Planning Commission approved the LSD for Sequoyah Meadows
with the conditions as approved requiring the vacation of the existing, but
not to be used, utility easement. Mr. House appealed the condition of
approval which would have required him to construct Center Street from
Olive to Walnut to the City Council. The appeal was granted on October 21,
2003 by a 7-1 vote. The City Council's approval still included the
requirement that the old, unused utility easement be vacated.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
"(T)he condition which the City wishes to impose
on the granting of the building permit in this case
would be constitutional if the `condition at issue
... is reasonably related to the public need or burden
that [the plaintiff's new construction] created or to
which it continues." Jones Insurance Trust v.
City of Fort Smith, 731 F. Supp. 912, 914 (1990)
quoting Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,
483 U.S. 8253 838 (1987).
Changing utility easements to conform with the engineered plat for
the Large Scale Development is reasonably related to the public need created
by the development. However, requiring a vacation of an easement and then
denying such vacation when requested places an impossible burden on a
developer. As I said during your deliberations concerning the appeal in this
case: "(W)e cannot put on a developer an impossible condition ...." (City
Council Minutes, October 21, 2003, page 6).
The United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a
city placing impossible conditions on a developer in the case, Cily of
Monterey v. Delmonte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687 (1999). In that case the city
placed several conditions on the proposed developer including "shifting and
sometimes inconsistent positions." Id. at 699. Delmonte Dunes sued the
city and won $1.45 million (even after the property was purchased by the
state).
The Supreme Court quoted the jury instruction which had been
offered by the City of Monterey.
"If you find that there existed a reasonable
relationship between the city's decision and
a legitimate public purpose, you should find
in favor of the city." Id. at 701.
The inconsistent and shifting positions of the city were found by the
Supreme Court to justify the jury's verdict of $1.45 million for Delmonte
Dunes.
What could be the legitimate public purpose to justify refusing to
vacate an unused, unneeded utility easement to be replaced by one for the
utilities as shown on the plat approved both by the Planning Commission
and City Council? I can think of no such legitimate purpose.
There was a time to consider denying this Large Scale Development,
but that time has passed. The Large Scale Development has been
approved and now the developer is merely doing as he was required by that
approval. I do not want to hear a Court state: "the city's denial of the final
proposal (was) not substantially related to legitimate public interests ...." Id.
at 702.
If the vacation of the unused easement is not granted, I can point to no
public interest to be served in maintaining an unneeded and unused easement
which will be replaced by a usable and used easement within an approved
Large Scale Development. Thus, I believe that denying the vacation the
City itself has required is inconsistent and virtually indefensible in a
constitutional context.
Fayetteville has avoided constitutional problems in the past few years
even when legislating in new areas of the law such as impact fees and
development standards because we have carefully followed constitutional
limits. Refusing to vacate this unneeded utility easement would expose
Fayetteville to unnecessary liability for a constitutional takings claim.
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002
Page 17
LSD 02-29.00 (1040)c Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was
submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses
Development. for property located between Olive Avenue &.Fletcher Avenue, south.of
Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains
approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms).
Edwards: The final item on the agenda is LSD 02-29.00 submitted by Mandy Bunch
of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for
property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of
Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential
and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed.
We will start with Kim's comments she said she already gave to you.
Basically it looks like for tree preservation you can not count tree
preservation within utility easements or areas too narrow to sustain a
healthy canopy through construction. Tree preservation along the south
border is to be researched to identify the utility easements existing for the
water line. Tree preservation along the north boundary is too narrow to
sustain canopy. Prior to approval she will need to review the type and
amount of trees existing in these narrow areas. For the landscaping
requirements, she is requesting that you confirm that the interior parking
lot islands that are utilized for tree islands are a minimum of 8'x 17'.
Hesse: There was only one area. You really have enough tree islands if you are
looking at a small tree type. It is this one right here. If you have enough
trees inside we can do that, we will just put a small species in there.
-Edwards: From the Parks Department, you have been approved for money in lieu of
land. Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $1025 for 39 units. From
Sidewalks, Olive is a residential street that requires a 4' sidewalk and a
minimum 5' green space along one side of the street and wrapping the cul-
de-sac. Ramps should be constructed at the ending and beginning point of
the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac and a corresponding ramp across, the
street. Everything else looks standard. There is one bicycle parking rack
required. I don't know if that was shown on there.
Shreve She is actually showing four.
Edwards: From Fire, the fire truck needs 20' to get into this development. What he
is looking at is we need to remove this island at the cul-de-sac, the island
at the driveway entrance. Then.we have these one way drive aisles which
are not going to work for fire protection because he is not going to be able
to get back there to buildings six and seven, he needs at least 20'.
Bunch: So they can just be widened to 2019
Casey: Does he need both of them or just one?
•
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002
Page 18
Edwards: Just one. He also said that your fire hydrants meet the 300' requirement,
however, they would recommend an additional hydrant and that would be
located at the northeast comer of the entry drive.
Bunch: If we can widen at least one of those, the entrance way into the
development to 20' can we maintain the island and is there any way to
address maintaining an island within the street? I know Matt didn't like
that either.
Casey: We don't allow islands out in the street unless it is a boulevard.
Bunch: You knew I was going to at least ask one more time. If we go with one of
these drives that is 20' into the building we can maintain that island? Ok.
Shreve: Mandy, the sidewalks need to be continuous through that driveway also,
that may effect the drive location.
Bunch: We needed to talk about that .anyway. I am not sure that it is going to
matter once the street comments are done but as far as grading out there 1
didn't show a green space in that wrap around part of the cul-de-sac so it
would stay within the existing right-of-way out there. I think we need to
kind of work through that with the rest of our comments when we talk.
Edwards: Buildings one and two I am just requesting to know the height of those.
'Ihe reason being is in the R-2 zone the setback increases with height.
Anything over 20' tall has an additional setback. Do you know if these
buildings will be taller than 20'9
Bunch: Does it go from finished floor to peak of roof or to overhang? '
Edwards: It goes to the overhang is where it will be measured from to the floor.
Bunch: But not the crawl space if there is one.
Edwards: Right. If they do come to more than 20' there is an additional 1' setback
for every foot over 20', that might be an issue, it might not. How about
the lighting?. Do you know what kind of lighting is proposed?
Bunch: We discussed that. I am pretty sure he wants to do something decorative,
we haven't picked a fixture and we need to provide a layout. I think he
would definitely be leaning toward something that was more decorative in
nature and not a huge floodlight, major light producing fixture.
Edwards: Can they work on that, getting us the height of the fixture and the lumens?
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002
Page 19
Bunch: Yes. I.will try to get you some information and maybe a brochure or
something like that:
Edwards: Also, just a note that all of the aisles in this development will be fire lanes
and will have to be painted and marked as such. At least, all the aisles that
they need to access the building. That is all I have for fight now. Do you
want me to go over the street?
Casey: That is fine..
Edwards: Twill go over the street part. Of course if is Planning Commission's final
decision on what offsite street improvements are required. We are
recommending that Olive Street be improved to meet residential street
standards including pavement, subbase, curb, gutter, storm drainage, from
Spring Street to the proposed cul-de-sac. That is -because Olive Street is
not in good enough shape to handle the traffic that this development will
generate and the construction traffic. It: already has problems with the
asphalt breaking up. That is option number one. Number two would be
the extension of Center Street to provide the required. frontage for the
property. There is an existing 30' right-of-way, it doesn't seem to be too
steep through there and that would be a second option.
Bunch: Along Center Street?
Edwards: Yes.
Bunch: It is extremely steep.
Edwards: Going to the west. If you go down hill, we. are just talking about that way.
Bunch: Ok, the other way.
Casey: Itis not as steep to the west, it looks like it is being driven now by people
anyway.
Bunch: Basically; you are giving us two options to look at and discuss and. we are
to make a proposal?
Edwards: Yes. We are going to stick with this island being removed if they use. this
option.
Casey: They also need to show easements on each side of all proposed water and
sewer lines. I visited with you a little bit about this the other day, we need
to extend the water mains either move the water meters closer to the main
or extend the main closer to where you want the meters so we don't have
the long services in between the main and the meter.
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002 -
Page 20
Bunch: That was for building number 7, I'm not quite sure what I can do about
buildings 3 and 4.
Casey: Number 7 was the.one we talked about the other day. We might be able to
live with 3 and 4. I also want you to verify the width of that easement
there on that 30" water line. We need to maintain our setbacks from that
easement. I mentioned that there are several retaining walls on here. Any
wall greater than 4' in height needs to be designed by a registered
professional engineer and inspected during construction by that engineer.
Any wall over 30" in height needs to have a safety railing meeting the
more stringent of the southern building code requirements.
Bunch: If those are not directly adjacent to vehicular areas, what is that
requirement?
Casey: Then the building code would prevail.
Bunch: Is that the 48" too?
Casey:
Yes.
When ASTO
kicks in it goes up a little higher I believe.
Bunch:
It is
54".
Casey:. Note number 12 there doesn't really impact, it is just acknowledging that
we do have an ordinance that all setbacks be cut from the right-of-way but
since that the cul-de-sac is new construction that is not going to apply in
this case. I just wanted to address that.
Bunch: Certainly I think that depending on options that are looked at and
discussed, how will that wall that I have got proposed there in the right-of-
way be affected? Did you have an opportunity to look at that? Maybe we
need to sit down and look at.that. I know it affects Keith's comments too.
This little stub of wall. Depending on when or how that is addressed that
may change. There is no; way to put improvements and a sidewalk with
that wall right there. It is pretty much a steep bank right there. There
needs to be some green outside the property. Anything different could be
somewhat extreme. At one point I had the walls actually in the right-of-
ways that were street walls and we moved those back thinking that would
be your preference.
Shreve: There is an existing ordinance that says that they have to be setback 2'
from the right-of-way.
Bunch: There are several streets in town that have walls.
Ll
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002
Page 21
Casey: We can work on that.
Bunch: Il sounds like we have got more to think about than just that right now
anyway.
Edwards: You are showing it on the right-of-way line? 1 am just confused.
Bunch: It crosses down into the right-of-way and comes forward to the sidewalk
so that we can grade to install the sidcwalk.and the street improvements.
At the same time we are trying to maintain the trees.
Edwards: We will just have to look at that and see if that is a variance.
Bunch: It is kind of a weird situation.
Edwards: Utilities?
Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO
Newman: We can't put it in the drive or the street,we have transformers and
pedestals and they can't go in the streets. What I was looking at is trying
to figure out a way to get there along Olive Ave. I was going to request a
20' utility easement there and that will work up until you get to building
one and I don't know how we are going to get there. Do you want the
transformers and pedestals and things located in front of the buildings?
Bunch: We have looked at it and where those little circles with the "E"s are, that is
the preferred mechanical entrance to the building.
Newman: I will have to locate a transformer and a pedestal for ex.&ple,for
buildings one and two. With the tree preservation that is going to cause us
to have to locate that in front of the building.
Bunch: Ok. In front in this area?.
Newman: Over to the left out there
by the street. If you gave
me a 20' utility
easement along Olive from
the south
end to the'north end up there across
in the cul-de-sac then I could
locate
a transformer right
there just on the
west side of the building in
the front
and stay. out of the
tree preservation
area that is there.
Bunch: That is just getting us to buildings one and two though right?
Newman: Yes, that is just buildings one and two. We still have a couple of others
here. By giving you that utility casement I can locate the transformer
between buildings three and four out in that casement along Olive.
• 0
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002
Page 22
Bunch:
You have to have 20'?
Is everybody looking at
going the same way?
Boles:
I don't know yet.
Bunch: I think I probably need to sit down with you sometime and we need to go
over this because Mr. House is definitely wanting to minimize utility
easements and we have got such tree preservation areas that we really
need to keep them. That is why it is shown like this for us to start working
with, this is the idea because we are already installing several retaining
walls all around this thing to maintain these trees.
Newman: flow tall are the walls going to be typically?.
Bunch: Average is around 5', the higher are up to.10' in some areas.
Newman: Ok. With the retaining wall and tree preservation my concern is that we
are not going to be able to get to it with vehicles or even with tree
preservation area_ Buildings 6 and 7, 1 have an overhead line that runs
along Center Street right-of-way but I have a 12 KV line that runs up the
hill there, that is going to be my source.
Bunch: That is kind of what 1 had anticipated. Can you come in from that center
area and then go up or do you have to come up twice?
Newman: I just don't see any place to locate the equipment, the transformers and
what have you by coming up this. There is not a lot of room between the
parking lot and the driveway.
Bunch: Would there be someway to have a central transformer location and run
secondary up to buildings 3 and 4 from some sort of general area like right
in here that were accessible?
Newman: Just give you one location and then let you run private lines?
Bunch: Is that something that we maybe could work through so that we didn't
have easements and equipment everywhere?
Newman: Let's look at it and see. What I am really afraid of is that if we don't get
somewhere centrally located within the complex then the load that three
two bedroom townhouses and the two levels of one bedroom units, what
we need to do is look at this if we could. What I originally thought was to
go up an easement on the west side and then go up an easement along
Fletcher but the tree preservation area on Fletcher is going to prohibit that.
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002
Page 23
Bunch: That and if you are looking at any kind of vehicular access that is pretty
much not going to happen. I just need to call you and we need to sit down
and go took at that.
Newman: Yes Ma'am, let• s do that.
Gibson: Try to make that a meeting with all utilities.
Boles: Yes, this is going to be a little unique.
Bunch: I appreciate it if you could spend the time. It would be better for us to
spend the time to do.
Gibson: I know we can't go in the street because there has to be turn ups where it
goes off to these buildings. I have the same issues -as Glenn.
JohnyBoles —Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: Mandy, 1 don't see your point of entry for gas for building five, am I
overlooking it?
Bunch: No. It is just not on there.
Boles: I just thought I would bring that to your attention. They do want gas to
that building don't they
Bunch: I would think so. I know he is still in the decision process of whether it
will be all electric or gas but we want to plan for everything so he has that
option.
1'
Boles: Ok, just let me know.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: We will just wait until that meeting Mandy to go over all of those issues.
The only entrance is going to be off Olive right? I am not seeing one off
of Center. 1 am sure you can off Fletcher.
Bunch: We don't have anything proposed off any of the streets other than Olive. I
guess the only thing that would come to mind is the discussion that
Planning had that might change access.
Gibson: That is all I have. Let's just all get together.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Technical Plat Review
October 30, 2002
Page 24
Clouser: Just the same thing.
Edwards: Do you think you are going to be able to comply with the tree preservation
ordinance without a redesign?
Bunch: I think so. I think the utility easements will have the biggest affect. I
know we had already talked to Kim about the easement for the 30" water
line that we needed to track down that nobody seems to have so I believe
so in that we have some areas adjacent to Olive that we have not included
yet as well as detention design, which I am still in the process of trying to
find the right design for this site that can be added to that so I believe it
will be a lot closer to that. We are trying to save what is there because it
needs to be saved and we are also short on mitigation opportunities.
Edwards: Alright, deadline for revisions is November 61h at 10:00 a.m.
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 27
LSD 02-29.00: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by
Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property
located between Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is
zoned R-2; Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 units
proposed, a total of 48 bedrooms_
Ward: Our fifth item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-29.00, Large Scale
Development for Sequoyah Commons submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB
Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located
between Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property
is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres
with 39 units proposed, a total of 48 bedrooms. Will the applicants please
introduce yourselves for the record?
Bunch: I am Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks.
Sharp: Rob Sharp, Robert Sharp Architects, Inc.
Ward: Thank you all: Sara?
Edwards: We have received public comment. Here is a letter from someone that couldn't
be here. What we are looking at is seven buildings, 51 parking spaces, they meet
our parking requirements. Surrounding zoning is R-2 and R-l. To the north
along Olive Street there is a single-family residential neighborhood. To the south
there is vacant land. To the east it is single-family mix. To the west is vacant.
Water and sewer are available along Olive. There is no additional right of way
dedication required at this time. There is 60' of right of way along Olive, 30'
along Center which comes up from the west to this site and 60' along Fletcher
which comes in from the east. What they are showing on their plans is Olive is
proposed to go to this site and end in a cul-de-sac. Access is proposed by means
of Olive Avenue, which is substandard both in width and infrastructure. The
pavement is broken up and the sub base is not to city requirements. Right now
my report does say forward to the full Planning Commission. However, we are
going to change that recommendation to denial at this time.. Based on access to
the site. We are recommending that access be provided by extending the
following two streets, Center Street should be extended from Walnut to Olive and
Olive Street be extended from Spring to Center. This will provide a.looped street
and two ways to the site. We are asking the Subdivision Committee and the
Planning Commission to not just consider this development but assume that there
may be more developments that will increase the density of this area from around
1.8 units per acre to 20 to 24 units per acre_ There are many large undeveloped
areas and underdeveloped areas zoned R-2, which we must assume will be
redeveloped and developed with densities to match this development. This is
somewhat already occurring on Olive Street in two other locations. The city has
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 28
consistently followed a policy of connectivity and adopted.the General Plan 2020
and it is for these reasons that we are not recommending approval at this time.
Ward: Thanks Sara. Matt, have you looked at this as far as access into Center Street, is it
something that can be done?
Casey: Yes, it is possible.
Bunch: The grades are such that on both Olive and Center and the intersection that it is
within city specifications to put a road in?
Casey: It could probably be made so without specific design it is hard to answer that. It
would require quite a bit of work but it could be done.
Ward: Do you have any other comments as far as Engineering on this project?
Casey: Planning is going to cover the offsite improvements. One additional comment
that I do have is that we need an easement adjacent to the existing water line that
runs through this site. It is a 30" water distribution main and we do not have an
easement for it. We would require it for this project and they are not showing it.
Ward: Where does that run through?
Casey: It runs along Center Street.
Ward: Ok.
Sharp:
There is an easement for the water
line,
the water line just is not in it. The city
put the water line somewhere else.
,
Ward:. Do you have any information about sidewalks required for this development?
Edwards: Of course, depending on which streets are constructed, the requirement with the
plan shown is a 4' sidewalk with a 6' green space along Olive as shown on the
plan along the extension.
Ward: Kim with Landscaping?
Hesse: They meet the minimum requirements for tree preservation. The third page back
shows the trees that are being preserved. What I have asked for, is through
construction we have difficulty. 1 am concerned about this area and some of these
areas. We may have to do some remedial work on the trees afterwards and we
may have to do mitigation based on the quality of these trees. They have pointed
out the larger trees. The reason why they show smaller trees here is because I
asked them to inventory this because of the size of tree preservation area here. I
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 29
wasn't sure if there were even any trees there. There are, but it is real difficult
when, you have 100% canopy. and you start taking chunks away if you are really
getting canopy preserved and that is why we have looked again at this area. What
they are showing inside of this is that 20.1 % preserved. They do not consider this,
we couldn't count this as preservation because of the right of way, or the
easement for the water line, although there is not going to be any construction in
that area.
Bunch, M:
That is correct. We did have to take that out of our calculations and that is why
the percentage went so far down. Also, I did consult with a structural engineer
that we will use to design the walls and the area that we have left at this point is
reasonable and doable technically..
Hesse:
That is one of the things that we :asked for.. Basically, the retaining wall
construction, how far out do you need to construct it?. You really can't have tree
preservation right up against the wall. That is why they have given us maybe 10'.
Bunch, M:.
Basically the walls have to be made more dense. They have to. be stronger to
have shorter distance behind them and that is what we have planned on doing.
Hesse:
I am working with Bristol Park right now and they are going to construct the
retaining walls on one side. That appears to work on that particular project. There
are so many different options on how to design these and to construct the walls
that they will just have to work to make sure that that happens. I would also point
out that when you are on the site, especially if you are on the east part of the site,
this is all wooded but it is off the site. Just be aware that this wooded area is not
going to be touched by the development but also it is not counted as preservation
because it is not on their site. For landscaping purposes I had asked to investigate
if there was any way to put a tree right here in this island. Lknow you have a
clean out there.
Bunch, M:
I will stress too that the landscape plan that has been submitted is strictly to meet
minimum city requirements and we are planning to do a substantial amount more
that just has not been designed to detail yet.
Hesse:
That is all I have.
Ward: Parks and Recreation?
Turner: Parks. is requesting $14,625 in lieu of park land dedication for 39 multi -family
units.
Ward: At this time I will ask for public comment
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 30
Hoover: Can we get Sara to repeat shortly what the improvements we are asking for. I
would like the audience to address what staff is proposing too.
Edwards: What we are recommending is the construction of Center Street from Walnut
Street east up to the site as well as Olive extension from where it ends now south
to meet up with that Center Street construction. That would provide two outlets
for traffic.
Hoover: Will there be sidewalks on both sides for both of those roads?
Edwards: We arc a little: short on right of way for Center so I don't know that that is
possible on Center Street. Olive, we would:be looking at, they would build it to
residential street -standards which would just require a 4' sidewalk on one side of
the street. With Chuck and Keith's recommendation, on one side they wrapped it
around the cul-de-sac and I do have a condition that it would have to be
continuous through the driveway.
Chaddick: One side on Olive that would be two on Center if that is feasible.
Edwards: We would just have to look at the right of way we have.
Bunch: Sara, if that were the case then would our action be tabling as opposed to denial at
this level to allow the reengincering to have it resubmitted to include the Center
Street and Fletcher revisions.
Edwards: I think that that depends on how the applicant feels about that. If they want to
consider altering their plans at our request, sure. If they want to move forward
this way then I think we need to consider that. .
Bunch: It was unclear when you went over it the first time if the applicant would wish to
do the revision then table it for that but as shown you recommend denial.
Bunch, M: 1 would like to make a comment if possible at this point. I think Rob and I feel
the same way about it, I am not speaking for him. Greg was unable to be with us
today so we are here to address all of these comments. I would also like to state
for the record that we have been very above board with city staff and very
communicative with the neighbors. I believe Greg has had three meetings with
the neighborhood association, as well as the adjoining neighborhood association
to the south and there has been a great deal of discussion and a great deal of work.
The denial recommendation comes a bit of a surprise to me as I spoke with Sara
yesterday at about 2:00 and was not expecting it. 1 don't feel however, that we
are ready to make a final agreement to some of these other conditions today. I
just wanted to state that for the record and let everyone know a little bit of the
history of what we have done. We are not submitting something that no one has
seen, it is not a big surprise.
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 31
Edwards: I agree with that completely.
Ward: At this time is there anyone that would like to make a public comment on this
although we will probably table it.
Bunch: Can I ask for a possible change of our procedure? At the time I was unaware that
this meeting had been scheduled, it was not in our records that we received, and I
have a doctor's appointment scheduled. If our motion is going to be tabling can
we take that diapositive action that takes three? If there are only two people here
then it has to go to the full Planning Commission. Can we discuss that amongst
ourselves to see if we need to forward it or table it and then at that time take
public comment because it will still be public record and we can all see it in the
minutes of this meeting.
Ward: I think we can do that. If you want to make a motion on staffs recommendation
we can take it from there.
Bunch: Rather than lock you into being forwarded to the full Planning Commission at this
time, the full Planning -Commission might say go ahead and table it but all that is
going to do is cost you another two weeks of time. If that is the case, then I will
move to table LSD 02-29.00.
Adkinson: The last comment that Ms. Bunch made about the neighborhood association
meetings, it is true that we were invited to neighborhood association meetings.
Mr. House presented the plans and left the meetings before the neighborhood
association had a chance to discuss it. Everyone in the neighborhood is strongly
opposed to the construction of those apartments and we made it clear to him.
Ward: Ok, do we have a second?
Hoover: I will second that_
Ward: I will concur to tabling. At this time, since we have tabled it anyway I will go
ahead and open it up to public comment. If you have something to say please say
it short and brief You are going to lose one of your Commissioners and maybe
all three of them pretty quick so try not to repeat what somebody else has already
said.
Caulk: My name is Bob Caulk. I live on Missouri Way and I am speaking representing
the Southern Mount Sequoyah Neighborhood Association.
Hoover: Can you tell me what the boundaries are of that?
E
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 32
Neimann: From Dickson Street south in that particular area, further up the hill it goes further
south along Rogers down to Castrall to that long dead end, that subdivision called
Southern Heights and then it extends further up the hill. It includes Summitt and
Oklahoma, Missouri Way, Texas Way and Lighton Trail.
Chaddick: It does not officially include Olive Street. Olive and below to the west is in no
man's land. There is not a neighborhood association for Olive, West, and
Willow.
Bunch: What is the western border? Where is it in relationship to Fletcher in the vicinity
of this project?
Chaddick: Fletcher.
Bunch: Does it run along Fletcher all the way to Lafayette?
Cbaddick: No. There is some vagueness because the Washington Willow Neighborhood
Association extended to include the north side of Spring Street but when this issue
came up and another issue in our neighborhood, a project brought to you by
Bobby Schmitt, so many people in that area were interested in both of those
projects that the people between Dickson and Spring have been attending our
neighborhood association as well. In a way, people for that part of the
neighborhood are voting to join the Mount Sequoyah South neighborhood
association.
Bunch: Still, the people who live on the west side of Fletcher with all that R-2 zoning,
those people have no voice. It apparently looks like the neighborhood
associations have been determined to eliminate the.voice for the property owners
living in the multi -family housing.
Chaddick: Not at all.
Alward: They may not have a
voice within
the neighborhood
association but they
definitely have a voice at
the city.
Chaddick: The neighborhood associations of course have formed out of citizen interest and
nobody has ever intended to exclude anyone. '
Ward: Ok, go ahead and give your very brief comments.
Caulk: As was mentioned, we did have a couple of meetings with Greg and his staff to
get their views on what this was all about, what the nature of it was. We did give
them some feedback. We then had another neighborhood association meeting that
Greg did attend the first part of and talked to us about the latest view of what was
going forward. He left at that point, which allowed us to have unanimous
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 33
opposition on this. Our position is to oppose this Large Scale Development.
There is really a number of reasons. The first reason, and this might be the most
important one. It is really not consistent with existing land use. What I have here
is a map that is of the R-2 zoned area that we have up here on the hillside starting
at Fletcher Street on the east over here going down to roughly Momingside and
Huntsville on the southeast comer. Huntsville Road on the south, College Drive
and Dickson Street, What this is is the city land study map for that whole R-2
zoned area which shows that there area_39 dwellings per acre in that entire area.
Of the residential buildings in that area there are about 213 of them, 82% of them
are single-family, 14% of them are duplexes and only 4% of them have three or
more families in them. Basically, this is an area that is not developed R-2 at this
point in time. Traffic safety is: obviously an issue and we have had a comment
about the quality of the streets there and the proposal :to extend the loop to give us
additional ways out of that street, both on Olive, on.Walnut and down the hill on
Center Street. To me thought the big traffic issue here is that all of the streets,
even if you take them to residential standards, 24, all the streets are narrow in
this area. Most important is the Spring Street, Olive Street intersection where the
flow of traffic there is going to be increased. It is still not going to be big
necessarily but it is going to increase almost six.fold. You have got a steep hill on
Spring Street and a cross street and in the morning rush hour for the kind of rush
hours we have. around here, and in the. evening rush hour; you are going to have a
lot of additional crossings of Spring Street and entrances and exits from Spring
Street. I think that is going.to be a serious safety problem. If you open up Walnut
on Center Street that will help some but it is still going to increase the traffic on
there a great deal. The parking is always an issue when you have to deal with
large developments like this in residential area. The parking spaces, I think we
are talking 48 spaces, one per bedroom, which is typical of what we do for these
Large Scale Developments. Most of the Large Scale Developments that we look
at though are two bedrooms or three bedrooms or four bedroom places. This one
has 30 units that are one bedroom places. I was thinking back to days a long, long
time ago. I should mention that Greg wants to build apartments here and attract
couples.. I started thinking back to the days when I became upscale when I got out
of college. My wife and I lived in a single -bedroom apartment and the first thing
we did was buy a second car. All of a sudden, now we have % of the 30 one
bedroom apartments have a couple in them that are upscale enough to afford two
cars, we now have 15 additional cars that have to park on the street. Before the
proposal of the loop was put in the street was going to be about 470' long, 15
additional cars parked along that street will give you a string of parked:cars 300'
long. 8' wide says now your 24' street is down to a 16' street if they are all
parked on one side and none of the existing neighbors park on that street. Parking
can be a real problem in this kind of thing. Pedestrian safety is obviously another
issue. A lot of people living in this neighborhood walk -down Spring Street to get
to town for things. Also, during the day an awful lot of people walk up Spring
Street to the circle at the top of the hill on Skyline Drive. This additional traffic
coming into and out of Spring Street and going up and down there is going to be a
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 34
problem because not only do we not have sidewalks today on any of Olive, we are
going to be putting some in, the sidewalks on Spring Street are in very bad repair
.and a lot of the people that walk up and down that street walk in the street because
of the condition of the sidewalks. The next item is litter. We have a number of
these kinds of developments, fairly dense in this area, not a whole lot of them, but
a number of them, what we have seen is that all of these tend to generate litter.
We haven't figured out how to design a garbage containment area that would
keep the litter there. This is going to be the densest one in the area, it is going to
have the densest litter problem. The final reason for opposing it is the timing of
it. This area has been zoned R-2 for thirty years and in thirty years the density of
housing in this area is 1.39 dwellings per acre. 82% of the residential buildings in
this area, this area I am talking about is not going up above Fletcher, it is in this
R-2 zoned area, no R-I zoning in this at all, 82% of the buildings in this area are
single-family. Why can't we wait until this hillside study is done to try to figure
out why this hasn't been developed R-2 for all this 30 years that it has been
available to developers to do it. Why can't we wait until this hillside study is
done so that we can include those findings in our deliberations here before we go
forward. What we as a neighborhood association ask is as a minimum you delay
this until the hillside study is done so that -we can bring.that into the thoughts. We
would prefer that you not approve it, and strongly prefer that you not approve it,
because it is not consistent with existing land use and it is going to cause vehicle
and pedestrian safety problems. If you do decide to advance this, pay particular
attention to the Spring Street, Olive Street. intersection, and their recommendation
will help that somewhat, but still, please pay attention to that because there is
going to be a lot more traffic on what is potentially a very dangerous intersection.
We also ask.that you look very carefully at the parking with 30 single bedroom
units there you could have the need for an additional 30 parking spaces to keep
people off the street if it is truly an upscale development. Next, we would ask that
you look very carefully at the design for the garbage area so that there be a
reasonable expectation that you can contain the litter in this. Lastly, we were
going to ask that at least one side of this block of Olive Street have a sidewalk on
it. Thank you for your time and I think there are quite a few other neighbors here.
The other thing 1 should point out is at out meeting we did have some
representatives from Olive Street and nearer neighbors. Other than that, we were
well represented by all parts of our neighborhood association from down on
Rogers, Lighton, and Missouri and all other parts. Thank you.
Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address us?
Chaddick:. My name is Susan Chaddick and I live at the southwest corner of Spring and
.Olive intersection. He has just spoken about the kinds of issues that I wanted to
bring up so I don't feel I need to say that. I do need to give you some history
think. Almost sixty years ago to the day my parents brought me home from City
Hospital to the house I now live in and in sixty years there has been such
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 35
remarkable little change on Olive Street. There have been four homes put in there
in sixty years. Please honor the neighborhood and the mountainside.
Hoover: Susan, did you write this letter about connecting Center Street?
Chaddick: Yes.
Hoover: Would you comment on that. If this proposal included connecting Center Street
to this project then would that alleviate your traffic concerns?
Chaddick: No. I just put that on the table as a consideration for the terrible implications of
this project. I am almost ashamed to have suggested that extension of Center
Street but I just felt it had to be brought to the table because of the implications of
this development are just vast. in my opinion.
Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? We have already
addressed traffic, safety, parking, litter, density.
Bryant, L: I am Lois Bryant and I am opposed to you opening up Center Street. I live on the
comer of Center and Walnut and even with the few cars that can get down
through there with 4x4s it is like the Indy500. Since traffic has already been
addressed, that is my main issue, putting additional traffic on what is not
improved, it is dirt. There is no pavement, there is no nothing. The next thing is
if it is going to be then who's property are you going to be taking it from?
Ward: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address an issue?
Atkinson: I am Meredith Atkinson. I live at 402 Spring Street; which is one house in from
the comer of Spring and Olive. My house is 107 years old. this year. I am
concerned specifically about the unmarked confederate graves that this property
will be built on top of. Some of them are marked, some of them are unmarked.
In the past two weeks we have had to have the sewer lines dug up and repaired
because of the single-family use that is occurring currently is stressing those
ancient lines. I am extremely concerned about what will happen if we add 80
showers a day to that line at the end and don't improve the infrastructure from
there to wherever it is in good shape; I don't even know where that is. My
husband, Dr. 'fhomas Atkinson wanted me to say "To sacrifice the integrity of the
neighborhood for a pocketful of money is abhorrent."
Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address us?
McKinney: I am Rick McKinney, I live in the 600 block of Olive. Who would pay for the
Center Street expansion to service this?
Ward: It would be the applicant.
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 36
Bryant, L: The applicant said in one of his community meetings that he would not open
Center Street.
Bryant, J: Center Street has not been a dedicated street from that part of there.
Ward: Ok.
Meldrum: I am Dr. Meldrum. I own the property on the corner of Olive and Dickson Street
which is about 6 '/2 acres. My main concern on this is the traffic on Olive.
Already that little addition that Bobby Schmitt put up there has caused all kinds of
problems. They are parking on the street, not by the street, on the.street. I just
hate to see this thing go up in a: historical area of old homes. We are trying to
keep that in the tenure of the historical district on our property and I think
everybody else here has that in mind and I think that traffic is just going to be
awful.
Cingmars: Leslie Cinqmars. This is a primarily single-family residential neighborhood with
children with bikes, skates, the whole bit. As Dr. Meldrum said the next block
north of Olive is very narrow. An approved small development by Bobby Schmitt
which met ordinances apparently, what scares me about this larger development.
being approved is that when a small development that meets ordinances causes so
much disruption. There have been so many nights that I have had trouble getting
a small Japanese vehicle between cars and I have known that there was no way an
emergency vehicle could reach us if we needed a fire truck or an ambulance_
There would be no way it would pass. The option would be up Spring Street. I
am not in favor of Center being opened at all but I am in fear of my life and my
neighbor's lives. Already Schmitt's project was approved and it was small. My
child has nearly been hit walking home from school. She, -fides the busto
Washington Elementary and, then walks down Olive. , Visibility is low and there
are cars swinging around after school hours in that block. I.live in the house next
to the proposed development. I also have a real problem with the lack of buffer
there. Mr. House built the apartments, townhouses, years ago behind my home.
My children play in the backyard. There are balconies in the townhouses behind
us and it is up the hill so no height of privacy fence would separate the visibility
from our yard to those apartments. My children have been yelled at and taunted
and teased just playing in their backyard by either the tenants or the guests on
evenings that they have had parties and were drunk. They have actually walked
down to my yard at night and tried to scare my daughter who was swinging. It
changes the whole atmosphere, the whole environment. This is a single-family
residential neighborhood with children primarily.
Chaddick-Bryan: I am Holly Chaddick-Bryan, 107 N. Olive. I had a whole bunch of stuff to
tell you but my lovely neighbors have covered most of it. I would like to explain
what I did handout because there are a couple of questions that I think need to be
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 37
addressed before this development goes anywhere. As I sat here and witnessed
today, do we have too many apartments in Fayetteville? I know that was a hot
topic early in January. My big one now is the historical value of this land and
surrounding.land. I know where my house sits and the whole western side of
Mount Sequoyah:was the site of the Battle of Fayetteville. I have a book written
by Mr. Russell Mahan who is a.noted historian. He.has written this book about
the Battle of Fayetteville. Where I got the overlay, which I placed on top of
Greg's conceptual is from Mr. Mahan's map. For those of you that don't know,
the Battle of Fayetteville truly divided. Fayetteville, half were on the north and
half were on the south_ What we are talking about is pretty much the battlefront
for the confederate soldiers. Mr. Mahan feels like the sites that say "HQ"
highlighted in green were the headquarters for the confederate soldiers. I would
hate to lose that under an apartment building. I would hate to know that as they
are digging to do the excavation, put the foundations in, they could unearth
unmarked slave graves. We could unearth unmarked soldiers that perished that
no one knew about. I really think before a decision can go forth we need to ask
ourselves what are the true historic values to this property. The traffic and safety
issues as well as the hillside study, I truly find it quite coincidental today that I
read in the newspaper today that the City Council has approved the hiring of the
Missouri firm to do the 10 month traffic study. Can we not postpone this for 10
months tol see what they say about the traffic? I haven't seen the data.
Apparently Mr. House's Civil Engineer says Olive can handle 500 trips per day. I
would like to see that. Thank you.
Ward: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment?
Whiteside: My name is LaDonna Whiteside. I am an adjoining property owner as well, 112
Fletcher Avenue. The reality of the historic value of that property is very real.
My husband and I have lived in our house less than a year and have found what
we believe is a musket shot. It is still there. There is still valid archaeological
information that needs to be researched. I'spoke with state archaeologist, Jerry
Killiard, who recommended a survey be done on the proposed site.
Ward: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
McMann: My name is William McMann, I live on Olive Street. I just wanted to comment
that in.the. printed material it says that they are asking for a waiver of the length of
the cul-de-sac street and if that were going to be granted then at least the
developer ought to upgrade the rest of Olive Street so. that it meets the minimum
requirements.
Chaddick: The cul-de-sac, can you actually cut off access to three of my lots from Olive
Street by putting that cul-de-sac in? If you refer to Greg's map here, I own the
corner lots of what would be Center Street and Olive and access to Olive on three
of my lots would be cut off by the cul-de-sac. Can that be done?
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 38
Ward: I will let Sara address that.
Edwards: Right now there is no access this property, there is an off road required frontage.
If you were to develop your property you would be required to build that frontage,
just like they are. Our cul-de-sacs are not permanent. If the option was to make it
a cul-de-sac it could later betaken out if you were to develop.
Chaddick: If I were to provide a lot to Habitat for Humanity, which has been requested, they
would have to assume that cost.
Ward: Are there any other new ideas or comments?
Bryant, J: I am Jesse Bryant.. Center Street has been where I've been all my life. Each time
we have ever tried to do anything the City has said that that is not a dedicated
street from Walnut to Olive, is this true? There are no fire hydrants or anything
else in that area. Are you going to make this a dedicated street so that you can do
this? 1 would rather you wouldn't.
Edwards: Our records show that there is 30' of street right of way existing for Center Street.
The street has not been developed and people are driving on there somewhat
anyway. It does exist and could be developed. Yes, fire hydrants do not exist
along it, we know water, sewer, and the electric line is along there right now.
Bryant: I wish you would just leave it alone.
Chaddick: What would the process be for halting this and just waiting until we have all the
facts from the survey and traffic study? What option do we have for requesting
that? 11
Ward: Here is my take on the thing. You have got to put yourselves in the shoes of the
person that owns the property. We have certain ordinances that we have to go by.
The property is zoned already a certain way. It is not zoned R-1, it is zoned R-2.
It wouldn't be fair for us to say "You don't own this property." I know you all
would like to have it like it is now with the green space and so on but things are
going to change. Another thing that I want to see happen in this city is a lot more
infill and I think this is providing infill. The density level could be a problem and
that comes along with that R-2 zoning that has been there for I don't know how
long, 50 years.
Chaddick: Thirty years.
Ward: The
developer has had an
expert do a
comprehensive traffic study that
we have.
. Is it
an appropriate project
for the site?
That is hard for any one person
to say but
Subdivision Committee
January 30, 2003
Page 39
I do think that we are going to have infill and things are going to change. I don't
think there's anyway around it.
Chaddick: I am asking what process is at hand to delay
Ward: I am not sure that I can answer that. My feeling would be if they meet all the
ordinances then we are probably going to try to make it the best project possible
and move it on. If there are things that come about then there are a million things
that we could delay it with.
Chaddick: Don't you have a motion on the table to table it until staff recommendations are
considered?
Ward: Yes. It might take two weeks or two months. It is hard to say when it will come
back by. We usually listen pretty closely to what our staff recommends because
we have a very professional staff of Engineers and City Planners and so on but
they also have to work under the guidelines of existing ordinances. We can't just
change those ordinances when we want to.
McKinney.
When
will it
come up again?
Ward:
I don't
have
a clue.
Hoover: Did you attend the neighborhood meetings also with Mr. House?
Sharp: There were three meetings. We attended.the fist two and the other one Greg was
at just by chance. We had two special meetings and one normal neighborhood
meeting. He wanted to talk to the neighbors. The other two were we presented to
them and then we answered questions.
Hoover. Have you presented this last plan to the neighborhood?
Sharp: Yes we have.
Ward: Thanks for all your input, it can be very helpful to all of us and with that, I will
adjourn this particular meeting. Thank you all.
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 28
LSD 02-29.00: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by
Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property
located between Olive Avenue &Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned
R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units
proposed (48 bedrooms).
Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-29.00 for Sequoyah
Commons submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House
of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue and Fletcher
Avenue south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2 and contains
approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed, a total of 48 bedrooms.
Sara?
Edwards: There are 39 units within seven buildings. Parking, they are proposing 51 spaces,
48 is the number of parking stalls required. Surrounding zoning north, south, and
west is R-2. To the east is R-1. There are single-family residential existing to the
north, the south property is currently vacant. The cast is a mixture of duplexes
and single-family and the west is vacant as well. Water and sewer run along
Olive Street. Right now there is right of way for Olive Street, 60' existing, 30'
for Center, and 60' for Fletcher all existing adjacent to this property. They are
proposing Olive Street to be improved adjacent to the site with a cul-de-sac. .
Access will be through Olive Avenue which is substandard both in. width and
surfacing. Tree preservation, there is I00% tree coverage existing. Preserved is
20.17%. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning
Commission subject to some conditions. Condition number one is Planning
Commission determination of required offsite improvements and required access.
Olive is currently substandard, it is 18' wide, it does not meet state fire codes.
With the allowance of off-street parking two way traffic cannot be
accommodated. The pavement and sub base is failing and likely cannot
accommodate construction traffic. The site has access to Fletcher. Fletcher
access is not proposed with this development right now. Right of way for Center
exists to the .site and south from Walnut Street. Staff is recommending the
construction of Center Street and Olive Street to the southeast comer of this lot
with waivers from the minimum street standards. The sidewalks shall be
continuous through the driveway. Approval shall be subject to a vacation of
existing an utility easement.which runs north/south through the property. A 10'
utility easement shall be granted on both sides of the existing 30' water line. All
buildings shall be required to meet setbacks based on height. Lighting shall not
reflect onto adjacent properties and a lighting plan shall be submitted and
approved by staff prior to installation. The other comments are standard
comments.
Ward: Ok, thanks. Why don't you introduce yourself as the applicant first.
House: 1 am Greg House for Houses, Inc.
Ward: Let me get other staffs comments first and then we will come back to you. Matt
why don't we talk about engineering concerns.
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 29
Casey: In addition to.the street waivers that Sara mentioned, the sidewalk issues will have
to be addressed after we decide what we are going to do with the streets. They
have got limited right of way and the streets and the sidewalks is going to have to
be something that we are going to work out and make a recommendation after the
determination of the streets.
Ward: Ok, are there any other concerns?
Casey: No Sir.
Ward: As far as Parks fees, what are those?
Turner: The Parks Board voted on October P to accept money in lieu. The fees due are
$15,327.
Ward: That is based on how much per unit?
Turner: . $393 for each multi -family unit.
Ward: Kim as far as landscaping and trees?
Hesse: For the zone 20% preserved is the requirement. They are having a lot of retaining
walls in order to try to save that many trees. If it is confusing as to why we are
showing so many trees right here my thoughts are is that it is too narrow of an
area to really preserve trees and I wasn't really sure that trees would really be in
there so they went back and located trees that were smaller than what is required
to be located. My concerns are that all the trees that are here are casting canopy
over and there wouldn't be any. trees here but we have found several trees here
that will provide canopy so we did count that. as canopy preservation. The
landscaping meets the requirement.
Ward: I think what I would like to do, I got a letter, you have had some meetings with
the neighbors and we have heard from the neighbors before with their concerns.
Why don't you try to address some of the concerns that you have or that they have
and how you can help maybe take care of some of those concerns. This letter I
was glancing at is dated February 260. Do you have a copy of that?
House: I do.
Ward: Why don't you just highlight that as far.as parking, Olive Avenue improvements,
traffic calmers, traffic control, green preservation, access to Center Street, talk
about your Bill of Assurances. Why don't you kind of go over all of these issues
and how you are -proposing to handle them and then we will get public comment
and go from there.
House: Thank you Lec. I just want to say good morning and that I appreciate your
.patience with this process. I know. that this is not the first time before your
committee. I want to say that we have been working on this project for years.
First I met with Tim and his staff numerous times over the last several years and
Subdivision Committee
February 27,2003
Page 30
even more particularly since this summer trying to come up with, a plan that
would work for everybody for this property. As you mentioned, we have also met
with the neighbors in two formal meetings and then one kind of informational .
meeting and have had numerous discussions with various neighbors about their
concerns and about how. we might meet them on the I llside and also, as you can
see, by letter. I just want to say that we have submitted a plan that we think meets
the Large Scale Development ordinance in it's entirety. We haven't asked for any
waivers or. any special consideration but are still trying to come to a plan that
hopefully people can live with. I am sure it is nofgoing to be acceptable to my
neighbors, they would rather see it be a park. So I can show you how we got
here, one of the first concerns in the neighbor's letter of February 22"d, the
neighbors that are immediately adjacent to this property.on Olive wrote me a
letter and they were very active with the homeowner's association and
neighborhood association's meetings.. Their concerns were that we have not
compromised with respect to density which I will address first. I brought some
boards to share with you to just give you a brief history of how we got here. As I
said, for several years we have been working on this. In the attachment that I
submitted. we have a schedule that talks about density. In trying to determine
what to do here we first looked at the maximum density that would be allowed.
We came up with based on the square footage of land, it would be possible if we
could meet :all. the other requirements, to build 132 bedrooms. We -never even
entertained that idea.. We did consider something less than that. We have some
plans that one of them was 62% of maximum density of the 132 bedrooms, I call
that the Bobby Schmitt plan which nobody was really in favor of It was fairly
unattractive and it had a lot of pavement and the buildings were not aesthetically
pleasing to us. We have a plan that looks like.a hotel that.was 42% density, it was
all two big buildings that again, .from an aesthetic standpoint wasn't as pleasing.
From a monetary standpoint it: probably would be one of our best alternatives.
.Then we have a couple of others .that: I won't bore you with that we eluded to in
our submittals. As we have gone through this process in light :of what we knew
were the neighbors' concerns about • density we settled on the least dense plan,
which is 36% of the maximum density. This is a product of several years, not just
the.last'six or eight months of work on this property. The neighbors are acting
like we haven't compromised but I. say tat I could've come in here and asked for
the 42% plan and then compromised but I felt like it was the best choice was to
approach the neighbors with a plan that we could live with and that was realistic
and would still be feasible so that is how.we got to where we are today. Other
issues, as far as parking that they raised, I agree that that is an issue that we are
concerned.abouftoo from a practical standpoint_ In our letter of response that we
drafted yesterday I have asked my architect and engineer to have a look if there is
a way to increase, parking and we think that there may be a way. We will get to
that in a few minutes because it is based on some of the other issues. All the other
concerns of the, neighbors we felt we were able to meet with the exception of for
sure there are Bill of Assurances. Rather than reading through the Bill of
Assurances, everything that they have asked for I will say that we have agreed we
can do in their Bill of Assurances.
Ward: Why don't you go over that?
Subdivision Committee
February 27,
2003
Page 31
House:
That we would have assigned parking for each tenant for each unit. There would
be no on street parking except directly in front of the development and it would be
on the east side only. There will be no access to Fletcher Avenue. There would
be an onsite manager or a 24 hour contact for resident neighbor concerns. That
snow and ice removal would occur within 12 hours, that landscaping will exceed
the City of Fayetteville standards and that the Bill of Assurances addresses
building designs in terms of durable materials and roof slopes. The structures will
be of a quality material and they will stand the test of time and wear and tear of
multiple tenants. This is not a tract development shall I say. We are going to do
stucco and brick. exteriors. We are going to have terraces and planting areas. Our
parking design is linear to add to the look. I am pleased with the way the project
looks. Our goal is to attract higher end tenants and in order to do that we have to
design. a project that is going to be tasteful. Many of you may be familiar with
our work, I feel like we have only done tasteful things in at least the last decade.
We have no complaint with the Bill of Assurances. The green preservation, some
of these others, I don't really understand percentages of green space and all that, I
would rather the architect or engineer address those because they understand bow
we calculate it and so forth. The access to Center Street, that has been a big issue.
This plan was submitted, and I eluded to this in some of my letters, based on
meeting with the city Planning staff and coming up with a plan that seemed
acceptable. Since that time staff has changed their minds about what they think is
necessary for this project. That is why.I believe we were tabled at the last
meeting. I have been opposed to the idea of connecting to Center for two reasons.
One is I felt that the neighbors wouldn't support it because of the increased traffic
that would come through the neighborhood. I didn't just love the idea as a
resident myself. The second is how it is going to be paid for. In meeting with
Mr. Conklin over this matter he suggested an alternative would be to construct the
streets in what he suggested would be not normal street standards of full curb and
gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks on both sides, that we construct more in keeping
with what is already in the historic district as far as width and improvements. The
other issue is still how do we pay for that. My concern is that if we are asked to
pay for it all that that is not fair because it opens up a big chunk of undeveloped
land for other people to develop at our expense. How we pay for that, whether the
city should pay for that with the rational nexus idea we haven't determined. My
other concern is if we submit and say yes we will go ahead with this plan, this is
going to cost me again, we are still trying to determine how much in planning to
redesign this thing so that it can be acceptable and I am reluctant to keep trying to
hit a moving target as far as our submittal is concerned. I am looking for a way to
go through this process where maybe it can be approved conditioned upon certain
.things and then we say ok, we will come back and we will take the cul-de-sac out
of our plan, add some parking to our plan and agree how we are going to do the
offsite improvements. Otherwise, I have got to spend money to redo the plat and
then come in and everybody says "We don't really want that anyway." I meant to
get with Tim again because the neighbor's support of connectivity completely
.shocked me. I just received that the evening before last. I am willing to talk
about that where this submittal doesn't show that but how do we go forward
without this moving target?
Ward: What about opening up Fletcher Street, connecting through Fletcher?
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 32
Houser The neighbors are not in favor of that. The topography of that makes that very
difficult. It is a very steep change from.Olive to Fletcher and the neighbors seem
to be vehemently opposed to that. I am not sure that that satisfies Planning's
concerns about connectivity to the main traffic flow.
Ward: Let's talk a little bit about one of the conditions that we are going to discuss is the
offsite improvements on Olive to bring you up to standards. Can you address that
a little bit as far as what your take is on that?
House: First my take on that is that we have been out there with a tape measure and it is
mostly 20' wide, not 18', there are a few portions that are 18' but most of it is 20'.
That is and the condition of the ditches and so 'forth are common to the whole
hillside and on into the historic district If the plan is to go to Center Street part
of the compromise, from staffs standpoint my understanding is that further
improvements on the existing portion of Olive would not be necessary because we
are tying in and the traffic can flow through rather than having to turn around and
then come back.
Ward: One of the big calls that the Planning Commission is going to have to make is
whether, to open into Center Street or do the cul-de-sac as you have got shown on
your plans now and what offsite improvements that we would require to make
that a feasible project.
Bunch: Are the rights of way easements and dedications existing on Olive to permit such
things described in condition one or would that require procurement of land from
existing land owners?
Conklin: There. is platted right
of way
for Olive and Center Street.
What I have
asked is to
look at what it would
take to
make that connection. I also
asked that I
don't want
them to just take a look at our minimum street standards and say it can't be done.
I think Fayetteville wouldn't be Fayetteville today if you had to build to our
minimum street standards most of Mount Sequoyah and a lot of Fayetteville
wouldn't be built :under the current street configuration and the pattern that we
have. That is what I wanted to look at the possibilities. Matt, I will give you the
Engineering perspective.
Bunch: The initial part of my question was whether or not the right of ways exist on Olive
in order to.make improvements, sidewalks and widening and such from Spring
Street to this development and then of course follow up if it were to go around to
Center if sufficient rights of way exist to produce what has been requested.
Casey: The right of way is existing.
Edwards: For Olive there is 60' all the way up and we have got a 20' street proposed to
allow emergency vehicles.
Casey: On Olive it is sufficient to do all the requirements. Center Street is where, as Tim
mentioned, we would have to be creative in connecting it and take a look at our
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 33
minimum street standards. With only 30' of right of way you couldn't put a 24'
back to. back street in there with sidewalks and storm drainage so we would have
to take a look at what we've got and what you all want to do and staff could be
comfortable with as far as allowing something less than our minimum street
standards.
Bunch: Has anyone looked at a rational nexus for improvements of Olive based on the
impact.of this proposal? If Olive were upgraded what the share with additional
traffic and such would be attributable to this development?
Conklin: Staff always make a recommendation and then we allow the developer if he
thinks our recommendation does not meet that rational nexus standard they can
propose something to the Commission and staff will consider this. On a previous
development we just required them to extend that street 100' down to the south
property line for Salem Heights. They have 65 lots, single family homes for
connectivity. My opinion is, let me address Mr. House's concerns about staff and
where we are at, staff initially looked at improvements onsite and offsite for this
project. Last August the City Council did pass a resolution to take a look at R-2
areas and unplatted areas and do a zoning study. With that, I think this goes back
to Sharon's question too of what are we looking at. We need to take a look at
more than just this project. This hillside is zoned R-2, 24 units per acre. What is
it going to take in infrastructure to build this out? It is occurring. We have
developments on Olive Street, we have another development up on Fletcher
Street. This area that in our initial calculations has a density of about 1.8 units per
acre_ If we are going to go back and redevelop this hillside and density it what
street improvements will it take to handle that traffic? We hear a lot about traffic
on Mount Sequoyah and what it is going to need to function at 24 units per acre.
That is what staff is looking at right now. It is zoned R-2, that is the city policy
with regard to land use. If it remains R-2 in my opinion we need to require the
street extension of Olive Avenue. It is in front of their project. Staff did not
recommend Center Street and we didn't recommend Fletcher. Once again we are
trying to balance this rational nexus and how much is required. I would like to
point out though, I find it interesting when we say it is difficult or impossible to
develop these streets but at the same time we build parking lot aisles and parking
lots throughout this entire development all the way up to Fletcher Street. If it is
dangerous to have a street at these grades I'm not sure how safe it is to build
parking lots at those grades. I know a street and a parking lot aisle are not the
same but at the same time we say we can't do it here on public right of way but
we go up this hillside from Olive almost all the way up to Fletcher Street. I think
we need to take a look at where we need to make those connections. Yes it will
open tip the hillside, it is zoned R-2. Staff will start the process of identifying
What the existing infrastructure is in this R-2 area and what it will take if it
remains R-2 to serve the increased traffic and densities of this hillside. Staffs
position is that we do need two connections to Olive and Center. If you look at
their plans they are showing a gravel drive in poor condition. I have walked this
drive and it seems very feasible from a non -engineering observation going out
there you can walk it and you can see that cars have been on it and that it is
feasible that it could be built. That is our recommendation.
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 34
Hoover: I have a couple of questions. On Center Street how many feet are you talking
about being improved? I don't know where it is on this map.
Bunch, M: It is approximately 430'
Hoover: Am I reading this correctly that all of this is R-2 on Olive?
Conklin: All the way over to Dickson.
•Hoover: And no neighbors have come into rezone their property to R-I?
Conklin: We are doing a zoning study also.
Hoover: All of this is R-2 on the other side of Center?
Conklin: Yes. Which is why as staff looked at this in more detail if we are going to
redevelop Mount Sequoyah from 1.8 units per acre to 20 units per acre, I had this
discussion with Mr_ House, that what are we going to need for infrastructure in
that area to serve it? I understand that this is your project but I am looking at
projects back to the south, back to the west. In my opinion we are going to need
additional streets and we should complete the street pattern where possible. That
is probably one of the reasons why we are not recommending Center. It is fairly
steep between Olive and Fletcher. We walked that portion of Center between
Olive and Walnut and it seems feasible. People are driving on it today_
House: Two things about that. Honestly, we have two alternatives. One is to put the
streets in now and open it up for development for the other undeveloped
properties or continue with the cul-de-sac plan and when the next people come in
let them pay for the portion that effects their land rather than asking us and the
city, or however we do this, to open the whole hillside up. Frankly, it is six in one
hand; half dozen in the other to me. I think from a community standpoint what is
the hurry? If you are talking about down zoning then if you have us put in streets
you are going to have more of a.human cry to keep the down zoning than if there
are unimproved right of ways out there that the property owners, most of them
will say `we probably won't do this for another five or ten years'. That is the cul-
de-sac plan. If we put in the streets it is going to be opening the door. I have
talked to property owners on the south side and that is just what they are waiting
for.
Conklin: Mr. House, is development bad then in this area if we open it up?
House: Obviously from a practical standpoint the less development the more our property
is worth. I don't know if it is bad Tim, I am just saying that every six months we
have an ordinance change. I call it incremental down zoning with the tree
ordinance and the hillside drainage ordinance and now we are talking about
unimproved infrastructure, you have .to replat and come through Large Scale.
Legally the city has decided to make it more difficult to develop. I don't think
that we should be punished for having spent money to go through the process to
try to finish our development while other neighbors who are out there, maybe they
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 35
want their land to be R-1. I think the Chaddicks would rather it be Agricultural,
which is their right to do what they want with their property. All I am saying, and
it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, 1 am just throwing that out
there as a policy thing that if we put the streets in, however we pay for them
whether it is part us and part the city or however that works, that is going to open
that up for development and everybody ought to be aware of that verses the cul-
de-sac idea makes it more private down here at the end of the street and it
probably will impede development for some longer period of time while these
ordinances are having another look at and while you are considering down
zoning. I am just throwing that out there. From my standpoint, I think infill is a
good idea. I think it is helpful for the whole community. The more people live in
and close to downtown the better all the goods and services are that we enjoy
downtown because there are more people going to Collier's and going to the local
restaurants and walking to do it rather than driving. I walked the last few days
because it was snow downtown to my office, it was delightful. I think that is
possible by having infill. I am not opposed to infill, I am just throwing that out
there that that is something that you are encouraging by asking for this kind of
activity.
Ward: Are there any other questions Tim?
Hoover: Staff, have you had any other thoughts in general about street connectivity to the
south of Center for the future? I don't know what the topography is over here.
Conklin: We don't have the rights of way. Fletcher Street goes down through to Huntsville
Road_
House: The unimproved right of way does.
Hoover: Ok, so we have right of way right here_
Conklin: The Highway Department at one time thought about taking -Hwy. 45 through
Fletcher back.down to Huntsville.
Hoover: Ok, right now we have got the right of way going like that so that is something
that could happen?
Conklin: That plan was abandoned due to opposition I believe from the neighborhood.
Hoover. I am trying to figure out what conceptually happens with all of this when it is built
out. Say we do this connection then what happens next with development, if, as
he says, this promotes development through quickly and then we are going to
have to figure out what are we doing with the rest of the connection and is that a
possibility.
Ward: There is no easy answer.
Hoover: No. That is all right of way there so that is a possibility?
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page M
Conklin: That landowner doesn't have any current plans as far as developing at this time as
far as I know.
House: If there is a street there that might change.
Conklin: The right of way is there.
Ward:
-in order to get this thing going on, I will go ahead and open it up to the public for
comment. We have heard a lot of these same public comments before. I don't
want to hear them again. We have got records of them in the minutes and so on.
If you have got some things that you can add that will help us make some
decisions that is what we want to hear. Those are real important to us. We
understand most of the problems. Like I said, we have got minutes of all the
things that have been said before and we have read them many times.
Bryant:
Holly Bryant, 107 N. Olive. Sharon, as you were questioning about the R-2, I
think it is necessary Tim if you will explain how far the R-2 encompasses. We
are talking Dickson Street is the northern boundary all the way down to
Huntsville Road would be the southern boundary. Fletcher is the eastern
boundary, College is the western boundary. Another point to make is I'm sure
there is a map that shows the big clumps of land that are undeveloped that are R-
2. There are about three or four families that own those and those properties have
been in those families for generations. They have not been developed as of yet
and 1 don't foresee them being developed, certainly not as R-2. I urge you to be
proactive. There is no easy answer but we must think about the .future of
Fayetteville when it comes to the possibility of this huge amount of land that is R-'
2 and how to handle the traffic if in fact, it were developed R-2.
Ward:
Thank you.
Caulk:
Bob Caulk, Missouri Way. The last meeting I did speak for the Mount Sequoyah
South Neighborhood Association and I don't plan on repeating myself. In
looking at this and discussing it the last time parking was the big issue and
seemed to drive traffic issues and a lot of other things around it. When I look at
finishing out Center Street and Olive down to Center Street, I look at that as a
way of generating significant offsite street parking: because Greg, if he does
manage to rent to upscale couples like he wants to is going to have a real parking
problem. The USA, Today on Tuesday pointed out .that the average household
income less .than $10,000 has 1.3 cars per family. The *average household with
income greater than. $75,000, the kind of people he is going to be looking for,
have an average of 2.4 automobiles per family. Parking is going to be a real
problem.. Finishing these streets out is an awfully strange way of generating
parking that is necessary in my opinion. I think a better way to do it would be to
look at the possibility of keeping the parking spaces at 51 and reducing the
number of units by eight to ten. That would basically allow effectively 1.5
parking spaces per single bedroom and two parking spaces per two bedrooms. I
think that would be a better way for everybody involved. to solve the problem.
Ward:
Thanks for. your comments. .
I
I
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 37
Bryant: Lois Bryant, I just have a question for Mr. House. On opening Center Street,
what neighbors did you speak to?
House: I have spoken with the people on Olive.
Bryant: No, I am talking about Center Street. The people on Olive they don't live on
Center Street so that would be fine and dandy with them, you open up Center
Street you are not doing anything. to Olive but who did you speak to on Center
Street?
House: I spoke with Verda Watson who has a piece of property on this Center Street right
of way. I spoke with Charles Lear who has a piece of property on Center Street
right of way. My understanding is that in one of the last meetings the people that
represented me visited with the neighbors that live down on Center.
Bryant: No. Nobody spoke to me. I live down on Center, my dad owns the other house.
House: They may not have spoken with everyone that lives down on Center.
Bryant: You did not speak to all the neighbors on Center and get all of our opinions.
Mouse: I did not say we spoke to all the neighbors.
Bryant: You presented it as an opinion from the neighbors on Center Street presented as
an opinion of the neighbors you spoke to.
House: How do you feel about the connectivity of Center Street?
Bryant: I am against it. I told you that beforehand: I am against it. Even with the`
easement, you are going to be taking off.of other people's properties which if we
decide to develop any of our property we can't do much of anything with it.
Ward: Thanks for your comment
McKinney: Rick McKinney again. _ As far as the improvements to Olive Street, I believe that
you should encourage that. When you run cement trucks, lumber trucks, and all
the supply trucks that they are going to need to build this, it is going to break
down that street which is in somewhat of a process of deterioration because of age
at this point in time_ I presume this meets your grading ordinance with the
hillside and the grade that that is or we wouldn't be even talking about this.
Again, Parks and Recreation, I oppose accepting money for green space. There is
the recently developed water treatment park up the hill that is no more than
concrete walls and a grassy knoll. You have very little area here for the
neighborhood to use as green space. I know Greg is planning on using these
apartments for young married couples. Young married couples sometimes have
children very quickly: Again, the sewer issue. I appreciate Tim's comments after
my objections here. Again, when Lindsey and Company does their development
at 6°i Street down there, you are adding roughly 90 to 100 toilets to this
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 38
neighborhood in an area where we know the sewer. system is to a point of aged
condition and deterioration. h would encourage you now and in the future to
consider the number of units that you are allowing in *these developments. The
gentleman sitting here next to me, that had the property out there on Salem,
informed me that you have got three other housing developments out there that
you have already approved in addition to this one today. We are adding a lot of
approvals that are going to hit in the next couple of years before the west side
plant goes online. Thank you.
Ward: Ok, is there anyone else from the neighborhood?
Sinquar: I am Leslie Sinquar, I own the property adjacent to this proposed development. I.
am not sure that this is the most appropriate forum for one of them but first of all
my biggest concern is Mr. House will be required to widen and make our block of
Olive. Street bigger increasing the capacity for the traffic. However, then what
happens? This will bottleneck all of this additional traffic from the complex will
then be bottlenecked onto very narrow, steep Spring Street. Beyond that Olive
Street in the next few blocks north are very ,narrow and very substandard,
particularly between Dickson and Lafayette. There are deep ditches. If cars are
parked there is only one lane of passage and Spring couldn't handle a lot of
additional. traffic just within the few blocks of Olive further north. My children
walk home from school down. Olive Street and there are no sidewalks. There are
deep ditches. My -daughter has.already:had a couple of close calls due to the
increased traffic.from Mr. Schmitt's project on Olive Street due to the on street
parking. There have been numerous evenings that I have been concerned about
emergency vehicles being able to get through with the increased traffic that would
be. I am thinking the city, before this type of project is approved, we really do
have to look at where all this traffic is going to go beyond our block of Olive and
without sidewalks beyond that with the school children walking home as well
because their lives will be in. danger. Like I said, I'm not sure:if this is the most
appropriate forum. I wanted to address this to Mr. House previously. I am real
concerned about the building next to mine which will be facing Olive Street and
then behind that there will be another building that will run parallel to my
backyard. I know that your requirements are only the city ordinances that you
have to follow the law, :I :am very. concerned about balconies, back porches,
whatever may be on the building that runs parallel to my backyard. Already in
the townhouses facing Fletcher whose backyards are adjacent to my backyard,
over the years renters have come and gone. There have been good renters, there
have.been bad renters. There have been good renters who have had big parties.
There have been drunks on the balcony on the back ,that on more than one
occasion have harassed my children playing in the backyard. Even set way back,
when the leaves are off the trees even though the townhouses facing Fletcher,
even though there is a great distance from my backyard, there is a considerable
distance, even still there has been a problem with.privacy and with the renters
having interaction with my kids when they have been in drunken states. Now
there is not going to be much distance at all between the back of that one
apartment running parallel to my yard and my yard, very little buffer, very, very
little buffer. I would like to.see increased buffer. Preferably natural buffer with
more trees, I like more space and more trees. however, if that is not possible I
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 39
would at least like to see a large privacy fence The other issue I would like to
just throw in.. I personally deeply object to that particular area being referred to as
infill. I would like to invite anyone who sees it that way to join me for a hike. I
have always known that it would -someday be developed. I had no idea it would
be to that degree of density. To pass it off as infill, to use that term to make it
look like an environmentally positive thing, like this is infill, this is a good thing
for the environment, I think of infill as developing areas; vacant lots, warehouses,
whatever, to accommodate people for housing. This is adjacent to a 91 acre
wooded area forest and the wildlife that we have, I have five deer in my yard in
the morning. I have always accepted that that land would be developed. It really
hurts me to have it be referred to as infill, like it is a good environmentally
positive thing. As I said, I would like to invite anyone who sees it that way to join
me on a hike. Thank you.
Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment?
Chaddick: Yes, Susan Chaddick, I live on the comer of Spring Street and Olive. I just think
it is ludicrous to talk about 48 bedrooms and 51 parking spaces. One of those
being a handicapped parking. When we have guests where are they going to park?
I ask you, where are they going to park? When you have a one bedroom
apartment couples both working to pay the standard cost of this housing, where
are they going to park, one car. behind the other car in a slot? This is in my
estimation a huge, huge problem that you all are faced with. I would like to ask,
Mr. House makes comment in his letter to us that 1.3 spaces per unit is the
maximum allowed, is there a possibility of getting a waiver from that 1.3 and
even moving that up to.1.5?
Edwards: Yes, a waiver can be requested for additional parking.
Chaddick: Then I will continue to -harp away at the parking issue. It is a huge, huge problem.
Ward: Thank you.
Gable: I am Julie Gable and I would like to reiterate the parking problem that we have
right now. The block just north of us where Bobby Schmitt has built some
duplexes, it is really difficult to get out, especially with the snow right now. It is
difficult to drive down the street and he has parking within his complex. Time
and again there are cars lined up. I counted 13 that were just lined on the side of
the street and it is really difficult to get by, especially somebody in an SUV
vehicle. I would really like to reiterate the problem that we are having with that
and the proposed development is going to increase it many times of what it is
right now. I think we really need to address this and do something positive for the
neighborhood. Also, looking at our neighborhood as a near historic site with the
confederate cemetery. I would like to keep the flavor of our neighborhood, not
necessarily the same, along with the Mount Sequoyah look and feel. I don't have
an easy answer but I would really like to make that really adamant request.
Ward: Thank you. 1s there any other public comment?
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 40
Bryant: I think I would simply like to ask you to consider what a renter is going to feel
like if they come home at 5:30 in the afternoon and they don't have a place to
park onsite. 1 can't imagine renting where there is no possibility of being assured
that when I come home in the afternoon from work that I am going to be able to
park. If there is the upscale renter that you are proposing to rent to, especially if
there is a couple, I can't imagine people paying the upscale rent when they don't
have a place to park.
Ward: Thank you all for your comments. I will close it to the public at this time. Really
what I get from this Greg is that from the additional infill most people have
brought, as the statistics have shown, a lot more vehicles into the neighborhood
than what is even allowed or maybe recommended by our Planning Commission
as far as parking. I do live on Mount Sequoyah. All the streets up there, even
Assembly, which I live on, is a state highway, it is very narrow, there are cars
parked up and down it and it is almost one way most of the time. People have to
park somewhere. I think parking is probably my main concern too. I would like
to see you address that. My personal opinion is I still like your concept with the
way you are putting this in as far as the cul-de-sac and the widening of Olive and
making it a much better and more usable street. I am not sure that I am really
excited about opening up either Fletcher or Center Street personally but there
again, 1 am just one person on arcommittee of nine and we try to make the best
decisions we can with what we have to work with meeting all the city ordinances.
We have looked at this fairly hard a couple of times now and I'm not sure that any
of us will'ever come to a compete•census on this. There are nine members on the
Planning Commission and we always have varied ideas of what we think should
be done. There are some people that think we ought to put a super highway right
across Mount Sequoyah and some people are adamantly going to block that for
sure. Everybody has their different take on how things should be done. Do you
have any other statements that you would like to make?
House: Just a couple of quick ones just to help. I will start with the last. Our design is
traditional.
Chaddick: I think I am talking more about the parking all along the street.
House: I am not sure that can be helped. In the historic district you have parking along
the street. Most people don't even have garages in the historic district. To the
parking, I believe that we can definitely get to the maximum allowed by the
ordinance, which is 1.3 onsite and then have on street, adjacent to our property, as
the neighbors :have requested, another eight spaces, which brings us to 1.44,
which kind of allows us to stretch the code as it is written..I agree with that. From
a practical standpoint I feel that that is necessary. I will say that we don't rent just
to couples. We get a lot of single people that rent one bedroom apartments and
that is part of what we aim toward. I think the ratio of 1.3 to 1.44 will work for
us. Secondly, I just want to point out that we are proposing the same number of
bedrooms that are allowed in R-1.5 zoning. We are not even coming close to the
R-2 as far as what we are asking for in density. With respect to Leslie's
comments about balconies, the buildings are turned so that there is pretty much a
blank wall towards her property and not balconies. As far as traffic, we have
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 41
submitted a professional traffic study regarding traffic safety. My understanding
is if we didn't do anything we are in good shape.
Ward: Commissioners, do you have any questions?
Bunch: I have several questions. Matt, at one time we had before us a development
further up the hill. I may have asked you this previously, Ron Petrie brought us a
map of the sewer situation on Mount Sequoyah. There was one system of sewer
lines that was at capacity and having problems and another section of the sewer
system that appeared to be flowing quite well. Can you elaborate on how this
relates to the different sewer layouts on the mountain?
Casey: I will have to check on that for you. I did look at this with Mr. Petrie when this
fast came in and that didn't come up. An assumption would be that it is not in the
area of concern but I will double check with that if there are any problems.
Bunch: We beat around the bush a lot on densities and from Mr. House's standpoint I
appreciate his comment that he continues to shoot at a moving target. We have
got neighbors all speaking of different densities. One neighbor over here says that
one less building and more parking would be acceptable. The question I have is
have you all gotten together, Mr. House and the neighborhood association and the
neighborhood come to a conclusion to present to Mr. House saying this is the
density that we can accept. You are putting the pressure on us to listen to
comments from a multitude of different neighbors expressing different densities
and then you are expecting Mr. House to respond to all of these and spend his
money but it seems to me that it would be imperative that the neighborhood get
together and say if you are going to have a unified front you should have a unified
front on what.you will accept, you have one on what you won't accept. If we are
going to make progress why can't we do things like that? We have a meeting
Tuesday night on New Urbanism and Smart Growth. I would like to definitely
extend an invitation to the neighborhood association concerned with this to look
at those. We are having all these people come in and speak of Smart Growth and
New Urbanism. People on the outlying areas say we want infill, we don't want
sprawl and it all comes down to the situation where people want infill, want infill,
until it is in their backyard. Until we can open up some dialogue and get some
communication and have people make commitments and say what you will
accept. Also on revising the hillside standards and the development standards. I
feel like the information that we are getting in a meeting like this can go a long
way in helping what we are looking at in the future. Yes, we have a big block of
R-2 from Fletcher west if that needs to be revised then we need good dialogue
from the people live witli the situation and can show us the errors in that. We are
put' in a position to make decisions .for people often times without good
information. If you all could attend that deal Tuesday night and then if you could
get with Mr_ House and talk to him about what kind of densities are acceptable. I
think we can shorten this process considerably.
Chaddick: The letter that you got from Mr. House was a reply to our letter that we sent him.
We were advised not to bargain specifically on number of units, the way we
should best approach it would be to request more parking spaces because that is
E
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 42
really what we are talking about. By code those are the issues. The traffic, the
safety, the topography, those are the issues that stop or continue a project. By
ordinance and code he is under the R-2. If that is what you want us to do, if you
.want us to come and say we want it 15 units and two bedroom units, I don't think
legally we can do that.
House: I was pleased
to seethe letter from
the neighbors that
signed the letter.
Chaddick: Don't get us
mixed up with the
Mount Sequoyah
Neighborhood Association.
These are just
the Olive residents.
House: But these are the people that are most affected. I think we can go 80% of the way
to meeting their needs. The real issue Isee is who pays and how much offsite
development do we do. The rest of it, the parking and the Bill of Assurances and
the garbage enclosures and the tree things and all of that, I think we ate on the
same page on. The real issue is whether we do a street in front of their house and
the connectivity if I am paraphrasing that correctly. I think we can get the parking
at least that meets the law.
Ward: Mr. Bunch, are there any other comments? I am ready to get out of here.
Hoover: If I can get staff to just explain quickly, what improvements are you suggesting on
Olive and exactly where?
Conklin: Extending Olive down to Center Street and then extending Center Street down.
Hoover: You are not talking about anything offsite,from Olive to Spring at all?
Conklin: We are. trying to have a balance there. Require connectivity and building new
streets and:not doing any additional work. ,
Hoover: So no improvements from Olive to Spring, only in front of his property and:this
would be a narrower street in front of this property on Olive?
Conklin: We need to talk about the issue of on street parking. 'there is 60' of right of way
here, I think we would want to make sure that we could have on street parking
and have two way traffic.
House: We -thought we could still do the 20' pavement and then have the additional for
parking.
Conklin: As you can tell he hasn't provided a plan and I think everything is up for
discussion here. My biggest issue was not just looking at this project but looking
at the entire hillside and regardless, 1 heard let's build streets and let's not build
streets, if it is single-family homes or if it is apartments, in order to develop you
are going to need a street. Unless you leave it open space and you don't develop
it. Even on single-family homes like Olive Street has a street in front of each
house. That is a typical. urban city type development, a house with a street in
0 •
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 43
front of it. Whether it is single-family or apartments we are looking at a street
extension and connections.
Hoover: Let me ask you this. If this were a new development further out and not infill,
what would we be requiring the developer to build?
Conklin: On larger complexes or apartments?
Hoover:. This size. In a similar situation but where we are not infilling, like the last
Preliminary Plat that we had.
Conklin: That is why I brought up that plat. We require street connectivity, the
connections. This is already kind of set on this plat.
Hoover: I am just saying that we are not asking the developer to do anything that we
wouldn't ask someone else to do if it weren't infill. I guess I'm thinking if this
were out there he would have to develop this street here wouldn't he?
Conklin: This is what is challenging about these unequated subdivision plats, these paper
subdivisions. We had the same issue up on Rochier Heights, Ken Marvin didn't
want to build any of that street out. There are hundreds of lots up there and
streets. At the same time we are land locking property. Typically on an
apartment complex. Let me answer your question, this is a traditional grid type
street pattern. You look at a map of Fayetteville on the wall right there it is a lot
more dense, it is platted in lots and blocks traditional design of street systems. As
you move out you have more cul-de-sacs and dead end streets and everything
funnels out onto an arterial street system and everybody has to go on the same
street to either get to downtown or to the mall. I guess I can't answer your
question because it is a whole different street patter system that Fayetteville
historically was platted with, that is residential lots and blocks verses creating a
subdivision with stub outs and cross connection with arterial streets that pick up
the traffic. You probably wouldn't have three streets on three sides of a project.
Hoover: Ok.
Ward: Commissioner Bunch?
Bunch: Mr. House, do you feel that you have enough information that you can do
whatever is necessary between now and the full Planning Commission for this to
be forwarded? I know there are some issues that will never be settled. I guess
there haven't been any technical changes.
Edwards: Are you going to add parking?
House: Definitely I would like to add parking but I would like to do it in a way without
having to spend a bunch of money. I would like to go forward with approvals
upon us getting to 1.3 or whatever it is rather than me coming in and replatting
and redoing drainage and redoing the whole.thing andyou all say we don't want
to forward it anyway.
Li
Subdivision Committee
February 27, 2003
Page 44
Conklin: I let Mr. House come forward with this project because I don't want someone to
spend the time and money if the Commission is not going to require the street
connections. Offsite street improvements, that needs to be decided.
Bunch: Ok. That being said, I will move that we forward LSD 02-29.00 to the full
Planning Commission where it can be discussed further with public meetings and
maybe you can get some definitive information.
Hoover: I'll second.
Ward: I will concur.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 7
CPL 03-1.00: Concept Plat (Sequoyah Commons; pp 485) was submitted by Mandy
Bunch of EB Landworks. on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property
located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property
is zoned R-2, Medium Density. Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39
dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms).
Aviles: Fourth on our agenda tonight is CPL 03-1.00 for Sequoyah Commons
submitted by Mandy. Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of
Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue &
Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with
39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Sara, can you give us the staff
report?
Edwards: Yes. The proposal is for seven buildings, a total of 39 dwelling units. The
request is for approval of a Concept Plat. In the event that this Concept
Plat is approved the project will be resubmitted as a Large Scale
Development and reviewed in detail with regard to code compliance.
Parking required is 48 spaces. They are proposing 58 spaces with 9 on
street on Olive Street. Right now there is right of way existing on Olive,
60'. There is 30' of right of way for Center and 60' of right of way for
Fletcher which is existing to the east of the site. Their proposal is that
Olive be constructed along the entire property line with a width of 28' in
front of the property. 20' for drivinglanes and 8' for parking stalls. In
addition, they are proposing to widen Olive .to Spring Street to 20' in
width and proposing a cost share. for a 4' sidewalk along the east side of
Olive. Access proposed is solely through Olive Avenue. Tree
preservation, right now it is 100% covered, they are preserving 20.17%
and 20% is the requirement in this district. We do not have signed
conditions of approval.
Aviles: I will read those in just a second. There are 13 conditions of approval, 8
through 13 are standard conditions. I would just like to say something
about this process. Normally we do not see concept plats_ It is my
understanding that this is being done as a courtesy because the street
connection is a very important item in the design of the project and the
developer did not wish to go further with the project before he knew
whether the street would be requited to be connected, which is the staff's
recommendation. Tim, would you edify us on this?
Conklin: I do realize this is something that you typically do not see at this level.
We have been working on this project for quite some time now and the
issue has been with regard to the question of should Olive Street be
extended with a connection of Center Street down to Walnut. Staff was
recommending that. that street connection be made as part of this project.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 8
The applicant wanted some assurance of would that connection be
required by the Planning Commission. They are looking for a
recommendation of whether or not the Commission is going to support
staff with that recommendation to extend Olive and build that part of
Center Street. If that is a decision that is made they will go ahead and do
their preliminary engineering on that to determine how to construct those
improvements to make that connection. They do not want to go forward
and do a lot of engineering if that street was not going to be required. As
Ms. Edwards stated, their proposal is not to make that connection through
down to Walnut.
Aviles: So I can make sure that 1 can scope the discussion properly, other than the
conditions of approval, which I am about to read into the record, the issue.
that we are discussing here this evening is the street connection.
Conklin: The street connection and they have modified their site plan to address
some of the concerns of the neighbors. I would expect that they would
probably share that information with you also:.
Aviles: Has it been modified since agenda session?
Conklin: No.
Aviles: Ok, thanks Tim. I am going to read these conditions of approval.
1) Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements
and required. access. Olive is currently substandard. It is only 18 feet wide
and does not meet state fire code. With the allowance of on street parking
two-way traffic cannot be accommodated. The pavement and sub -base is
failing and can likely not accommodate construction traffic. The site has
access to Fletcher but no access .point is proposed. Right-of-way for
Center exists adjacent to the site and south to Walnut. Staff is
recommending the construction of Center Street from Walnut to Olive
Street and Olive Street adjacent to the site with waivers from the minimum
street standards if necessary. 2) Approval shall be subject to the vacation
of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which runs north/ south through the
property. 3) A 10 foot utility easement shall be granted on both sides of
the existing 30 foot water line, which is required for maintenance of the
line. 4) All buildings will be required to meet increased setbacks based on
height where applicable. 5) Lighting shall not encroach onto adjacent
properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by staff prior
to installation. 6) Any damage to Olive Street by construction traffic will
be repaired at the developer's expense. 7) Planning Commission
recommendation of the requested cost share for sidewalk construction
along Olive. The developer proposes a sidewalk along Olive from the
project site to Spring Street and has requested a cost share. 8) Plat
Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 9
provided, to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from
utility representatives. 9) 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. 10)
Payment of parks fees in the amount of $14,625 (39 units @ $375) 11)
Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a
minimum four foot sidewalk along Olive. 12) Large scale development
shall be valid for one calendar year. 13) Prior to the issuance of a
building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage
permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree
preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all
required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of
credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements.
Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public
safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy
received. Is the applicant present?
Bunch: I have a question on condition number three. It shows an existing 30 foot
waterline, is that a typo?
Edwards: That should be a 30 inch water line.
Shackelford: In the past I have recused from Planning Commission actions involving
Greg House due to a business relationship. At this point I don't have any
commercial relationship with Greg House currently. After visiting with
our City Attorney, Mr. Williams has indicated that I need not recuse from
this if I didn't want to. My plans were to hear this and vote on it if no
other member of the Planning Commission had an issue with that.
Aviles: Thanks for letting us know. Commissioners, are there any questions? I
appreciate it Commissioner Shackelford. Is the applicant present?
House: Yes Ma'am. Good evening, I am Greg house for those of you who don't
know me. I represent Houses Development Company. Actually I am a
little bit in the dark about what we are doing. tonight because I thought we
were kind of going forward with most of the concept, not just the issue of
the street. I thought this would be pad of the overall process that the
concept plat was related to density and issues other than technical things
like tree preservation, landscaping, and drainage. Maybe I'm mistaken.
We came prepared for most of the discussion rather than just the
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 10
discussion of the connectivity. Am I wrong in that Tim?
Conklin: The primary issue is access which is when we met with Mr. House,
concerns about spending a lot of money designing and engineering a street
connection. Also, as I thought I stated earlier, has presented a concept
design which has moved some buildings and added some parking and my
understanding is. it has been seven buildings, 39 units, that really hasn't
changed. Once again, there may be some other issues that we will discuss
this evening.
Aviles: I think the concept plat is rather as a favor to the developer because if your
plan had been submitted without the street connection it likely would've
been disapproved on that basis. That being the main point we will be
discussing that in detail this evening. I believe Tim, at agenda session,
said that you have met other ordinance requirements regarding density and
so forth as they exist in R-2 zoning. The traffic is an issue that we will be
discussing.
Conklin: That is correct. With regard to the density issue, that is a zoning issue.
This is zoned R-2 so if is really not something that should be discussed as
part of this development. What we are discussing is access to the
development and other development ordinances. The primary issue that
we have been discussing with the applicant is with regard to what is
appropriate for access to this site should there be a street connection,
should Olive Street be extended. You are within an historic platted area.
Rights of way exist. Connections may be possible if you complete out the
grid system. Staff recommended looking at how to develop some of this
connectivity, street connections in areas that were not very steep like you
see in other areas. Center Street going north up to Fletcher, staff did not
recommend that at this time. Center Street south of Olive to Walnut from
my observation out there, it does look like vehicles have traveled a gravel
drive in the past so it is possible to drive on it today. I would like to note
that it would require a variation in our minimum street standards in order
to make this connection. The larger policy issue that I have discussed with
Mr. House and his engineer is this area is zoned R-2. We are seeing
increased density being built in this area. If this area is increased from
two units per acre. to 20 units per acre what kind of street network do we
need in the future? What type of connectivity do we need in the future?
We have an existing grid pattern, right of way that was recorded and
platted. Do we as a city complete that grid pattern and make those
connections with the idea that this may develop with multi -family as we
are seeing, this may develop as single-family regardless of whether it is
multi -family or single-family, urban design principlestraditional houses
are along streets. Do you want to complete the street network? With
regard to the overall design, once again, modifications have been made
with regard to building location placement and parking.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 11
Aviles: Those are in conformance with city ordinances_ What I.would like to do is
to focus our discussion this evening in terns of the discussion. I think that
we have a large issue in front of us in terms of offsite improvements and
what Houses Incorporated is willing to do with regard to cost sharing on
that and that the access is the issue that we need to address on this if we
are meeting the other ordinances and design. standards, lets not waste
everybody's time. We have got a lot of people here tonight. Can I see a
show of hands if you are here with the public to address us on this concept
plat. We are going to hear from everyone. I would like to be veryclear
on what I am asking the applicant and the public to address. That is the
offsite improvements; the access to the site, and the implications for cost
sharing. Since we have a lengthy, agenda tonight and this only number
four of fourteen if you could keep your comments short, to the point, and
try to avoid repetition we would certainly appreciate that. Mr. House
would you like to continue with your presentation?
House: Yes. . Thank you Madam Chair. I understand and it will cut my
presentation. down considerably. To paraphrase, we are talking about
offsite: improvements, access to the site, and the cost.sharing. First let me
begin.by stating that the plan that we submitted originally as part of the
Large Scale Development process was submitted meeting all of the
requirement of the UDO; city street standards and international fire code.
That plan is the plan without connectivity to Center. Street. Let me say
that again, the plan that we submitted meets all of the requirements of the
UDO, the city street standards, and the international fire code. That is
why we feel it is not necessary to connect to Center Street from a legal
perspective. If the. city feels that itis necessary..for other policy
considerations like what is going to happen on the hill in the future, we are
not opposed.to that. The question is how do we pay for it. Is it4neumbent
upon our company to have to pay for the development of a street that is
not adjacent to this property, that is not necessary for the development of
this property because the rest of the bill is going to get developed in the
future. While I agree it may help ease the burden of some traffic out on
Olive because a.connection to Center Street would theoretically provide
another access, many property owners would benefit from that besides
ours. I understand there is a theory called rationalnexus, which is hard for
me to get my hands around and I am a lawyer. I have asked my engineer
to do a rational nexus study to determine what share should be ours, how
the improvement of Center Street would benefit: our, project. Mandy
Bunch of EB Landworks in conjunction with a traffic study by Ernie
Peters out of Little Rock have come up with an estimate and a percentage
that they deem is the amount of benefit to our property by the
improvement to Center Street. It is amazingly enough, a pretty small
number. That was submitted in the packet that we gave the Planning staff
the first of last week. Hopefully it is in your packet. It would be a letter
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 12
from EB Landworks to Tim Conklin dated March 171h if 1 can direct your
attention to it. In that letter Ms. Bunch talks about how much her estimate
is of cost, vehicle trips per day, and what the percentage of our impact
would be and it is fairly minimal, something around 2%. This is
supported by a study by Ernie Peters that did a traffic analysis and the
whole report is probably in your file as well. This is based on Olive being
a.local street and the city street standards define a local street as two 10'
lanes. Olive, -as it exists, is 18' to 20' wide so it has two 10' traffic lanes.
We have proposed in our submittal to make sure -Olive is 20' wide for
those areas that it is not to meet the local street standards. Supposedly
somebody has figured out that that takes 4,000 trips per day. Mr. Peters
has stated after hisstudyin conjunction with some city studies for this
area, that our trips are going to be approximately 297, let's call it 300
trips per day on Olive so as you can see it is not huge just going in and out
of Olive without even going out Center Street. The impact of the traffic
that we are going to create on Olive is less than 10% of the allowed traffic
as it exists. Basically, rather than belabor you with all of the stuff that we
have already submitted, we have made our argument in all of the stuff that
we submitted that access to the site is reasonable as it is but we are willing
to help pay for Center is that isdetermined necessary. The offsite
improvements, we have already submitted that we would do a new street
from the existing portion of Olive to Center. Our original plan was to just
have. a cul-de-sac at the entrance to our property but in the spirit of
compromise with the Planning Department we agreed to pave all of Olive
so that the potential of connectivity could be done now or in the future. I
guess I will ask to see if anyone as any questions. If that is all that we are
talking about, I can talk about density and having met with the neighbors
and all of our agreements with the neighbors and all of that.
Aviles: We are just going to limit the discussion to access and your participation
in offsite improvements. Should you be required to extend the street, have
you come up with a figure* that you would be willing to participate in for
that`?
House: We have submitted that it is 2% of the total cost and the estimates are it is
going to cost approximately $100,000, I think the real number is $94,000.
1 guess we would have to put some sort of cap on it in the event that it cost
$300,000 but that is what we have submitted: based on the engineering.
That is for the Center portion. We will already have quite a bit of money
in the rest of Olive but that is for the Center Street portion.
Aviles: Thanks Mr. House. I see that there are members of the public that would
like to address us. Come on up, tell us your name, where you live, and
give us the benefit of your opinion. As I said, if you could keep it to the
point of access we would appreciate that.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 13
Caulk:. I am Bob Caulk. I live on Missouri Way and I am here speaking on behalf
of the Mount Sequoyah South Neighborhood Association. The only thing
I had to say that was on this point was in the package that the city had they
talked about waivers from minimum street standards as appropriate. I
don't know what that means but it scares:me anytime I see us talking
about building anew street anywhere in the town of Fayetteville and
talking about building it to less than the minimum street standards.
Aviles: Thanks Sir. Tim, do you want to talk to us about that before we hear from
the next person?
Conklin:
Our current street standards probably would not allow Mount Sequoyah to
be built as it is today. The question is you have got a platted annequated
subdivision plat, not just Mount Sequoyah, I would say areas surrounding
downtown Fayetteville also. Do you go ahead and complete out those
street connections and develop those neighborhoods and if not, what are
we going to do? Are we going to allowdevelopment to occur at the edge
of where these streets exist and develop it to R-2 without any additional
streets being built in these historic areas of Fayetteville. The question is
with regard to waiving the minimum street standards within reason is it
possible to make some of these connections within this area? Fayetteville
would not look like Fayetteville today if we utilized our street standards
that we have on the books today_ You would not have Mount Sequoyah or
some of the streets in downtown Fayetteville.
Aviles:
Right, because of steep grades. If we. built Center it would be possibly
steeper than the transportation manual would require but as flat as we
could get it, is that the right term?
Conklin:
The grade right there, I don't have that exact number. Matt ma3kbe able to
help me out here a little with regard- to. the radius.coming off of Olive to
Center, that could possibly be an issue, the cross section being 20' wide
verses 28' wide. A lot of engineering hasn't been done so I am not sure of
every waiver that would be required. That.area right there is not as steep
as other areas on Mount Sequoyah that already have streets built.
Aviles:
Thanks Mr. Conklin. Would the next person that would like to address us
come forward, give us your name, and tell us where you live and give us
the benefit of your opinion.
Vick:
Good afternoon, I am Al Vick, 514 E. Rock. I have a couple of
concerns as far as access, maybe three as a matter of fact. One of them is
we are talking about extending Center Street. There are people that live so
close right now to where Center Street would be and where it would be
extended and paved that. they would almost be able to literally stick their
hands out the window and have the traffic go by and hit them. I believe
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 14
that some of those people are here this evening, but I will let them speak
for themselves. That is one concern. Another concern with both the idea
of Olive Street being extended into that cul-de-sac and the extension of
Center Street, I don't know how many of you are aware of this but that
whole area from the 1920's until I have been lead to understand around
1960, that area was a landfill, it was a dump. I am wondering if there have
been any studies so far in terms of what is under that ground over there
before all of this gets turned over and various chemicals and things might
be let lose that would expose people in the neighborhood to. Also, with
the creek running right by where that cul-de-sac is, it is a dry creek now
but it wasn't. There was a spring that led into it until it was bulldozed and
clogged up but the water does run into tin pan creek or whatever that creek
is that crosses by Willow Street and Rock. There are new federal
regulations that are soon going into effect in terns of storm water runoff.
I am wondering when we are talking access and when we are talking about
extending these.things have there been studies done about that, about the
landfill situation and about the water.
Aviles: Thank you. As we hear back from the applicant we will try to address
those.
Vick: Ok, but you will answer those questions?
Aviles: We will sure try.
Vick: Ok, I think they are important. Thank you.
Aviles: Thank you. Next?
Brown: I am Jennifer Brown. I live on the comer of Fletcher and Diekson and I
am speaking on behalf of my concern and another concerned citizen of
Fayetteville who does not live. in that. area but who has been expressing
deep conccm about the sewer backups during heavy usage and also heavy
rains. My question is would the offsite improvements, has that been
looked into whether or not this particular site is going to be able to handle
the extra sewage because our sewer system has backed up during heavy
rain and heavy usage and when I take walks up to Oklahoma Way I smell
raw sewage and I have for years and I have reported it to the city a number
of times. I don't know that it has been fixed but it is right across the street
from where Greg House lives. I am, not sure that our mountain side can
handle anymore sewage. I am wondering if that has been addressed.
Aviles: Do you have any questions about the traffic access?
Brown: You said offsite improvements and this is offsite.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 15
Aviles: I was
limiting that to traffic and so forth.
We can answer your question
about
the sewage. Matt, if you will
explain
about that.
Casey: I did look into the sewer situation for this area and the area that she is
speaking of that is having problems is in a separate main line than the
development that we are looking at here. The development area for this
main have not had any problems lately.
Brown: But will they is the question.
Aviles: The city has the new sewer plan in process and every developer is put on
notice that if there is not sufficient capacity for the development that no
farther taps can occur. I just wanted to say that this is not really the point
of this concept plat: Did you have any other things that you would like to
talk about the traffic or anything? I see Mr. Earnest in the back. Hugh,
would you like to come up and say something?
Earnest: No, I was just pointing, I'm sorry
.Aviles: Ok, we are still taking public comment so don't be shy. Come up and tell
us your name and address.
Chaddick: My name is Susan Chaddick and I.live on the comer, of Spring Street and
Olive. I have concerns about the traffic. I think that we are almost
insulting the renters and the neighbors to suppose that there are only going
to be 48 cars or 51 cars that drive back and forth during a days time. We
have seven residences, that have people living in them now and Olive
Street as it exists, bears an awful lot of traffic. We have young children
that are walking to. the school bus. to their schools and it is not a safe
situation: at points. now with only seven residences. If you add 48
bedrooms and that amount of traffic our little street cannot take it. I regret
having to lobby for the opening for Center Street but I feel if we are going
to allow for a complex of this size to go in then we have to have two
accesses.
Aviles: Thank you very much. Next person please. I will close public comment
here shortly but if there is anyone else that would like to address us about
this development regarding the traffic please come forward. I saw more
hands than people that have come up to speak. We only have one time to
take public comment during while we are hearing an item so it is now or
not.
Gable: My.name is Julie Gable and the reason that I was hesitant is because t
didn't have anything particularly new to add to what Susan Chaddick had
said but I just want to emphasize that I live on 106 N: Olive and the traffic
that we have and the parking situation that we have right now is even more
Planning Commission
March 24,2003
Page 16
than we can take at this point. I just wanted to reiterate what Susan had
said.
Aviles: Thank you Ms. Gable.
Meldnun: I am Carol Mcldtum-and I currently live at 1501 E. Mission but I am
anticipating moving into the neighborhood of 401 E. Dickson and was
hoping I was moving into a nice, quiet neighborhood in retirement. I do
not believe that the increased traffic going down Dickson Street from
Olive with the complex being developed is going to be what I like. I just
wanted to second those comments.
Aviles: When I close public comment we will hear back from the applicant and
the Commissioners will be discussing back and forth but we will no longer
take any public comment so if anybody has anything else to say now is the
time.
Sinquar: I am Leslie Sinquar, I live at 48 N. Olive Avenue. Based on what Mrs.
Meldrum has said, I would like to reiterate a concern that I had before.
What happens beyond Olive Street at the Spring intersection? It continues
to be substandard. That many cars and to lend support to the point that
Mrs. Chaddick made. It is silly to assume that there are going to be 48
cars at a complex of that size. What happens beyond Spring Street? Olive
is still very narrow and substandard beyond that. Mr. House will be
required to widen Olive and bring it up to standards but with that amount
of traffic and as narrow and steep as Spring is and then as narrow as Olive
is as far as.Lafayette.and the ditches on either side and my child has had
close calls walking home from school already as it is more than once. I
am also concerned about what this additional traffic will do to the
character and charm of the historic district. Cars will be going through
Sutton, taking shortcuts. The additional traffic there will just completely
destroy the nature and character of our neighborhood.
Aviles: Thank you very much.
Chaddick: I am Buddy Chaddick and am under somewhat duress since I have been
missing these meetings. My wife happens to be Susan Chaddick. This
winter was a typical winter I think in Fayetteville, Arkansas. We had a lot
of snow, as we did in 1981 when Susan and I first moved back up here.
The block or two on Olive Street where the seven or eight houses are,
none of us can park in our.driveways when it snows. The only access we
have out is we have to park on the street because we can't get out of our
driveway. The only access we have out is Olive- Driving down Olive we
can't go east or west on Spring Street because we can't get up the
mountain either way so the only access we have is going down Olive.
Now we can't go down Olive because the new apartments on Olive,
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 17
everybody is parked on the street down there so we can't make it through
there. We are at a jam, we can't go to work and most of us work up there.
Another very important aspect of this is we talk about the safety of an 18'
street. I have a 95 year old aunt that lives across the street from us. She
had to go to the emergency room. You should've seen, when you need to
go to the emergency room and you are 95 years old and you can't walk,
you have been wheelchair bound for 40 years, you have to have the Fire
Department come out with a truck. If she had of been in dire straights she
would've: been dead. There is no doubt about it. It took them 20 minutes
just to get the truck turned around and then once the fire truck turned
around the complete street was blocked. No one could get around either
side. That is old town up there, that is not new town. That is not a place
to have apartments. That is old town: I think Mr. house referred to one
that he was a lawyer and number two, to the hill. That is not a hill, that is
a mountain. That is a mountain that is meaningful to this area. That is a
mountain that is meaningful to the history of Fayetteville and it needs to
remain as it is.
Aviles: Thank you Sir.
'Bryant:I am Jessie Bryant. I am concerned tabout Center Street because that is
where my house is. I' don't really see the need of you opening Center
Street and -my other concern is are you going to do the rest of Center Street
all the way up so that it will take the added traffic that is there? If you
open Center Street the way you are talking about you are going to take a
lot of property so what happens there?
Aviles: Tim, can you let us know about the possibility of continuing Center Street
past this? We discussed it a little bit at agenda setting session but I would
like you to go into that.
Conklin: Staff did not make that recommendation to go further east from Olive
based on topography in that area. However, it probably is not impossible
to build a street because there are other streets built on Mount Sequoyah
that have similar slopes. However, we were trying to find something that
as the issue came up of how far do you waive your street standards? In
this' section it looked like it was much more feasible to make that
connection between Olive and Walnut. Staff was not making a
recommendation to extend that street at this time.
Aviles: How close would the right of way come to this.woman's house?
Conklin: I don't have that answer. There is a 30' right of way for Center Street
existing.
Aviles: Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
E
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 18
Gable: I am Julie Gable. It looks like the city has done a survey of our street and
put up some markers and my question is where those are sitting on the east
side, is that where the street would go Tim?
Conklin: I am not aware of the city doing a survey.
Gable: Ok, well there, are markers up. I guess my question is if they are widening
the street enough to allow traffic to come through and park and sidewalks
from what they have surveyed at this point it looks like I am going to lose
my two trees and it is going to be right up to my deck.
Aviles: We will have W. House answer that when he comes back up. Is there
anyone else?
Bryant I am Holly Bryant, 107 N. Olive. I have said many times I am opposed to
this 48 bedroom development because it is not harmonious nor is it
compatible with the existing single-family homes. I have said many times
that I am against this Large Scale Development because of the increased
traffic that it is going to produce. It is going to pose not only traffic
problems but it is.going to compromise our safety. What I would like to
express tonight it that I am not opposed to this piece of property being
developed, but I would like to see something built that is in keeping with
the existing structures on the street, with our neighborhood. I feel given
the decisions that need to be made, being in all of our best interests, the
residents on my street, my neighbors that I have met through all of this,
the Planning office, the Planning Commissioners, and for the future of
Fayetteville I would suggest that we table any discussions regarding this
development until we have resolved some of these issues and some of the
concerns that we have. I would like to see us all meet together instead of
us meeting with the Planning office, the neighbors; Mr. House and his
team meet with the Planning office; and everyone kind of dancing around.
I would love for us to all come together and see what kind of compromise
we could come up with that we could all be happy with. I would like to
explore a way that we can allow some development to be built that would
be in keeping with the integrity of this neighborhood and .with the charm
of Fayetteville. Thank you.
Aviles: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Caspick: My name is Joe Caspick, I live on Spring Street in the neighborhood there.
I want to get this right on the physics of this. From what I am gathering,
your engineering people can't guarantee that building Center Street isn't
going to drastically alter that hill or start rurming into erosion problems,
not only on that street as a whole but on a number of streets on the
mountains around here. I agree with the person who spoke before that
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 19
things should slowdown and maybe be tabled until the actual physics of
this kind of development get studied.. Can you guarantee me for 20 years:
that like the thing that went in with Bobby Schmitt, that in 20 years it is
not going to dig a ditch through our property just from the runoff? Can
that be physically guaranteed? I don't think the physics is done. Thank
you very much.
Aviles: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address us on this
Concept Plat? Once I close public discussion we will hear again from the
developer and .the Planning Commission and them we will entertain
motions and further discussion. Seeing no one, public discussion is now
closed. Would the applicant or applicants like to come back and answer
some of these questions from the neighbors? Again, let me remind you to
keep your discussion solely. to the traffic, offsite improvements, and
access.
House: I thought I would introduce Mandy Bunch as our engineer and as a
member of our team. She is going to address some of the issues that were
just brought up and I may have a few more points when she is done.
Bunch: Good evening, I want to. try to address some of the nuts and bolts I guess
as .part of this proposal. The traffic study that was done basically
identified that there were 136 trips generated based on the existing
development on Olive. The site generated trips per day in that report was
noted as 161. That leads to a total of 297 cars. One problem that we have
had trying to state traffic issues on this site is that it is not typical. It is not
typical we are going to develop a street that has, as Tim was discussing,
the platted right of ways on all four.sidcs. I have looked at the extension
of. Center from Olive to Walnut. .The slopes range, I believe that it is
possible.based on the GIS topo information available, it is possible to be
within the design constraints as far asslope for that street to extend. One
of our main concerns however, was the width of the right of way. The city
required: street section is 28' fora local street and there is 30' of right of
way currently and there is absolutely no way to grade out the side slopes
and I believe it is Ms. Bryant's house, that spoke earlier, that is probably
within 5' of the right of way as it exists now on the south side. Hopefully
that would clear up some of those things. Another issue, when we are
talking about the capacity of the street, everybody keeps throwing around
the word capacity. The capacity of the street is basically a number that is
assigned to cars free flowing on a;particular street or width of pavement.
That number is calculated by the width of the street, by the uses adjacent
to that street, by the slope of the street, speed, etc. The best tools that we
have, which is what we have used with our analysis, the best tools that we
have is what we have typically used in the past. Again, this is an Atypical
situation. I think we have all agreed to that. Is basically to use the surface
volume. Thos surface volumes are defined in the street standards by the
E
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 20
city. Olive Street is classified as a.local street. It has two 10' travel lanes
and that is what we believe is there now and it does not allow for parking
on the street and it most likely is not safe to have parking on the street
now. We feel that that should be enforced as a no parking situation since
that is not available for them, If you look, at the percentages, I kept trying
to quantify the traffic and using the numbers that we had and we actually
had to dig back to a 1965 highway capacity manual for the analysis of the
width and actually the adjustment factor. for the width since we do have
the 10' travel lanes verses 12' travel lanes. That capacity would be a 24%
reduction. Again, that is the only way that we found to quantify that but
using the local surface volume for,the street, which is less than 4,000
-vehicle trips per day even with 24% reduction that brings us down to
3,000 cars and with the existing traffic plus the site generated traffic we
are still less than.10% of that site volume. We could half it and half it and
half it again and we still wouldn't be close to that. That is part of the
reason of why the traffic engineers have had difficulties in quantifying this
because there is no way to quantify it, the traffic amount is so maniacal. I
think the point here is the connectivity and how the city can assign some
value to that connectivity because that is not typical. That is not typical in
the development, that is not typical in the UDO requirements and that is
not typical rational -nexus. I wanted to kind of clear up those numbers and
things for everybody because I know we have had some different things
running around. Also, the international fire code, which the city has
recently adopted, allows one access point in and out as adequate for less
than 100 units. That would be the case. With the construction of Olive
Street that we are proposing it would actually be safer for fire and
emergency vehicles to turn around than it is now. There is absolutely no
way for them to get up and down and around on Olive Street now. Also,
with the new storm water regulations, we are well aware of those and
those relate to water quality and the differentiation of the threshold for the
National Pollution Elimination Discharge System requirements. That is
basically construction runoff, sediment laid and construction runoff. The
city is going to require us to detain on our site. That hasn't happened with
some of the other developments. I believe one that they keep discussing,
that was not required. This will have to have detention on site that will
keep the post developed flows to at or below the pre -developed flows. As
to what would specifically happen on Center Street; etc., that would be up
for design consideration with the staff. As we have through this entire
process, we will cooperate with them. I am here for any questions like
that and I think Greg had a couple of other things.
Aviles: I think there was one other question about the subsurface landfill, do you
know anything about that?
Bunch: I am going to let Greg answer that. I don't believe we know about that.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 21
Aviles: Ok, thanks_
House: If the question is -about sub -surface landfill in Center I haven't heard
anything about. that. As far as the site that we own, I have had that for
over 15 years and I knew the previous owner and I wasn't aware of any
dumping that was on that site.. I think that the city has been doing some
fill at the.corner of what would be Center and Olive over the years but I
have never witnessed anything in terms of chemicals or something of that
nature. That is the.most I .know on that subject. One of the neighbors
asked about the stakes in their yard. As part of our continuing dialogue
with the neighbors we discussed the possibility of widening Olive, which
we objected to because of our traffic counts supporting it as it is but we
wanted the neighbors to see what would happen if Olive did get widened
because there are trees that would be knocked downand stuff right in front
of their current front porches. Many times people aren't aware of just how
drastic something like that can be in an existing neighborhood. That is
what the stakes are, just a visual aid for the neighbors to see some of the
alternatives. Somebody has talked about slowing the process down. We
have been through this process, we have been working with the Planning
Department for probably almost two years and I can go into the history of
how we have talked about connectivity, talked about cul-de-sac, went back
to connectivity, talked about not doing a Large Scale at all. I would rather
not see the process slowed down. I think we have visited this issue quite a
bit .with Planning staff and the neighbors. We have met with them
numerous times.- We unfortunately can't come to complete terms with the
neighbors. We have come to terms with the neighbors about a lot of
things including increasing the parking on. the site and they gave us a list
of conditions that they would like to see, bills of assurance that we were
able to agree with completely. There are a lot of areas we have where we
have had agreement. Unfortunately, we can't have 100% agreement. This
project wouldn't be feasible in anyway shape or form if we did it the way
the neighbors on Olive would like us to do it. Can I answer any other
questions?
MOTION:
Estes: What is before us is a Concept Plat and it is my understanding that our
decision will be advisory only to the applicant. With that said, and having
studied the material that has been provided to us on the issue of offsite
improvements and connectivity we have three reports from Peters &
Associates, the Traffic Engineers. One is dated November 19, 2002, one
is December 18, 2002, and the last one is March 13, 2003. The underlying
premise of those studies is that Olive Avenue is a local street. It is not.
Olive is currently substandard, it is only 18' wide, it does not meet state
fire codes with the allowance of on -street parking two way traffic can not
be accommodated and the pavement and sub -base is failing. I don't
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 22.
believe that either Mr. House or Ms. Bunch would attempt to dissuade us
from the notion that Olive Avenue is a local street. The reason I say that
with some confidence is that Mr. House, in his letter dated March 17, 2003
to this Commission, writes the international fire code recently adopted by
the state of Arkansas allows a 20' wide dead end road to serve apartment
complexes having less than 100 units. The 39 units that we are proposing
does not meet this threshold. I have constructed the entry to the property
in such a way that fire trucks and emergency vehicles can turn around.
Because the underlying presumption is in error, that is that Olive Avenue
is a local street, then all the resulting data is flawed. I am not prepared to
vote on this at -this time because what we have before us is an underlying
presumption that is false and resulting data that is in error. It is for that
reason that I am going to make a motion that we refer this back to the
Subdivision Committee:
Aviles: I have a motion for referral back to the Subdivision Committee by
Commissioner Estes. I am going to go ahead and second that.
House: I am not sure where the city staff has gotten information that the street is
18' wide. It is 18' wide in certain points but primarily it is 20' wide and
that is what we pointed out in our letter. We can make the areas that are
less than 20', 20% The predominant surface is 20' wide and in places
wider than 20'. I disagree with Commissioner Estes' comments that the
underlying presumption is wrong. We feel that because the majority of
the street is 20' wide and there are some portions that may be 19 ''/z' or
19'3" that that can be remedied with reasonable expense and the issue of
construction traffic and making the street bear construction traffic can be
remedied as well. Unfortunately, the underlying, premise is not wrong is
our position.
Aviles: Commissioners, are there any comments? I will explain my second to
Us. I do feel that the traffic study is a best imprecise science and that you
are looking at a significant change in the use of Olive Street and the
potential for the extension of Center Street are both things that need to be
looked carefully into.
Bunch, M: Just a little more information. The classification on Locust Street came
from the Master Street Plan and city staff. That was discussed in detail
with the Traffic Superintendent. That was not a bit of fact that we
assumed on any level. That is just for your information.
Aviles: Thanks. Commissioners, are there any other comments or questions of
Mr. House? We are going to go ahead and vote on this motion and second
that we have. If you have something to say before hand please do.
Ostner: I tend to agree that the mathematics of this situation is very imprecise but
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 23
it is the best that can be done sometimes. I think our decision is almost
completely separate from these engineering reports. I think it is fairly
simple whether we, as a city, are going to force connectivity as Mr. House
has written. I think the issue that Ms. Chaddick mentioned, she wants
another way out besides the only way being Olive and down to Dickson
and I think it is completely separate from all the measurements and a1I the
engineering studies. It is a gray area and I don't know whether
Subdivision would help that. decision. I think it is a tough decision and I
think it might be the time to make it now. That is my perception of the
current motion.
Shackelford: As 1 have made points in the past as far as tabling motions, I have always
struggled with that. My underlying belief is we owe the applicant action
on the request. If we are going to table this I would like to ask those that
made the motion and second specifically what are we looking for in a
change or addition to the information that is.before us today. What
changes do we hope to see from Subdivision back to this Committee
before we make a decision?
Estes: Commissioner Shackelford, I don't -know that I can answer your question
with any degree of definition so let me just share with you some of the
things that concern me. What Ms. Bunch and Mr. House have said is
correct. According to the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan the
service volume of a local street is 4,000 vehicles per day. What they have
done, and I am reading from the Peters and Associates report, therefore,
based on .standard capacity calculation procedures there is no capacity
issue for Olive Avenue. Yet, in our conditions of approval prepared by
staff they tell us that Olive is currently substandard, it is only 18' wide, it
does not meet state fire code and so on. The calculations and the
computations made regarding the traffic are based on Olive Avenue being
a local street. I think that is one of the seminole issues. Is Olive Street a
local street or is it not a local street? Staff seems to indicate, they don't
indicate they.tell us in the conditions of approval, that it is not. If it is not,
then all of the underlying presumption is wrong and the resulting data is
flawed. That is the seminole issue I believe to determine if Olive Avenue
is a local street.
Shackelford: So you are asking that they recalculate the traffic study based on the actual
measurements of Olive Street as it exists?
Estes: I don't think that can be done.
Shackelford: I guess that is my concern. We are tabling this back to Subdivision
Committee, I don't see what work Subdivision Committee is going to be
able to do that provides initial information that changes the overall scheme
as it has been presented to us at this point.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 24
Estes: I don't want to do Subdivision's work and I am somewhat hesitant to even
suggest this, but.if I was on Subdivision, and I'm not, the first item of
discussion would be whether this applicant needs to build Olive Avenue to
local street standards. I believe, and this is my presumption based upon
reading the material provided by Mr. House is that he has not considered
that. I get that from page 3 of his letter that I read where he says the 39
units that we are proposing does not meet this threshold and tells us that he
has constructed the entry to the property in such a way that fire trucks and
emergency vehicles can turn around. I concluded from that that he is not
proposing to build Olive Avenue to local street standards. You asked
what Subdivision can do. That is the first issue and then other issues
would follow from that.
Aviles: At agenda session I asked the. staff to put together the impact on the
possible extension of Center Street by other properties that would be made
developable or be capable of being developed and they put together as a
supplement to our agenda some information that is broken down into areas
a, b, and c which cumulatively would have the effect of having something
like 140 more units there about, to be able to be developed because the R-
2 zoning that would then go onto Center Street. That consultant didn't
take that into account either and I would say that we are charged as the
Planning Commission to look not only into the developments before us
but the impact that the developments have on the adjoining properties,
what street extensions will do and who will use those. I don't think we
have enough information in front of us tonight to make an informed
decision so that is why I was going to vote to send it back.
Shackelford: Based on that, may I ask a question of staff?
Aviles: Yes please.
Shackelford: Tim, I apologize, I couldn't tell from my zoning map, the areas that she is
talking about area a, b, and c, are those currently zoned R-2?
Conklin: Yes.
Shackelford: Ok, and the units, that calculation is based on maximum development of
those locations?
Conklin: 24 units per acre, that is correct.
Aviles: So
if we open that street up then we are
not looking at 39
or 48 bedrooms,
we
are looking at another possibly 130.
Shackelford: If those propertieswere developed to: their maximum. Under that
E
E
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 25
assumption Mr. House could develop more units than what he is putting
on this location.
Hoover: Commissioner Estes, I was at Subdivision and I am concerned also what
morc.we.could have done. Let me ask you this. He. is saying that the
street in some. areas is already 20', if he did build these to 20' and the fire
protection issues were taken care of, what is: your position on the
connectivity with Center Street?
House: Can I answer that?
Estes: The question was for me but you can go ahead and answer for me if you
want to.
Aviles: Let Commissioner Estes go ahead and answer. the question and then if you
would like to say something else you are more than welcome to.
.Estes: I am not prepared to answer. that at this time. Commissioner Hoover
because what I see, is flawed data based upon an. erroneous presumption. I
don't know. How can I tell you my view on connectivity when I don't
know what kind of traffic we are going to be looking at and we don't
know what kind of street we are going to be looking at. I don't know. I
can't vote this concept plat up tonight and I can't vote it down because I
am not.going to do either one based on what I perceive as an underlying
presumption that is in error and the resulting data that is flawed: Check
with me in a couple of weeks presuming my motion passes.
Ostner: I have a question for the applicant. Mandy, did you just mention a while
back that you all did a traffic count and the 161 plus the 297 existing and
proposed together, what was that?
House: That is correct. I think I can clarify some of this. In our letter of March.
17`h paragraph 5.3 under off-street improvements .1 specifically state
Houses Inc. will widen Olive Avenue from Spring Street to Center Street
to 20' of asphalt paving anywhere that the width does not exist. We are
saying that we will meet this threshold of a local street. We are prepared
to pay for that_ We will meet this threshold of a local street so then, with
that presumption, the 4,000 cars per day rule should apply. The reference
to an earlier thing about the fire code, that., is only with respect to Cum
around. As the street exists right now it is illegal for the fire code. If we
do it the way we propose then it will be legal for the fire code_ Hopefully
that can clarify some of that. I appreciate this is a six page letter and it is
difficult to weed through all of this. That is why we think that we can
meet the traffic issue. It is going to be 20' all the way. Part of it is going
to be wider than 20'. Hopefully that clarifies some of that.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 26
Bunch, M: I just wanted to clarify that we did some counts and Perry Franklin did
some counts on the area also so those were actual numbers. Also, to
clarify a little further on the traffic study. The traffic study gives its
recommendations based on the improvements that the developer was
making. That traffic study was sanctioned by the developer to give you
the impact of his development on the existing street system. Also, we
were not privied to any of the information that came out after agenda
session. We were not requested at any time to include maximum build out
of that area. Also, I don't think that based on the current development
standards of the city it is possible in any way to develop the hillside to
maximum density.
House: I might add on future development it seems rational that when those
developers come in with their plan then you assess the traffic impact at
that point and if these streets need to be widened because somebody at the
end of Center wants to put in a 100 unit complex, then that is incumbent
upon him because they are increasing the density again If it turns out that
there are just going to be four homes there that is a whole other issue. It
seems to me to try to guess what is going to happen and ask us to, pay for it
is not rational.
Estes:- On page one of your March 13t° letter you write the existing Olive Avenue
is 18' to 20' wide, which is less than the city standard of 28'. Then you
have referred us over to page four of your letter that says Houses Inc. will
widen Olive from Spring Street to Center Street to 20' of asphalt paving.
Which is it? It is my understanding that the.local street standard is 28'.
That is what you write on page one of your letter so over on page four you
say you are going to widen it to 20% wouldn't it still be sub -standard?
House: The old portion would be substandard from a normal street width parking.
The local street code says that a local street is considered two lanes with a
minimum of 10' width. You don't have to have, in order to meet the
traffic portion, you don't have to have 28'. The extra 8' is for parking is
my understanding.
Estes: Mr. Conklin, is Mr. House correct on page one of his letter where he says
the city standard is 28'9
Conklin: The city standard is 28'. It does allow for on street parking. If it is a 207
or 18' street and someone parks on the street now you have reduced it to
basically one lane. We have heard some concerns about that this evening.
House: If it means making this process go quicker we would consider widening it
to 28'.
Estes: That is the reason for my motion to return it to Subdivision. It seems to
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 27
me that there is some work that needs to be done on this issue. It seems to
me that one of the principal matters that needs to be discussed is the
underlying presumption that Olive Avenue is a local street.
Ostner: This is a question for Tim. At the beginning'of our meeting you eluded to
the fact that our current standards that are on the books that talk about a
28' street wouldn't allow most of our historic downtown to be built
because of different lot sizes and steep hills, etc. Is this the case that you
were talking about where things have been built historically but our rules
have changed so sometimes we have to back off of our minimums to allow
these old areas to stay in place?
Conklin: What I am
referring to is our current
street standards
for a
local
street is a
28' street
with sidewalks on both
sides. There
are
many
areas in
Fayetteville that do not meet those standards. My guess is that most of us
this evening when we leave this room will get on streets that do not meet a
local street standard. Many of our arterial streets do not meet the local
street. standards that we drive on. What I am referring to is that we have
many areas where if you looked at our street standards and you stated that
it is impossible to build that street, most of us this evening will be driving
on streets that do not meet those standards. Some of those standards or
issues are related to slope. There are some fairly steep streets in
Fayetteville that.would with today's standards need some type of waiver.
Should they have been built in the past? I guess that is up for debate. I
think sometimes it is necessary to have the connectivity to conned
neighborhoods together. and look at where we can waive some of those
standards and start building some neighborhoods that connect together.
That is kind of what I was referring to at the beginning of the meeting.
Ostner.. Thank you for that. My view on this is that if he is going to tiring Olive
up to not even the standard per say, in our book but standard to the
maximum that could..be built there. I believe these stakes in people's
yards and these strings, S would.guess people would say please don't do
that because it is probably way in your yard and trees would have to be cut
down. If a 20' wide street is safer and it is the most we can build in this
historic area I would be in favor of it and I wouldn't see that as a blockage
to the science as Mr. Estes has talked about.
Shackelford: Tim, along: the same lines I want to ask a: more specific question.
Condition of approval number one staff is recommending construction of
Center Street from Walnut to Olive with waivers from the minimum street
standards if necessary. Would you support, or is staff in support of Center
Street to be developed to.a 20' width? .Is that the type of waiver that you
were intending with that comment?
Conklin:.. Yes:.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 28
Shackelford: Do you see any difference in why_ if staff would support a 20' width
waiver for Center Street do you see any difference in Center Street and
what is proposed on Olive Street which is a 20' width?
Conklin: The main difference was the reduced right of way for Center Street. Olive
Street there is adequate right of way. The questionthat comes up is if we
are going to continue to develop these areas we are going to have to make
sure that we don't allow on street parking because it does reduce the
capacity. Especially if Olive Street is not connected through. You will
have a situation if people do park on the street as we heard this evening,
you are not going to be able to get cars past each other.
Shackelford: So would it be safe to say staff would support a 20' wide street with the
right covenants in place, whatever you want to say, to limit on street
parking?
Conklin: We would support it as long as we could make sure that cars can go two
ways in and out_
Shackelford: Thank you.
Bunch: We have looked at three different proposals on this street situation. One is
a cul-de-sac, one is the extension of Olive to approximately Center Street
right of way and the other is to do Olive and Center. Can we get a clear
reading of what street widths would be involved in those three options?
Tim, can you tell us what would be acceptable to the Planning Department
and to the city because we seem to be in a circular pattern here. Are we
looking at a historic local street so to speak? We changed at one time
from a regular collector to a historic collector to accommodate situations
in the downtown area. It looks like that is what we are kind of dancing
around here. Can you give us a little bit of insight that says if it is a cul-
de-sac it is 28' or 20' from this point to this point and then at some point if
it becomes wider where it would become wider. Give us a quick rundown
of the three different options because I think that is what our main goal
here is to come up with -an idea of which type of situation we want to look
at. Can you kind of give us a description of all three?
Conklin: Sure. With regard to Center Street we have a 30' right of way. We were
looking at what the possibilities would be to connect that street with a 20'
wide street. With regard to Olive Street that is not constructed right now
in front of the development we were looking at a 28' street which would
allow some additional on street parking if the connection is made. If you
do not make the connection you have the cul-de-sac and you have cars
parked in the cul-de-sac, you reduce the turning radius and could actually
make the cul-de-sac not function. If you have the connection there and
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 29
you do 28' in front of the development you will allow some additional on
street parking. It takes about 22' for a parallel parking space. With regard
to Olive Street, widening that to 20' does help meet that international
building code.
Bunch: What about the option if you use a hammer head type turn around?
Conklin: If you use a hammerhead turn around I think in this situation what we
have. seen if someone has a party or people over the. ability to have
additional cars parking on the street, I think if there is an opportunity and
the right of way is there then it would be preferable to do a 28' street since
we have seen in other areas on street parking which has reduced the
capacity below what is acceptable.
Bunch: Would that be'a 28' all the way from Spring or just a 28' from where it
goes by this project?
Conklin: In front of the project.
Bunch: So if Olive were extended all the way to the proximity. of Center it would
be 20' from Spring until you get to the,edge of this project and then 28'
from there to the extension?
Conklin: That is correct. It would be new street construction. It would not be
taking place in front of the existing development and it would provide the
opportunity for additional parking. Parking is one of those issues that has
come up over the last four or six months now since we have looked at this
project. Once again, do we have the ability to try to meet a local street
standard in front of this development. There is the potential that you could
have a party or something where people would need to park.
Bunch: So then if Olive Street: were not extended any further than to Center then
this letter that came out March 20tb would only exercise option A which
would be the 20 additional potential build out? If Olive were only built
adjacent to the property for the proposed site then that would only bring in
area A would I be correct in assuming that?
Conklin: If it inbuilt to. the Center Street right of way you potentially could have a
property owner or developer try to connect onto it. Just like this developer
proposed originally this evening. Once again, the issue is are we going to
continue to allow apartment complexes to provide the.minimal amount of
street frontage and build apartment complexes that access the one street or
are we going to look for actual street construction adjacent to the
developments? That is something that staff is concerned about. This area
is zoned R-2. We have seen several developments occur in this area. I
don't think development.is going to stop occurring in this area. It is a very
0 •
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 30
desirable area and if we extend Olive Street down I think that was one of
the issues that came up in Subdivision Committee. If you extend the street
it opens the area up for development. I am assuming that since it is zoned
R-2 that development is going to occur in the area and if you don't extend
the street we are going to be addressing the same issue six months from
now or a year from now.
Estes: Commissioner Bunch and Mr. Conklin have articulated much better than I
why this needs to go back to Subdivision. Maybe even Commissioner
Hoover will vote for my motion now.
Aviles: It sounds like there are a lot of issues before us and I really think the
Planning Commission needs to not guess at what is going to happen with
the impact of the development but we need to plan for it. That is why I
don't want to cost anybody any extra time but I also don't want to make a
mistake.
Ward: I just have a couple of comments I would like to make about it. First of
all, if this was just zoned R-1 there is a little over two acres of land there,
you -could put nine or ten houses on this property and we are talking about
the same amount of bedrooms. You are still talking about 36 to 40
bedrooms just like that. The impact would not be really much different
whether it was nine individual or ten individual lots or this 39 unit
dwelling. The other thing that we have had a lot of talk about lately
around the city is affordable housing: or coming up with housing that
would be affordable for more people. I really, with all of our new
ordinances and impact fees and all the cost of everything that is going on
construction wise, etc., building these type of units for sale as condos I
think. will be what will be our affordable housing in the future. I don't see
that affordable housing is going to come up with homes upon Mount
Sequoyah that will be affordable. I personally when I first saw the
concept I.thought it was a very unique looking plan as far as the buildings
and the way that the elevations looked. I am probably the only one here
that lives on Mount Sequoyah and I am not sure that I am really excited
about opening up more streets. Center Street, I know there are several
people against opening up Center Street. The design of the cul-de-sac
with a sidewalk being provided by the developer up to the top there and
doing the cul-de-sac to me was a better plan than trying to bring it in and
go across from Center to Olive. That is only my opinion. I would rather
have it that way personally. Those are some of my thoughts on it. The
density level of these units is not much greater, if any greater than if it was
just going to be single-family homes. I understand that these condos will
be more for condos and be:for sale and I think that is maybe a unique way
of providing housing that is affordable up on Mount Sequoyah. That is
really all I have to say. I don't care which way we go as far as putting the
street through or not putting the street through, l just always thought that
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 31
the cul-de-sac made a little more sense to me since I live up there.
Aviles: Is there anybody else?
Allen: I will comment that I feel like our definition of planners, the word in itself,
makes me feel like we need to look more carefully at this and the impact
of the whole undeveloped area by opening Center Street. I have a lot of
concerns about that. It seems kind of like it is a problem either way we go
but as a result of my concerns I will vote for the motion to table.
Aviles: Thanks Commissioner.
Ostnei: I have one more question for Tim. Are there other instances where we
have done things like this about a development has access or requires a
minimum amount of street construction to provide access on its backside
or a secondary ingress and egress as an opportunity on the Master Street
Plan? Have we required either construction or partial funds or cost share?
Have we done things like this?
Conklin: Yes. These projects have been larger. I pointed this out to Mr. House and
their engineer. Shiloh West apartments, a collector street was built paid
100% by the developer connecting over to Betty Jo. That project had
frontage on Shiloh. Another apartment complex had frontage along the
bypass with streets, Southern View Apartments required Stone Street to be
extended through the development. That required a street to be extended
to the north that was not on the Master Street Plan. The first one I
mentioned was on the Master Street Plan. Just recently we have had two
projects. They are. much larger scale than this project but the Planning
Commission did require those street connections within those
developments. This issue is continuing to come up as we look .at how we
develop Fayetteville and look at these annequated areas with these platted
subdivisions. These are never easy issues to resolve either.
Ostner: My reason for asking that is I foresee this going back to Subdivision and
we talk the same old things and we wind up right here in two weeks or
four weeks because Mr. House has chosen to pay the money to hire these
engineers to do the traffic studies. When we go back to Subdivision we
don't do that. We don't have the engineers or the capabilities to do that
but we have them and they have already done their part and given us their
recommendation that they think. Center Street should be connected, that
Olive should come up to standards and that that would suffice to meet our
requirements as a city and for this project. This is just a concept plat.
This is all going to happen almost again in the Large Scale Development:
That is what I foresee happening at Subdivision. We will all stand around
and ask them, because they are our professionals. Mr. House hires his. I
think it is a tough decision_ I.would like to see Centcr.connected. I think
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 32
as a city connectivity is important. As Ms. Allen said there are problems
either way. There are problems doing it, there are problems not doing it. 1
think it is a tough call but I am not in favor of tabling it or sending it back
to Subdivision. If we have to go that route as a Commission I think we
can work more.
Aviles: I don't want to cut anybody short but I do want to remind you that we still
have about 10 items to go on the agenda tonight so if you have anything to
say let's say it and get on with it.
Bunch: Concerning condition of approval one. Staff is recommending the
construction of Center Street from Walnut to Olive and Olive Street
adjacent to the site with waivers from the minimum street standards if
necessary. Who pays for this if the applicant does a rational nexus where
do the monies come from to complete it and when could it be completed?
Staff is making a recommendation on what is to be built, how would that
being built occur?
Conklin: Sure. If you agree with this methodology and you recommend a cost share
most likely this cost share would go to the street committee and the street
committee would hear a report from staff and then it would have to go to
city council for approval. This would all be subject to Council approval if
you approved it saying that if he only has to contribute money then the
street doesn't need to be constructed as part of this project or if it needs to
be constructed then the City Council would have to approve that cost
share. The most recent one I can think of, which is actually going to
Council in a couple of weeks is the connection for Crystal Springs over to
Deane Solomon Road. The city felt like that connection was important for
that neighborhood. That is kind of the process that you have to go
through. I am not sure what the City Council, how they would act on this
however, if the Commission thinks it is important as a part of this
development you can make a recommendation that this connection is
important and that you would like to see it happen.
Allen: I call for the question.
Aviles: Does anybody else have anything to say'?
Shackelford: A couple of points I want to make. First of all, we are talking about the
impact on surrounding undeveloped areas. Those areas are zoned R-2.
There is some use by right to those areas based on current zoning. I have
always struggled with this thought process that we basically penalize an
applicant on a development for fear of what might develop around him
based on the decision that we make on that property. I would ask that
Planning Commission come to some sort of consensus on conditions of
approval on what sort of street connectivity we want for this project and
Planning Commission
March .24, 2003
Page 33
go forward with it on that. The second point 1 want to make is after
looking at Mr. House's information, I was under the assumption that Olive
Street would be widened to a 20' width as part of their traffic study. I was
also under the assumption that that width and that recommendation was
acceptable by city staff. Based on that information I am still struggling
with where the flaw is in the logic of the traffic and impact data and what
improvements we are going to get out of kicking this thing back to
Subdivision. I don't see what the difference of information for us next
time is going to be next time when we hear this.
Aviles: Thanks Commissioner,
I[cover; This project is infill development which always a question because we
have existing conditions and existing right of way. We can't always build
it like we would a new subdivision so we have to look at the situation
around here. It.is a conceptual plat, which I think he brought to us to get
our judgment of what we think should happen here and the big issue at
hand is are we for connectivity and infill development and higher density.
I guess I would like to say that with a project like this, it is increasing the
density. There is R-2 zoning along this area and we are going to see more
of these developments come in I'm sure. and we are going to need to
connect them. On that same concept, I think it needs to be connected.
Aviles: Thanks Commissioner. Is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the
roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to send CCP 03-?? Failed by
a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Ostner, Ward, Church, Hoover,
Bunch, and Shackelford voting no:
Aviles: The motion fails for lack of majority. Do I have a replacement motion?
Shackelford: I would like to get more input on consensus of the Planning Commission.
Obviously Commissioner Hoover stated that she feels that connectivity is
important and would like to see the build out of Olive Street to connect the
property. 1 would like to see what the consensus is from the Planning
Commission in that area for any other recommendations other than
conditions of approval we have as presented.
Aviles: Commissioners? I have heard from Commissioners Hoover and
Shackelford.
Ostner: I think I might have already shared that I think connectivity is important.
In a way sometimes the glass is half empty and half full.. In a way it is a
penalty for having to develop this but in another way he is getting to
develop something that most people don't. He is getting to develop
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 34
something unique and downtown and it is different. One of those
drawbacks is there are two streets he might have to develop and not one.
Very few places have that. In fact, I can't think of one. A big place that
can be developed' with this much area that is this unique and this
downtown and has this many unique opportunities as Mr. Ward talked
about in selling these condos. I don't like piling on these costs at all. It is
incredibly expensive to build this extra road but I think it is important to
the town, to the other people who live around here. I think it is going to
take traffic away. I think it is going to alleviate the problem at Spring.
There will be another option, another way to get down the mountain.
There are very few options now and that is what connectivity is all about.
Shackelford: I am not speaking against connectivity at all. My main goal is to take
action on the proposal. Lets let the developer know what terms and
conditions the city must have in a project to approve the project that will
allow the developer to go back to see if it is economically feasible to
proceed, which I believe is the whole purpose of the concept plat that is
before us tonight. I just wanted to state that I am not arguing the specific
points of connectivity. I am just trying to get to what our consensus would
be so the developer can make his decisions on whether or not he is going
to proceed with this development -
Bunch: With condition one as it is stated, if hypothetically this Commission were
to accept condition one and pass this concept plat it would still have to go
before Council. It would still allow the time to resolve the issues that may
be questioned. The same amount of time possibly of going back to
Subdivision, the same amount of time in going forward. Those same
questions could be answered in that interim. What does the city want?
What does the City Council want on street width? The City Council is the
one that passes these. We are operating in their shadow. I feel that we
should make a recommendation to them.of what we feel is necessary and
then let them make that decision because that is their job.
Aviles: Thank you Commissioner.
Shackelford: That is what 1 meant Dawn.
Aviles: I will go ahead and say that this is my last meeting and as such, I am
hesitant to offer too strong of an opinion but I have always tried to look at
not only the developer's side but what is good for the city as a whole and
what the impact of development is for the city. For that reason, I would
say that if I were going to continue on the Planning Commission I would
be looking at the density of the development and its impact on Olive
Street. If it were less dense I think a cul-de-sac would be appropriate.
With it being more dense then I think the street should connect.
Planning Commission
March 24, 2003
Page 35
Shackelford: Madam Chair, how do you define less dense and more dense?
Aviles: I think.that there are lingering questions about the appropriateness of R-2
zoning in this area. I think that there are lots of things like that that are
certainly issues in the neighbor's minds. I know that the developer has a
piece of property that is zoned R-2 and wants to make the most of it but I
think that in terms of the realities and common sense of who is going to
park where that less dense equals a cul-de-sac with this specified number
of units then I guess I should say it probably should go ahead and connect.
Shackelford: Obviously if this was a rezoning we would be having a completely
different conversation but this property is already zoned R-2.
Allen: If we were to connect to Center Street are we talking about making Center
Street 20' or 28'9
Conklin: I think it would be difficult to make a 28' street with the
existing
right of
way so probably 20'.
Once again, the engineer did not
do any
detailed
engineering or design
awaiting the outcome.
MOTION:
Hoover. I believe that staff has done a very good job at analyzing this and
Subdivision also. The other thing staff has shown us that there is a
precedence for this. We have already asked other developers to'do streets
through equal density so I would like to make a motion that we approve
CPL 03-1.00.
Ostner: I will second.
Aviles: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Hoover and a second by
Commissioner Ostner. Is there additional discussion?
Shackelford: Just very briefly for the record. Condition number three we need to make
the sure the change has been made to show an existing 30 inch water line
easement instead of 30 foot.
Aviles: So noted. Renee, would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CPL 03-1.00 was
approved by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Estes and Aviles voting
no.
Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries.
Technical Plat Review
April 16, 2003
Page 2
LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was
submitted by Mandy Bunch of. EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses
Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of
Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains
approximately.2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms).
Edwards: Welcome to the Wednesday, April 16, 2003 meeting of the Technical Plat
Review Committee. The first item on our agenda is LSD 02-29.10
submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of Greg House for property located
between Olive and Fletcher south Spring. The property is zoned R-2 and
contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed. This
has already been through and there are some minor modifications just for
the utilities. It is pretty similar. Parks fees $15,377. With regard to
Planning comments, Planning.Commission will have to determine off site
improvements. They did determine that Center Street should be
constructed with a possible city cost share and with waivers from the
minimum street standards and that Olive would be made 20' wide in all
areas and 28' wide adjacent to this site. We are having a staff meeting
tomorrow. I know that we have talked about getting the right of way for
Center Street better determined. We are going to have a staff meeting
tomorrow to let you know about that. I am also requesting once we get
that we need a final cost estimate and a list of the specific waivers
requested. The Planning Commission will have to have those listed. We
need you to vacate the 15' utility easement. There is an easement required
on both sides of the 30" water line. I still don't see that on here, are we
just refusing to dedicate the easement?
Bunch: 1 don't think we are refusing. I think it could've just been a time glitch
and is my fault this time.
Edwards: Standard conditions are going to remain about height, setback, lighting not
encroaching. Any damage caused to Olive by construction traffic will
have to be repaired. I read the minutes and I didn't see that they made a
recommendation with the cost share for the requested sidewalk along
Olive. I didn't hearany sort of ruling on that so we are going to let that
stand.
Bunch: You are talking about past the site to Spring?
Edwards: If I remember, Greg had requested past the site to Spring when fie
requested the cost share, right?
Bunch: I think that
was something
that we discussed with
the neighbors but you
guys haven't
required that.
It never was addressed
and they pretty much
decided not
to do anything
to existing Olive. That
seemed to be the way
Technical Plat Review
April 16, 2003
Page 3
they were going that night if I remember correctly. As far as the Vacation
I have got everyone's comments back except for the city's so if I can ever
get that released we will get that submitted.
Edwards: Ok. That is all that I have. Revisions are due at 10:00 a.m. on April 23`d.
We will get with you about that easement being vacated and more
information for Center Street. Matt?
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey: Mandy, we have already talked about most of my comments yesterday.
We need the curb, gutter and storm drainage extended down Olive. We
have already talked about the easement and the 30" water line. The
retaining wall next to that water line is going to have to be setback off 5'
from that easement.
Bunch: I think I have got it. I think based on previous discussions with staff, I
think that was one of the waivers at least brought up and I think there is a
waiver requested not to put the curb on the opposite side of Olive. That is
my last understanding. I know we have gone several rounds with it since
we were adding the parking on our side and the curb and all of that stuff. I
will confirm that though.
Casey: Ok. Also we require a 6' sidewalk for multi -family so change that or add
that to the long list of requests to be waived. We have already talked
about the waiver for the grade on the street.
Edwards: From Fire, fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to
provide all weather driving capabilities. It looks to me like they are now
saying that Olive is not an all weather driving surface getting to this site. I
think that we can use Center because Olive is in poor, condition. I think
we can use Center to satisfy.
Bunch: I think he is talking about the existing Olive along our site. There it says
gravel, poor condition on existing. I guess I need to do a better job of
showing improvements.
Edwards: You can call him about his comments. Ok, utilities?
Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO
Newman: I think we have already talked about all of this. 1 don't know of any
relocation at this time, do you?
Technical Plat Review
April 16, 2003
Page 4
Bunch: No Sir. One thing that may come up, and I don't know who's poles there
are but it might be a good time to bring it up, there are poles headed west
on Center Street on the right of way and that right of way is only 30' and
we are looking at a 20' pavement width, and the city is going to get 'us
some server information but I don't know yet how that might be affected.
There are -several lines that -go up Fletcher I think There are poles through
that right of way.
Newman: It is three phase and conduction and all of that other stuff. Once we decide
.where we need to go I will make my statement. Relocation is at the
expense of the developer.
Bunch: Even if it is in the right of way? The city may be the developer in this
case. .
Newman: We will certainly look at it.
Bunch: I knew that was kind of out there but we have only got 30' of right of way
and it is pretty steep.
Newman: I will check that.
Bunch: There are a lot of details to work out on that I think.
Newman: Otherwise, that is all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: Mandy we talked about the conduit routing and everything so that is good
to go. The only question I have is on building six did they ever decide for
sure whether it would be the southeast comer or the southwest comer
would be where telephone and electric is going to go? I think gas is going
to go over here.
Clouser: That is building one.
Gibson: They have two locations. They have one that says proposed utility
entrance and then the conduit shows going over to the southwest comer.
Bunch: Ok.
Gibson: At one time they talked about going in the front and now they are over on
the west end.
Bunch: I will get that adjusted.
CI
•
Technical Plat Review
April 16, 2003
Page 5
Gibson: Other than that just give us a heads up on it.
Sue Clouser —Southwestern Bell
Clouser: .I have pretty much the same comments. Just to make sure, we need a pull
string in the conduits and if there is any relocation it will be at the
developer's expense.
Newman: Mandy, the lighting, are they going to be lights that we provide?
Bunch: I am pretty sure that they will be site specific lights but we haven't
approved them yet. What happens as far as information for the street that
we have? Revisions are due the 23rd, which is a week.
Edwards: I don't think that Subdivision wants to see this without that worked out.
Bunch: 1 know you hate to miss this.
Edwards: I do. I think if we are sending out our people, I don't think we are going
to have it done by the time you need that revision. I can let you know
after we meet today.
U
.I
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 14
LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by
Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property
located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned
R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units
proposed (48 bedrooms).
Bunch: The next item on our agenda is a Large Scale Development for Sequoyah Commons
submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses
Development for property located between Olive and Fletcher. Is the applicant
here? Dawn, do you have the staff report on this?
Warrick: Yes Sir. The proposal is to construct seven apartment buildings containing 39
units, one and two bedrooms town homes for a total of 48 bedrooms. Included in
the development -are proposed improvements to Olive Avenue, construction of a
connection to Walnut via Center Street and a construction of 56 parking spaces.
Surrounding land uses include primarily single-family homes and vacant property,
which is zoned both R-2 and 1-2 and also some duplex and single-family home
mixed uses. Water and sewer are available to this site. No right of way dedication
is required. There is currently adequate right of way along Olive and there is
existing 30' of right of way on Center Street. Adjoining is also 60' right of way for
Fletcher Street extension. Street improvements proposed included within the
development proposal is an extension of Olive Avenue to connect to Center Street
.west to Walnut. There is. anattached letter included in your packet that addresses
this. Access to the project would then be from the existing Olive Avenue and then
also up Center Street through the connection to the project at the end of Olive.
There are no adjoining Master Street Plan streets to this project. Tree preservation,
the existing site contains 100% canopy coverage. The applicant is proposing to
preserve 21.25%. The requirement in this zoning district is a 20% preservation so
mitigation in this case is not required. With regard to comments from the Solid
Waste and Recycling Division, they do support the applicant's proposal. They have
made one recommendation and that is to place a dumpster container on the
proposed site that is in a more convenient location to buildings one, two and six and
seven. That is not a requirement, that is a recommendation for better Solid Waste
service to the development. Staff is recommending that this project be forwarded to -
the full Planning Commission with several conditions. Those conditions include I)
Applicant shall improve Olive Street its full width adjacent to the proposed project
with curb and gutter on each side. Sidewalks are to be constructed on the east side
only in accordance with City standards. 2) Applicant shall provide a connection in
existing street ROW for Center Street between Olive and Walnut Streets to include
a 20' paved section. 3) Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot
existing utility easement, which runs north/ south through the property. 4) A utility
easement shall be granted a minimum of 10 feet on each side of all water and sewer
lines to provide for maintenance of the line. 5) All buildings will be required to
meet setbacks based on height. 6) Lighting shall be shielded and directed
downward, away from adjacent residential properties. The remaining items are
standard conditions of approval. One of which refers to the Parks fees
•
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 15
requirements. The Parks and Recreation Board did vote in this case to accept fees
in lieu of a land dedication in the amount of $15,327 for the 39 units. That is all we
have.
Bunch: Dawn, before we get a presentation from the applicant when this went. to the full
Planning Commission was that a conceptual?
Warrick: Yes.
Bunch: Can you give us a little history on that and also if the City Council has taken a look
at the road situation?
Warrick: I can address the concept plat that was taken to the Planning Commission March
24'h. With that the applicant was looking for Planning Commission
recommendation with regard to the street connection. Specifically Center Street,
the existing 30' right of way whether or not the Planning Commission was in
agreement with staffs recommendation to require that a connection be provided
within that existing right of way to provide connectivity from the end of Center
Street, which currently dead ends at Walnut up to Olive Street, which is where this
project is proposed to be located. At that meeting on March 24`h the Planning
Commission did recommend a referral back to Subdivision Committee with that
connection being included as a -part of this proposal. The design work for that was
required to be done and then brought back to the'Subdivision Committee.
Bunch: The other question had to do with a question at the time with whether or not it was a
cost share and rational nexus on road improvements.
Warrick: I am going to ask the applicant's representative to address that. This did go to the
street committee. Mandy, if you could talk about that?
Bunch, M.: i am Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks. We did kind of take a step back and look
at the traffic. One of the major concerns that was voiced by the Planning
Commissioners was that I don't see a local street anywhere around here. We were
approaching it from a new way and Greg has been open to this, one was improving
Olive to a residential street standards and us using those traffic numbers for
evaluation basis rather than the service volume design for the local street, which is
4,000 cars per day. Basically we are looking at two options as far as a proposal that
Ire is willing to consider at this point, which is taking it to full residential street
standards with a hammer head turn around to meet the new international fire code
or to do the connectivity, which is the main issue that we are discussing here. What
we did after the comments about the traffic numbers was actually the city had also
requested, the Planning office,. had also requested that we do our generation
numbers based on the number of units rather than the number of beds because that
came out a higher number and that was 259 compared to I believe it was 161
previously. Basically what we end up with is around 400 cars per day which is
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 16
within the realm of the residential street standard and then also the staff wanted to
consider Center Street if we constructed it with all the waivers requested as a
residential street as well. To make a long story short, and I know I have already
made it long, basically it is 43% of the traffic would be attributed to this
development. It would be a proposed 43% by Houses, Inc. and a requested 57% by
the city as opposed to the original 2% and 98%. Does that kind of bring us up to
speed?
Bunch: 1 guess it started again. At this time I will go ahead and finish with staff reports.
Engineering on sidewalks?
Casey: 1 just have a clarification on the findings in the staff report for water and sewer.
Sewer is available along Olive and water is available but it is a low pressure line at
this high of elevation and an extension will be required on up the hill to the high
pressure line going into the tank. The applicant is aware of that and it is shown on
their current plans.
Bunch: Ok, Parks?
Turner:. No additional comments.
Bunch: Landscaping?
Camagey:
No additional comments.
Bunch:
Ok, applicant do you wish to continue your presentation?
Bunch, M:
I will let Greg start. I am sure he has got other things to say, I was just hoping to
talk about those traffic numbers. I don't have that report. Can we just hit the
highlights of Center and Olive?
House:
From the last time we were here, we were asked by staff to amend our plat to show
the increased parking that we agreed to from the I think we had included standard
one space per bedroom. We have increased it by on site I think it is approximately
10 or 1 1 more spaces without increasing any bedrooms and also off site by 9 spaces
so I think the ratio is about 1.44 spaces per bedroom now. We also had to submit
some cross sections to show how we would construct, and estimates for the
construction of Center Street from Walnut to Olive would play out as part of our
overall cost for trying to come up with a rational nexus for the cost share. Those
are the only real major changes if I understand to our plat from what the
Subdivision Committee has seen before and with the concept plat. This kind of
flushed out what the Planning Commission approved as far as the concept plat in
our last Planning Commission meeting on this issue. Everything else remains the
same. I think from a tree preservation standpoint we haven't had any real major
affects or changes. The real issue was how . to deal with these off site
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 17
improvements. What we did, and I submitted a letter with this latest submittal, it is
in the packet dated May 6(n to the Planning Commission. We are trying to bring
this forward in a way where we can get a determination rather than piece mill it -
What we have suggested is looking at this in two different ways. One is improving
Olive from Spring to the end of our hammer head turn around basically as a dead
end street to full residential street standards so that it meets all the requirements of a
residential street_ That, we believe,, brings us completely within code for this
development. That would entail no cost sharing. The developer would pay for all
of those improvements and it meets the traffic requirements. We submitted a new
report from Ernie Peters, I didn't see it in this packet.
Warrick: I don't know if we got it in the packet, we did receive it_
House: He looks at it in two fashions as well and says if we treated it as a residential street,
even though on the Master Street Plan it is called a local street which means 4,000
cars per day, Mr. Estes brought up the fact that that just didn't seem reasonable so
we said we will look at it as a residential street. He addressed it that way in his
report. As an alternative, because the Planning staff has asked for this and the
neighbors have asked for this, the idea of connectivity to the downtown will
improve the whole hillside, I guess they.think. I don't necessarily agree with them
but we will do it if that is what everybody wants. That is to construct Olive, to
improve Olive in essence all the way from Spring to Walnut but with some waivers
on street width and I think it relates to something about grade issues and some of
the technical things that the Engineering staff has been working with Mandy on.
Again, Ernie Peters has said that this will work as well from a traffic standpoint. In
fact, I think -their estimate is, and this is with the Planning staff s approval as well if
I'm stating correctly, that approximately %z of the traffic will go out each way and
that reduces the traffic going north on Olive which is one of the neighbor's
concerns obviously that are presently on Olive. What we have said, and this is
pursuant to the ordinance, that we want to have a cost sharing to do these portions
of the street that don't have to relate to our property in our opinion and we are
proposing 43%. In our opinion that comes from the Planning staffs figures based
on number of units in relation to what can be built there that effects what can be
built on the portion that the new street would serve if I understand correctly.
Bunch, M:_ It is kind of the surrounding area. They look at all of the acreage and attributed
traffic to that.
House: While we had thought the number was considerably less we have agreed that we
would pay for 43% if the city decides to connect that badly for future development_
Warrick: I was just going to say that amount is consistent with staffs recommendation. We
have a memo dated April 18" that I neglected to get in your packet but the 43%
developer contribution is accurate according to the numbers that staff came up with
regard to traffic generation for this project and the increase from existing traffic in
I
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 18
this area. Planning Commission has already voted on the connection. The
requirement with the concept plat was for it to come back to the Subdivision
Committee and then to the Planning Commission connecting Olive and Center
down to Walnut. That is the option that the Planning Commission has already
considered. The cost share is something that would have to go forward to the City
Council. The Planning Commission nor staff has the authority to dedicate city
funds to cost share. The City Council would be looking for a Planning Commission
recommendation with regard to a cost share in this situation.
Bunch: I guess I misunderstood when we had our meeting previously when we approved
the concept plat. It seemed at that time that the general consensus that it would
have to go forward to the City Council for the cost sharing before we saw it again in
this process and that was also to offer the applicant an opportunity to know what
was happening before they invested anymore greatly in engineering and
architectural work. I am still confusedas to why we are hearing it and we haven't
had a determination on the cost sharing because that is the key to the whole thing is
whether or not the city wants to put any money up to connect those streets.
Warrick: To some degree it is a chicken and egg issue though because if there is no project
there is no reason for cost share consideration. The Planning Commission has to
approve a project.
Bunch, M: I can add a little to that hopefully. It was the opinion of the staff that we had to
address and fully identify and define all of the waivers that we are requesting prior
to that and have that agreed upon. l know that is why Greg has come up with the
option here is can we approve it with one or both of these options considered that
the City Council says no we aren't going to give you any money_ Would the
Planning Commission consider it if he improved it to residential street standards
similar to our first proposal but not with the cul-de-sac and theft. in this regard if the
City Council approved it. He is looking for approval of the project, which is what
Dawn is saying. We are trying to get the Planning Commission to say yes, this is a
good project, we want to move forward.
1. House: So we don't have to start all over again if they don't want to cost share.
Bunch, M: Again being the operative word here. That is why we went back and then we had to
submit more information to get back to see you guys again. That is why we are
here again.
... Bunch: . Excuse the interruption, do you have anything else in your presentation?
.House: No, I'm just available for questions.
Bunch, M: I don't think anything is any different than what I discussed with staff.
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 19
House: Otherwise, we agree with the recommendation provided we can work out the cost
share.
Bunch: At this time we will take public comment If you would please come up to the
podium and state your name, address,'and let us know who you are and give us the
benefit of your comments.
Chaddick: I -am Susan Chaddick. I live at the comer of Spring Street and Olive and I would
just like to be clear that the residence of Olive, what they really want is a
downsizing of the project. We feel if there was less density that we could go with
improved Olive and not ask for the second access by connecting Olive and Walnut
through Center. If we proceed with the.density as is then we will have to urge you
to support the connectivity. I would just like to say publicly to Greg that the
density continues to be our concern. My personal concern is the parking issue. I
just fail to believe that that is adequate parking. You are not going to have people
living in that facility at what I understand the rental rate, lease rate, is going to be.
There will be people not doing shift work so that you have some changing in
parking. I dunk the folks that live there will all essentially be coming in in the
evening and there is just essentially not going to be enough parking. I don't have
any kind of data or statistics to prove that, I can only say that having lived there.
We are single residence now and when anyone has an event on our street the
parking is on both sides of the street. That is a huge concern of mine. I realize that
the proposal meets ordinance but I am also seeing developers trend toward allowing
more parking and 1 would simply urge again and again that Houses Development
consider additional on site parking. Thank you.
Bunch: Thank you. Is there any additional public comment?
Bryant: My name is Lois Bryant, I own the property on the corner of,Center and Walnut.
My dad owns the house that is sitting right smack in the middle of your extension of
Center Street My question is this. From the markers that are there now you are
about to take off a good 15' of his front yard, that includes rock walls, that would
include a hundred year magnolia tree that has been there as long as I've been alive.
Who is going to replace all of this if you open up Center Street? If you are opening
up Center Street why just open it up to Walnut? You may as well just go all the
way down: If you come to Walnut I would say in less than five years we are going
to be right back at this again and someone is going to want to be opening it up from
Fletcher down and the rest of Center.
Bunch: The applicant will respond to your comments at the end of the public comment
period. I am sorry, we are not going to have an interchange. If you have any other
comments if you would give them at this time because we don't want to have
people coming back several times to the podium.
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 20
Bryant: That currently is our main concern. We see it coming but the thing is the house that
is there now has been there well over 60 years. Most of the property, the rock walls,
the rock walkways, everything has been there for years and years and years and
years. If it has to be it has to be but who is going to absorb fixing our property?
Are we going to have to move dad's house back in order for us to have the city's
setback requirements because if you take off pretty close to 15' he has got about 5'
left. 1 realize that is only one home there and all -the rest of the property is vacant
lots but even with the vacant lots if those people ever decide to do anything with
them it is pretty much land locked in.
Bunch: Ok, thank you. Is there any other public comment?
Caulk: Bob Caulk, I am here speaking as a representative of the Mount Sequoyah South
Neighborhood Association. Most of the things I have had to say are already on the
record by earlier meetings and I am not going to repeat them because they have
been covered by the two previous speakers. I just want to add one thing. That is I
think it is a very, very bad precedent anytime you are going out and building a new
street that you consider building it not up to standards. I think that is a very bad
precedent to set anywhere. If you are in a situation where you have to build a street
not up to standards you should be looking at another way of doing the project.
Thank you.
Bunch: Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the
committee. Applicant, would you care to respond to some of the issues that have
been raised by the public?
Bunch, M: Regarding the parking, we started with about 50 stalls, 1 think we had maybe two
extra and that is why we have gone to this new site plan. As Greg suggested, I
think it is 1.34 parking stalls per bedroom: I think that is above what is typical
around right now. Right now with the topography and the tree preservation and the
utility easements we really don't have room.to do that on site. We will continue to
endeavor to get more parking if possible but right now we have a defined area that
we can work in within our greenspace restraints with our tree preservation and we
have got to make it work within those confines. We are already constructing
retaining walls that are upwards to 10' tall to maintain the trees and to
accommodate the parking. I don't know that we can do anything additional in that
regard. I think we've made a lot of effort imthat direction. Regarding Ms. Bryant's
comments that is one thing that as soon as we started talking about Center Street
popped up, the house is probably located around 5' off the right of way. I don't
know how I'm figuring, especially since this will be a joint venture with the city,
that we will approach non -conforming uses or if something else became evident we
would have to talk with the Bryants later through detailed design to see what would
have to happen there. That 15' is something that has been their yard, as she said,
for years and years and years but it is the right of way of Center Street and it is only
30' wide. That is sort of going into Bob's concerns and suggestions. That is
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 21
another reason that we are trying to give the option is that there is only 30' to
construct Center, which is why we are calling for the 20'. The traffic engineer said
it is adequate to pass the traffic and it is reasonably the same cross section that is on
most of the.streets in Mount Sequoyah and probably less steep but we feel like it is
a safe enough issue to do that but there is no way to construct a full 28' width street
within 30' and the 24' street is not going to be able to be in there either. There is
just not enough room on one side or the other to squeeze in anything other than 20',
which is why with ongoing meetings with the staff came up with the 20' section. I .
don't know that I've got anything else to be able to address other than those issues.
They are issues to be contended with and that is wiry again we are looking at the
two options here. If Center Street is not the way to go then we would like to get
Olive to the way that it is supposed to be and move forward with that.
House: I will just add that we can build Olive completely to the :street standards for
residential streets, as Bob Caulk suggested. Which, again, our parking study shows
even when you treat it as a residential street, much less a local street, meets the
requirements as far as the added load we are providing is still within the parameters
for a residential street. Back to parking, the 1.34 doesn't even consider the off site
parking that we are creating as well for overflow for visitors and so forth. The code
only requires one space per bedroom and we are doing almost one and a half.
Bunch: Concerning the issue of retaining walls on Ms. Bryant's yard or her father's yard.
Bunch, M: That is another thing that has come up. That is why we have kind of gone around.
Leading up to your original question, why are we here because we weren't going to
do more detailed design and spend more money in that way until we decide where
we are going to go. What we have done is the city has staked the right of way and
we have used all existing data to look at the topography of Center Street to see how
we•can construct it short of doing cross sections every 50' and doing a detailed
survey. Once we get the go on whether the project will proceed or not that is how
we will proceed with designing the roads. We will have a detailed survey don't and
then all of these items will come up and at that point we will have to discuss them
with Engineering. That is the standard process for that. Again, it is a really
unfortunate situation with the Bryant's property because it has been there for years
and years and the house is 5' off the right of way.. It is something that would not be
approved now or for years. That is a tight spot and that is one of the reasons that
we are looking at other ways to do it and have been the entire time.
Bunch: Since basically we are in the chicken and the egg situation saying we can't decide
this until we get this or this or that. What would you be proposing as far as if
Center Street were to go through, how would the situation at the Bryant residence
be addressed as far as trees, landscaping, retaining walls, and such. At who's
expense and what form would they take and at who's expense?
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 22
Bunch, M: Generally how that would progress would be the need for modifications to the
Property, any property that is going to be adjacent to that. It would need to be put
back in the same shape as found: The tree, it would be my best educated guess that
that is in the right of way and so that can be removed. It is actually the city's tree.
The wall, if it is still necessary to be setback would have to be constructed on their
property so that the slopes were protected and maintained. It would have to be put
back into a safe, reasonable condition and that would all be part of the cost to
improve that road. It would fall under that ratio.
Bunch: The same thing with any improvements along Olive should they go to the north of
the limits of this for any improvements that were made on Olive between this
development and Spring Street?
Bunch, M: Yes Sir, I'm sure the neighbors will make sure we do that. It is going to be kind of
tight. They have been accustomed to -having a very narrow road for quite some
time and we will have to bring that up to the fiill 20'.in all of the sections. We are
going to try to minimize the work there and then look at an overlay after
construction has been done to improve the situation of surface of Olive. There is
not a huge amount of work going along there. If it were to be brought up to
residential standards there will probably have to be some intermittent patching and
replacing of deficient materials and then an overlay and then curb and gutter as well
as a sidewalk added. That would be in option one with the residential
improvements. That would be the case that everything would have to be put back
in as good as condition as it were before. There is actually 60' of right of way
available on Olive but again, they have become accustomed to quite a narrow street
so it will be a change to them as well..
Ostner: It sounds like that same right of way comes really close to the houses potentially on
paper-
House: Even to design it as a residential street wouldn't need anywhere near the whole
right of way so it wouldn't impact the beautiful trees that are on Olive. We would
only be adding about 4' ifwe went 2' on each side if it was brought up to
residential street standards.
Bunch, M: It would be really close to just adding a curb and gutter on each side. It wouldn't
go way into their yards.
Bunch: Condition five on the conditions, all
buildings :will
be required to meet setbacks .
based on height,
has that already been
shown on the
drawings or are we looking at
another potential
change in the layout?
Bunch, M: It is a matter of shifting, this building number five 3' further into the property. It is
not a huge change at all. It is just a matter of taking this building in. They are a
work in progress. They are buildings with a lot of interest and really nice looking
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 23
things that are multi -level so we were trying, the architects are working with the
staff to define exactly where the height of the building would be measured and that
has happened and it needs to be incorporated on this site plan. It is a matter of 3'
back from the setback line so it is not a problem.
Bunch: Item four for the utility easements, does that have to do with they are not showing
any utility easements on the east side of Olive right of way? In fact, they don't
even really show the right of way on the west side of the project where it borders
Olive, is that what the note refers to?
Bunch, M: This is the right of way. It is so wide that it looks like it is not shown. There is a
30" line that has been a source of question because there is no existing easement
and they have requested that a 10' easement be granted on that side of it. Also,
with the additional comment about the water line having to be taken up the hill
now. Basically what that amounts to, we had a meeting Tuesday afternoon to look
at these little issues. We have got another 5' easement to dedicate so it is basically
going to take it to the setback line. It is not a problem. It has already been
considered in the tree preservation calculations because we weren't going to be able
to use that for that area.
Bunch: Plus you have the vacation of the existing easement from the old plat.
Bunch, M: Yes Sir and we ate waiting on one form to get that submitted properly through the
process from the Water and Sewer Department.
Bunch: I guess I wasn't understanding that since it is within the right of way then it doesn't
have to be delineated as an easement on this.
Bunch, M: No Sir.
Bunch: Commissioners, do you have any additional questions or comments?
Casey: Can I address the cost share issue?
Bunch: Yes, please.
Casey: What we have seen in the past with the off site improvements the Planning
Commission can approve the project with the condition that the off site
improvements be constructed. In this case it would be Center Street. At that time
the applicant can go to the City Council with a cost share proposal and the three
options available if the city does not have the funds at the time or does not wish to
participate then they can either not do the. project or wait until the city does have the
funds or the developer can do it at their own expense. Those are the options
available. -
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 24
Bunch: Thanks Matt. Did we get staff comments on the whole project?
Ostner: I think we did. I have a question. I just want to be clear. Your letter addresses it,
but on condition number one applicant shall improve Olive its full width adjacent to
the proposed project. To what width?,
House: I was just asking Mandy that when we sat down. My understanding is that it is 28'
of pavement plus curb and gutter.
Bunch, M: It is 28' back to back. It is pretty much 20'. What we were proposing was no curb
on the west side and staff has said that we have to put a curb on there and I think
Greg has agreed to that. That is the only difference between staff's condition
number one and what we proposed in the letter was the curb on the west side.
Ostner. I understand. I was misreading it, condition number one is only adjacent to this
project, not off street.
Bunch, M:
Yes. Interestingly enough,
that
makes it a
local street even though we are
considering it as a residential
street
for traffic.
Warrick: We are also looking at on street parking also so the width will accommodate some
of that.
Bunch, M: Right. It is a little skewed there.
Bunch: Matt, in the past when we have forwarded projects that were questionable as you
just described on the cost share did the staff and/or applicant provide the numbers
for street improvements?
Casey: We would look to the applicant's engineer for providing cost estimates. If you are
talking about the percentages that is something that. we work out together, like we
have done here on this one with the 47.
Bunch: You use the numbers generated by the applicant as far as overall cost of the project?
Casey: Yes.
House: I think we came up with ball park around $50,000 total for this section. Not the
whole thing but the part we are asking for the -cost share on. Our portion would be
approximately 22,000 and the city would be 27,000 or something like that. We are
not talking huge sums here.
Bunch, M: We have got that and I can incorporate in a letter for the package you guys get at
Planning Commission.
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 25
Bunch: I am trying to get as complete of a package as we can if this does get forwarded to
the full Planning Commission so we won't have to ask these questions a second
time.
Bunch, M: It has been done. They are complete_
Bunch: Can you describe the limits of that construction, is it from where to where?
House: My understanding is it is from the intersection of the unimproved portion of Olive
and Center, present unimproved portion, which is the southern most part of our
project, the southwestern portion, going west down to Walnut.
Ostner: That way.
Bunch: So basically starting in the curve from there down?
House: Yes. I believe Matt has seen these numbers.
Casey: I thought they were a lot higher than that.
House: The first time they were but after you guys got together and talked about the cross
section and so forth and the waivers and what was necessary.
Bunch, M: He has seen a couple of reiterations but I don't think he has seen the final one. I
will get those to him.
Casey: I thought the city's portion was going to be about $50,000.
Ostner: The original price tag I remember started at $100,000 on March 24`h when we
reviewed this last time.
House: I believe we have been able to do some more work out there as far as taking some
topographical shots to determine the slope. The numbers have come down
considerably.
Bunch: As part of this project are there any improvements to Olive Street or sidewalks
other than just adjacent to the project?
Bunch, M: Just the bringing up the rest of itto a full 20' from Spring to the project beginning.
House: That is if you take option two.
Bunch: I I am getting lost again.
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 26
House: If you take staffs recommendation, ycs, there is. Olive is just 20' from Spring to
where it first comes to our property. From our property to Center Street it is the full
width, 28' with curb and gutter on both sides, and then a portion of Center Street
down to Walnut is again back to 20' with no sidewalk or curb and gutter. That is
the type of street that is all over Mount Sequoyah right now. Again, I will just
reiterate, this is Tim Conklin's idea. He is the one thatsuggestedwe approach it
this way. We have not been that in favor of it. We were much more in favor of
going with our option number one. We think it is simpler, easier for everybody to
get their hands around but we will do .the connectivity with the waivers if that is
what the Planning staff wants and the Commission and so forth.
Church: I think we talked about this at length at Planning Commission. From my memory,
we had to go with option number two. That is what the Planning Commission was
recommending. I think after the discussions that the Planning Commission had
they were leaning towards going with .that option too. I don't think anything has
changed that drastically with the information that you are bringing to us now. I am
kind of confused about where we go from here too.
Bunch: I think that one of the previous options if I'm not mistaken, was to run Olive to the
Center Street right of way and stop. That was the hammer head approach.
IIouse: I think it is close to the edge of that anyway.
Bunch: In that general vicinity. Is there a limitation to how many units you can have on a
cul-de-sac?
Warrick: There is a maximum distance requirement required on a cul-de-sac. The issue, I
think Commissioner Church has appropriately addressed it, staff will consistently
recommend, we have recommended. from the beginning, or at, least from the last
Planning Commission, that we have a connectivity between through Center Street
between Walnut and Olive. That is what the Planning Commission voted to see in
this project on March 24, 2003:: The. Planning Commission voted to connect this
project, by way of the Center Street right of way. It was determined that at that
point we would bring the project back to the Subdivision Committee with that
connection. That is why we are here. Staff is not going to change our
recommendation that it connect and I would hope that the Planning Commission not
change their vote with regard to requiring that connection. The applicant is within
his right to request that there be options and I think that is what he has provided to
you in his letter. For us to go. back and redesign the connection that has already
been voted in favor of, 1 am very hesitant to take that path.
Bunch: I agree. Basically what I was trying to get here was to expand on the option or the
direction that was chosen of taking the Center Street access but to make sure that in
the process since this has been an on going thing and moving around quite dynamic
that any improvements to Olive north of the project were also included. At one
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 27
time we had spoken of sidewalks all the way to Spring Street and that sort of thing.
I didn't see them in this report and 1 was just wondering why, where they went and
if that got lost in one of the other options.
Warrick: The recommendation if the connection is made according to the Planning
Commission vote and staffs recommendation, to connect Olive to Walnut Street by
Center Street right of way would be to improve the existing Olive Street where it is
currently built out to Spring only to bring it up to a 20' section in all portions.
There would not be an expectation that it be built with curb and gutter on either side
to a full standard street section. I think that is what is reflected.
Bunch: The same
with sidewalk from this
project north to Spring Street?
I. just wanted to
make that
clear because it has been
discussed in the past.
Warrick: That is not part of the recommendation that you are looking at now. The sidewalk
requirement would be adjacent to this project only.
House: I might mention, and Tim is not here, but I did discuss my letter with Tim about
how to keep this project moving forward rather than going up and then something
happens like Matt talked about where the city says we don't have the money, go
start over. Tim thought this was a good idea to approach it this way. He is not here
to tell you that but that is what he told me. I don't know if he mentioned that to you
or not.
Warrick: No. I think it is appropriate to look at it as an option but I think it is important to
remember the actions that have already been taken on this particular project. The
Planning Commission did vote to have that connection.
Bunch: In lieu of all of those options that we have had in the past I thjnk one of our goals
here needs to clearly define the path that is being proposed so that it doesn't get
clouded by all the different options that have been offered in the. past so that
everyone involved knows what the expectations are and knows the scope of the
project since there have been so many different offers made and different options to
clearly define what is in the table now.
Ostner: It would seem to me to include option number one as part of the history when it
comes to the full Planning Commission. That is how Mr. Alexander approached it
with we tried this, we thought through this, we wanted to do this, however. Then
option number two. I think that would work. I think the Commission would
understand that. That way if things had a big problem later on with the city cost
share it is all in the record. 1 don't want to make it more confusing. Include the
thought processes but take it off the table is what I'm trying to say. It seems to me
that Olive northward to Spring is kind of important. I like the fact that the parking
is from one bedroom per space to 1.3 spaces per bedroom. I think that is a
significant improvement but I think Olive over to Spring is important too. I would
E
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 28
like to see a sidewalk. I know it is narrow, I know it might involve a little more
cutting. I think the neighborhood is interested, I'm not sure because there is a loss
of front yard but I would like to put that on the table. I don't know how feasible
that is.'
Casey: Can I speak about the sidewalk? One thing that we need to keep in mind about the
sidewalks for the existing portion of Olive are the resident's driveways. They are
on a hill going uphill and down hill on each side and we start putting sidewalks in
there it is going to make their driveways worse. It is going to make them steeper.
and we run into that problem with his option number one as well. If we widen it
out and put curb and gutter without improving their entire driveway all the way to
their house it is going to get steeper. That is something that we need to consider.
Bunch: The transition from the street to the current driveways are pretty steep and if it goes
full width with curb, gutter and sidewalks then it would be a major expense for each
of the property owners. Either that or just not be able to get into their driveways in
most weather, not to mention snow and icy weather. Are there any other issues?
Do you think you can get all of this done in order to go to the full Planning
Commission?
Bunch, M: As far as plan changes, we can move the building and show the easement.
Warrick: I was going to say plan changes would include a building shift and some easement
locations.
Bunch: We are not looking at substantial rework of anything here, just basically some
minor definitions and delineations.
Bunch, M: A letter with those numbers.
Warrick: Compiling some additional information. A letter with cost share or cost estimate
information. Staff will pull some more information together as well to provide
more background to the full Planning Commission when it goes forward.
Bunch: Are there any other issues or motions on this item?
MOTION:
Ostner: I will make a motion we forward LSD 02-29.00 to the full Planning Commission
with the conditions listed.
Bunch: And with the additional requests for information?
Ostner: The cost share information, yes.
Church: 1 will second it.
Subdivision Committee
May 15, 2003
Page 29
Bunch: I will concur. Thank you.
Warrick: Mandy, we will need 30 copies of the plat and revised information by 10:00
Monday.
Bunch, M: Do you think we need all the sheets? I am definitely going to leave the profiles out.
Warrick: I think you could probably leave the profiles out and we will need the rest.
Bunch, M: Alright.
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 55
LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was
submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses
Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of
Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains
approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms).
Hoover: On to item number eight, LSD W-29.10 for Sequoyah Commons
submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks for the property at Olive
Avenue and Fletcher Avenue.
Warrick: This is a Large Scale Development for multi -family dwellings. The
property contains approximately 2.06 acres, 39 dwelling units are
proposed with 48 bedrooms. The property is located between Olive and
Fletcher south of Spring Street. The applicant proposes to construct seven
buildings as I said containing 39 dwelling units consisting of one and two
bedroom town homes for a total of 48 bedrooms. Included with the
development are proposed improvements to Olive Avenue and
construction of a connection to Walnut via Center Street. Also, the
construction of 56 parking spaces on site. Surrounding development and
land use, 'primarily single-family homes and duplexes with R-2 zoning to
the north and south. The subject property is zoned R-2 as well. To the
cast is R-I zoning and to the west is vacant zoned Industrial, I-2. The
applicant, as I mentioned is proposing 39 dwelling units on 2.06 acres.
The density is approximately 19.2 units per acre in the R-2 zoning district
24 units per acre are permitted. Water and sewer are available to the site
along Olive Avenue. No additional right of way for this project is
necessary. Olive currently contains more than the standard right of way
for this type of street: There is a 60' right of way existing. There is 30' of
right of way existing for Center Street and 60' for Fletcher. Olive Avenue
is proposed to be extended to Center Street along the west side of the
subject property. With that Center Street will be extended within existing
right of way to connect to Walnut. That would be to the east. The
applicant will also be widening portions of Olive Street, which are
currently narrower than 20' in width. Olive varies between 18' and 20'.
Access is proposed by Olive Avenue, which is currently as I mentioned,
between 18' and 20' in width. It is paved up approximately to the
development where there is a gravel section. The applicant will be
extending Olive Street the full width adjacent to the subject property. No
Master Street Plans are being affected by this particular development.
With regard to tree preservation the existing site is 100% covered in
canopy. The applicant- is proposing to preserve 21.25% which meets the
requirement of 20% in this zoning district. The original proposal by this
applicant went through the Large Scale review process was heard by staff
and at the Subdivision Committee level. Staff at that time, at the time that
it reached the Subdivision Committee, recommended the connection in the
Center Street right of way to connect Olive to Walnut. 'At the April 28ei
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 56
Planning Commission meeting the Commission reviewed a concept plat.
The reason that that was brought forward was in order to provide some
direction to the applicant with regard to street connections and off site
improvements that may be necessary. The Planning Commission on April
28' voted to require the extension of Center Street cast to Olive. There is
a typo in your report, that should read east instead of west. The
construction of Olive Avenue along the entire western boundary of this
project. The applicant is requesting that the city participate in a cost share
for the construction of Center Street from the centerline of Olive to
Walnut Street. There is a letter attached that addresses that issue. At the
May 15'h Subdivision Committee meeting the Committee forwarded the
Large Scale to the full Planning Commission subject to staff comments.
We have had significant public comment on this particular project to
include issues of density, traffic, parking, street improvements, sidewalks.
You were provided one. additional comment from a neighbor this evening.
We also included minutes from the previous Planning Commission
meeting with this information for you. Staff is recommending approval of
this Large Scale Development with several conditions and one additional
condition that is not listed in your staff report that I need to add is the
improvement of Olive to a 20' width north of the development to Spring
Street. As I mentioned that is to make it a uniform 20' where in certain
situations it is not quite wide enough right now to meet that 20' minimum.
Conditions that staff is recommending include 1) Applicant shall improve
Olive Street its full width adjacent to the proposed project with curb and
gutter on each side. Sidewalks are to be constructed on the east side only
in accordance with City standards.. 2) Applicant shall provide a
connection within existing street ROW for Center Street between Olive
and Walnut Streets to include a 20' paved section. 3) Approval shall be
subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which runs
north/ south through the property. 4) A utility easement shall be granted a
minimum of 10 feet on each side of all water and sewer lines to provide
for maintenance- of the line. 5) All buildings will be required to meet
setbacks based on height. 6) Lighting shall be shielded and directed
downward, away: from adjacent residential properties.. There is a park fee
in lieu of land dedication for this particular project in the amount of
$15,327 which is $393 per unit for the 39 units proposed. Other
conditions are listed in your report and are standard conditions for all
Large Scale Developments. Just kind of in reference to the previous
project and other Large Scales that we have seen. The question generally
comes up as to what issues you as a Planning Commission have the ability
to address for a Large Scale Development, in particular a residential Large .
Scale Development Issues that you really can't address relate to density.
The density has to do 'with the zoning district that is applied to the project,
the uses that are.permitted within that district are allowed by right as long
as the development proposal meets the city's design and development
criteria. Design standards, as you pointed out with the last project, the city
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 57
does not have residential design standards. The uses, as I mentioned under
zoning, the uses that are permitted on a particular piece of property go
with the zoning that is applied to that property. Issues that you can and
should address would include connectivity, the Master Street Plan and
right of way dedications, one of the things that is required with a Large
Scale Development is that it comply with the Master Street Plan and that
any right of way necessary to meet the Master Street Plan standards is
dedicated with that. project. Grading and drainage, we talked a lot about
that in the last item and compliance with the city's grading and drainage
criteria is an issue that you are here to ensure. Utility extensions, any
applicant with a Large Scale Development is required to provide utilities
and to extend utilities to the project site. Parking, the number of parking
spaces, the configuration and cross access are things that you can look at.
Landscaping and screening where it is required by ordinance, tree
preservation, which is a specific ordinance requirement, and the park land
dedication or money in lieu ordinance requirements are things that the
Planning Commission has control over. With that, I will answer any
questions.
Hoover: Dawn; on page 8.1 it looks like there is a typo. When you have down here
the direction to the west the land use is vacant and it says I-2, is that
supposed to be R-2?
Warrick: I believe that is R-2, it is vacant. It is R-2.
Hoover: Thank your Would the applicant like to make a presentation now?
House: Yes. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am Greg House speaking for
the applicant, House's Development Company. I thought I would give
Mandy a bit of a break here. She is having to do double duty here this
evening_ Auer listening to Dawn's report I thought what i might begin
with is to state that we are in agreement with all of the conditions that
have been recommended by the Planning staff. However, in our
presentation in a letter that I mailed to you all on May 6'h and I brought up
an issue that I want to bring up again and that is we can approach this
application with options. The first option is ask for no variances or
waivers of any kind, meets the UDO standard, the International Fire Code,
and the Large Scale Development ordinance in its .entirety. That is to
allow us to construct Olive Street in front of our property and on out to
Spring as a residential street to meet the traffic load that our development
and the existing neighborhood would create. I point that out in paragraph
one, or item one, of that letter. I am bringing that up so that the Planning
Commission can see that there is a way to approve this project without
having to grant a single variance. However, as the Planning staff has
asked and has continually brought forth and as your Commission
recommended in our last meeting, the issue of connectivity has come up
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 58
and the Planning staff wants us to connect to Walnut. That we don't
object to however, we have submitted in our submittals that we think it is
only fair that we pay the rational nexus portion of that. I guess I
understand that that is actually part of your charge this evening to
recommend that or not. That comes from something I just received from
staff at about 1:30 this afternoon. That is pursuant to City Council
.Resolution 9496 city participation in street extension. costa In their report
that is continued on page 8.2 the top part of that page, that paragraph says
the city may participate in the construction of streets either adjacent to the
development or on a street leading to a development if the need leading to
such a development if the need for such improvement is not totally caused
by the development in question. City staff has told us, I don't see it in
writing here, that they agree that the burden that we create is only 43% of
the total burden that the new portion of Center Street would bear. The
next sentence of that ordinance goes on to say the appropriateness of any
such cost sharing between the owner and developer and the city shall be
determined by the Planning Commission based on city ordinances
governing the cost sharing of streets. That is new to me. This is a
constantly evolving process. I think that is something that Dawn may
have left out that you are charged with this evening is to discuss that,
especially in light of our last meeting.
Warrick: You have a memo on page 8.9.
House: The issues of drainage, the Master Street Plan, trees and green space and
the right amount of right of way, I believe we have covered all of those
and we have shown that we can meet all of those requirements and I will
let Mandy elaborate further on those in a minute. I do want to mention
that all of those requirements for approval of the development again can
be met by dead ending in essence Olive with a hammer head turn around.
I bring this up because what I am concerned about, and I heard this earlier
this evening with another gentleman that was before your Commission, is
that we take this on up to the City Council level, talk about cost sharing
and then for some reason it gets denied and I am back to the drawing
board again starting all over with the project. I just want to point out that
we have continually submitted this as a two part application and I think
that you may want to consider that so that all the issues can be brought
forward regarding our application. I am available for questions as you go
through the discussion. Thank you.
Hoover: Mandy, do you have anymore to add to that?
Bunch, M: Just very briefly. I just want to clarify some of the traffic issues. Based
on our previous Planning Commission meeting things were brought up
that streets did not appear to be at certain levels, etc. so I just want to kind
of nail that out there. Staff, we have had several meetings on that level
I
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 59
and what the numbers that you are looking at today basically even include,
previously we were talking about local streets and we were talking about
4,000 vehicles per day -And everybody was in agreement that the streets as
they exist and as they would be constructed with the waivers would not
accommodate 4,000 vehicles per day. All of the calculations have been
adjusted to look at Olive from Spring to the site frontage as a residential
street. Which, regarding option number one, Greg's discussing lends to a
total if you look at our entire traffic with the new generation numbers on a
per unit basis, 420 total cars on Olive; which is within the realm of 300 to
500 vehicles per day that is allotted or assigned to the design service
volume fora residential street in the Master Street Plan. Option number
two which we are discussing with connectivity, the same cost share
percentage has been calculated based on using Center as constructed with
20' in width asphalt with the waivers as a residential street and not as a
local street. Either option being addressed can meet the city requirements.
We have worked hard to address several issues with the property owners
that live adjacent to this property and I know everyone is still not happy
and I'm sure they want to talk about it. I want to stop and we are here for
questions if you guys need anything.
Hoover: Thank you.Mandy. Before we go to public comment Dawn; would you
just clarify the connectivity issue because I thought that that had already
been decided.
Warrick: The Planning Commission did vote on April 28`s to have a connection to
use the existing Center Street right of way to connect Olive to Walnut.
That is what you sent back to your developer with regard to your
determination on connectivity and requested that the Large Scale that
came forward show that connection. The developers brought that forward
and they do show that connection with this Large Scale Development.
However, they are still requesting that options be made available. Staff is
recommending the connection. We .have been recommending the
connection consistently since Subdivision Committee and we feel that it is
appropriate to make that connection in this particular location. The grade
of the Center Street right of way that we are considering is not excessive.
It can be traveled, it can be walked, it can be driven currently_ Utilizing
that area we feel is an appropriate way to connect this particular project
and to provide two means of access for the development as well as the
existing houses on Olive Street.
Hoover: Thank you. Now I would like to open it up to public comment. 1 just
want to remind you to keep your comments brief, to the point and
relevant. You might start out organizing what your issues are up front so
we can keep track easily.
Davison: Good evening, my name is Sharon Davison, I do live in Fayetteville. ,,
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 60
Actually I .lived at 48 Olive 25 years ago right to where this man is trying
to put in this development. I don't like being here, I'm missing my son's
baseball game. When I run out the door to try to catch the end of it I do
hope I don't hear that you all have made a bunch of excuses at the end and
approved this when I can give you and you have a lot of reasons why not
to approve it at this time. Number one is the very main reason that is
given by you. Might I say, who needs the extra hired help? I believe Ms.
Dawn did a wonderful pitch job for Mr. House and that in itself, shows my
concern. Again, staff
Hoover. Ms. Davison, I would appreciate you not attacking personal attacks, would
you just stick to the project?
Davison:. It was a pitch thank you. I know a pitch when I hear one.
Hoover: That is not necessary.
Davison: That is what our city staff is doing by continually approving things that are
not good for the citizens of the city and then they know that you will say
we believe you brought this to us. I believe that most people did hear that.
If you are familiar with this area and this situation you will know why I
feel this way. First of all let's get to the main issue of the R-2 zoning.
You have a reason tonight, and those of you that are new to the
Commission, I would like that you check with the Council record of the
past over year with this R-2 zoning problem, inappropriate R-2 zoning
smack dab in the middle of 1001/o tree. coverage. Have you seen those
trees? 100% coverage. He is going to take 4 out of 5 of those trees out. 1
hope you can see that little part. We don't even have to talk about the
yards that are given up, the people's drives, all of those things. Back to
inappropriate R-2 zoning. We have discussed this in depth with our
Council. We were promised by our Council a year ago to address this
issue but they have been too busy dealing with things than to really
address it. They did tell us. We have been told as a neighborhood and as
individuals that that is an inappropriate area for R-2 zoning. Slope, grade,
neighborhood, issues. It is supposed to be fixed so let's keep that in mind
when you come to the end of this night and approve for no other good
reason than his right because of R-2 zoning. That is very much in
question in this particular area so I ask you all to consider that. Ok, we
will run through a few things that are real legitimate reasons even
whatever your opinions of the development for this particular property, for
this particular project. Apartments, it is too dense. I also heard Ms.
Warrick say the neighborhood is primarily single-family homes with some
duplexes. His project will change the entire dynamics of the area. I live
there. I could've brought my slide off pictures that we had for the
wonderful intersection where Mr. Schmitt of Hometown Development
wanted to put his apartments because it does happen. When we talk about
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 61
road access think about winter. We are talking about almost 6 months of
the year that Spring Street is almost unusablv and Center Street is almost
unusable. Just consider that, he is only talking about half a year that his
project will be reached. You realize everyone will go down to Dickson,
everyone will go down to Lafayette. I would like you to see the comer of
Fletcher and Lafayette these days. Ok, so do we build the streets to make
it safer? We can't put as many parking spaces on a property because we
have to maximize our room density so we demand, and he makes demands
doesn't he. He is sure telling you about how much he is going to pay to
the penny of his part for. the street. Excuse me, what do we as citizens, tax
payers pay for our part !for his indulgence? :Thank you, he is not a man
trying to build himself whome for his family.. He is a man trying to make
money at other's expense. Our infrastructure is not here to meet his needs.
I would like to understand why we put in a sewer tax, we are all waiting, it
is all coming yet damn, we need a quarter.of a million dollars for a lift
station over there on Wedington. He talks about fire access. Excuse me,
may I ask city staff, are we still on a hiring freeze?
Hoover: Ms. Davison, will you please stay on one topic?
Davison: It. is, it is relative because he is bringing up. all these things that he is
meeting code. At this time we can't handle any of this. It is amazing. I
would like to know how much money, and Lthink people that are listening
to this when developer's say they are paying their share, their part, I think
people need to really look at the numbers and understand what their part is
and what you are expected to give up. So, you have the right to put these
projects off for a year. If everyone begs put him off this is why.
Everything about it is wrong. Trust me, you do have,, as our attorney has
told you tonight, you can disapprove this right now because I beg to differ
if staff says he will not create a dangerous traffic situation. ' Does his
buildings get built before the roads get built? 1. am not sure I understand
our order in a lot of this. So, here it is. You have a choice. He wants to
do this, you don't have to let him. Why.can we not let our infrastructure
catch up? Why can:we not check and see that this particular area your
City Council has said is inappropriate for R-2,zoning and that they will
address it? They said they would. Of course, where is it in writing? I
would like you to remember that it is 100% canopy lot. I would like you
to think about all the people that are going to have to give up space, yards,
etc. to make it.meet,requirements. We can always meet requirements.
Who is paying it on this end? - I am -sorry, it does get me upset and I try to
still be polite but I would like to ask you to consider when again, you have
the out here. You don't have to look at a group of upset neighborhoods,
people and say our hands are tied. I know your hands aren't tied. I hope
you discover that before you vote on this for this gentleman tonight
because you have every right to either deny it or delay it and you have
major reasons -to do that. One of them specifically is dangerous traffic
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 62
situations.
I have a child
in school there. The bus can't even come up the.
hill to us.
He has to go
down to the bus because of this
area in winter.
There are
not sidewalks.
You heard him, he is not going
to do one inch
more than
you make him.
Please help us do the right thing
tonight. I will
stop.
Hoover: Thank you Ms. Davison. Is there any other member of the audience that
would like to speak to this Large Scale Development?
Chadick: My name is Susan Chadick and I live at the corner of Olive and Spring
Street. I. just . have to say that I cannot embrace, this Large Scale
Development. It is too big a change to the tradition of the residential
neighborhood on the mountain. That tradition being single-family and
duplexes. What this kind of development will do is impact the mountain
and then there will be a chain reaction of changes and I am not so sure
those are going to be predominantly good changes so that concerns me.
All along you have heard me express concern about the parking issue. I
am just still convinced that it is ludicrous to have 48 bedrooms with 56 on
site parking when the rent for those bedrooms or those units are going to
be between 4700 and $900. I just feel they are going to be more than one
car per bedroom. Again, we have just got 56 on site parking places. We
can approach this with options. We have gone to Mr. House and asked for
a reduction in the number of units so that there could be more on site
parking and so that we would eliminate some of the traffic. I realize he
has done well in proposing a minimal in the density guidelines but I would
like to see less. Thank you.
Hoover: Thank you Ms. Chadick. Is there any other member of the audience?
Bryan: I am holly Bryan, 107 N. Olive. Again, I would like to go on record as
saying that I am totally against this Large Scale Development. I believe
that it is truly incompatible with the single-family homes in this area and
just as a side, several neighbors a year or so ago were seeking out the
option of how to downzone and we were told by City Planning to wait
until the hillside study was done, gather the data, and here we sit again
.waiting so that we can. In the family we have a large chunk that we want
down zoned. There are several issues that you can slop this or delay this.
Again, I have been pushing the safety and the traffic issues. The parking
on site 56 spaces on site, I don't feel that is reasonable. Please keep in
mind there will be no parking in the development itself in the lanes.
Those will all be fire lanes so only the spots that are marked parking will
be just 56 cars. There will be no parking on the street, in the cul-de-sac
that is also a fire lane. I believe that maybe Mr. House has allowed for 4 or
6 spaces on the street but then there is a good chance what has happened
in the 200 block of Olive with no parking on both sides. We could seek
that out so then there would be no on street parking. As far as the
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 63
dangerous traffic situation; I do believe last Thursday you all mentioned
how dangerous it can be when you came out and viewed the
developmental site. I happened to look out my window as you all were
departing from the development site and noticed that it was quite
challenging for you to get that 16 passenger van turned around in the
street. I think there were two or three people out directing the person
driving how to back out of the driveway to get out back onto Spring
Street. 1 don't see that by even widening Olive to 20' you are still, we are
in the same predicament with the dangerous traffic situation which will
also be compounded when you have a 20' wide Center Street. I realty, we
want to work and figure out a solution that will be acceptable to all of us.
With the cost share on Center Street, I believe precedence has been
already set with another Large Scale Development west of town where the
developer paid 100% of his street. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I
believe it was west of town, I don't know if it was a Lindsey property or
one out off, well, it is on the west of town. I stay down here downtown. I
know that developer did pay .100% so I think it is ludicrous for the cost
share that Mr. House proposes. 'thank you. .
Hoover: Thank -you. Is there any other member of the audience?
Bryant: My name is Lois Bryant, I live at the comer of Center and Walnut and I
will speak for your connectivity issue. As far as Center Street and that
being aright of way, there is no one in the City Administration that can
tell me ,when Center Street was built, when the right of way was
established, and if it was on private property when the street was built or
-what goes on with that. One thing too, in the winter we have a world of a
time trying to get the city just to come out and salt Center Street and
Spring Street so. we can get down the hill and get to work. The best we
ever.get out of them is "Well, that is kind of dangerous for us to bring our
trucks down there." Well, we -have to drive down it. My dad and I during
the winter months we salt and sand the comer of Center Street and Willow
so we can make that comer so when we are coming down the hill we don't
end up in the people down the street; in their yard. No consideration has
been given. to my dad about his property, none whatsoever. No one has
spoke with us. Your supposed -right of way that nobody is going to tell me
when it existed or when it started, yes, it sits right smack dab in the middle
of our property. You are generating a financial issue for us if the right of
way goes through then the next thing on the list is we will get a letter from
the city that tells us we don't have the standard setback which generates a
bill for us to move the house back. Why should we have to move our
house back for 50 spaces or enough cars to come down through for a
couple hundred cars? Why should we be generating at the rate housing
construction is now a $40,000 to $60,000 bill to convenience a few
people. Granted, this will convenience a few people because that would
give people who own those empty lots there access to their property by
0
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003 .
Page 64
way of someone else paying for it but that is a detriment to us. One other
thing that Lwill be to the point at because yes Center Street is only 191
,
21' to the curbs and sidewalks, one other thing that would ask that you
look at is according to our deed and title we own lot 18, according to the
deed Center Street sits on the outside of our property and our property
line. This deed was. set up, theoriginal purpose was for the previous
owner and this deed was done in 1936.
Estes:. Ms. Bryant, may I see your abstract and I will give it right back to you?
Thank you.
Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the audience? Seeing
none, I will bring 'it back to the Commission and the applicant. Mandy,
would you like to address some of those issues?
Bunch, M: The density issue I am sure that we will have further discussion about. I
am not sure quite how to address that other than what we have already
stated. The parking,. we have provided as many parking stalls as we
possibly can to meet all of the other city requirements. There are no other
opportunities on site, which is why the additional parking was placed
offsite on the street for visitors because of the concerns. The width of
Olive not being adequate to turn around is very evident and I think that is
something that the staff has considered with their recommendation to
extend Center. Street so that there is more than one way in and out for
emergency and other traffic to access all the properties there, not just the
one in question tonight Also, with Ms. Bryant, part of the problem with
Planning is a really good thing but part of the problem with planning is
sometimes things are brought into consideration that aren't taken to the"
end. We have not'had the opportunity and basically where we are tonight
is does the Planning Commission approve this project based' on all the
requirements and the conditions that have been placed on it at this point in
time. Once this is approved if it is maybe approved, we have to go into
the exploratory phase. We have to do all the deed research on the right of
way. We have to make sure that right of way is there. We have to look at
a detailed design of the street to make sure that things are not taken out
and things are not made into a situation worse than they were before.
Again, that is part of the problem with us having to plan this issue without
the details known at this point. We will have to address all of the adjacent
.property owner concerns when the street is constructed. I don't really
have any other thing to add to that. I think that there will be questions that
come out of your discussions.
Hoover: Thank you Mandy. I have a question for staff. Dawn, can you comment
on where the hillside study is or what the prediction is for that?
Warrick: I don't know if I can give you a time frame. I know that it has been
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 65
initiated. Some data bases have been created. Some of the neighbors did
do quite a bit of work to initiate a land use study for some of the target
areas that were.identified for the hillside review. This is stemming from a
resolution that the City Council passed asking staff and the Planning
Commission to review those properties within the city that are currently
zoned for multi -family development that have a slope of 15% or greater.
That is the subject that is being addressed. Our Long Range Planning
Division is looking. at that and we are having to work with existing
resources within the Planning Division as well as within our GIS Division
in order to get the appropriate mapping and database work put together in
order to bring something back to you. Unfortunately, I can't give you a
time frame but I can say that that is still an ongoing project.
Hoover: Then would you address
on the right
of way,
we are not asking them to
- move their house?
Warrick: I No.
Hoover: What are the consequences to the Bryant's property?
Warrick: The existing structure sits where it has forever and the existing right of
way.is where it has been since the subdivision was platted. The street was
never built. Therefore, it is right of way that exists as lines on paper. The
house is certainly within a 25' setback from that right of way line and my
assumption is that the house was built prior to 1970 when our current
regulations. went into affect requiring a 25' setback. That house is
considered to be an existing legal, non -conforming structure. It will
certainly remain as it is and can remain as it is and be repaired and
maintained in that location without any requirements being placed on it to
be removed or otherwise adjusted in any way. We treat it as An existing
nonconformity and the city would not go in and require that the structure
be relocated because the street was extended. In this situation the right of
way location is not changing and that doesn't change any of the existing
conditions except for the fact that there would be pavement within the
right of way and a street connection up to Olive.
Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners?
Bunch: Can we have Engineering or possibly the applicant give us an overview on
the proposed grades of Center Street and of Olive Street for the newly
constructed and how those grades compare to city standards?
Bunch, M: Basically Center Street can be constructed even at a slope less than 15%
based on the city's GIS information. If a city street has to go over 15% it
has to be concrete.. Currently on our plans on Olive we have a small
portion past the site driveway that is 20% and that is'something that we are
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 66
going to work to reduce but otherwise we will have to construct that in
conformance with city requirements based on my discussions with staff
after we submitted_ That would have to go to concrete unless we could
reduce that slope to 15% or less. Did that answer your question?
Bunch: This is for Planning staff. Is there any difference between the 100 block
and the 200 block of Olive as far as street width and allowed parking? I
know we have had various comments. There has been considerable
comment about the parking in the 200 block and also the 100 block and I
noticed that both of them at different times of the year have people
parking on the street. Is that allowed on a 20' street and is there any
difference between the 100 and 200 block as far as regulations are
concerned?
Warrick: My understanding is that the neighbors have worked with our
Transportation Division to limit or restrict parking on Olive north of
Spring Street in that block. I am not real familiar with the situations but
my understanding is that there are some no parking signs in that section of
Olive Street.
Bunch: Ok, what about the 100 block should this development be built would that
be a similar situation? Are we creating a different standard for one group
of people on one block and another standard for a group of people on a
block to the south?
Warrick:. I am sure if the same issue were addressed and there were apartments on
the block south of Spring Street our Transportation. Division could look at
that the same that they did the block north of Spring Street and determine
where it might be appropriate to place no parking signs based on the
traffic condition and safety concerns.
Bunch: Thank you.
Warrick: Without the development being in place I don't know that there is an
issue. The residents do park on the street. They seem to either stagger or
park on one side so that there is still a thru lane for traffic to pass.
Bunch: And for emergency vehicles?
Warrick: Yes.
Bunch: Ok.
Allen: I know that
these
buildings are town
homes, I wondered if any of them
would be for
sale?
E
E
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 67
House: Most likely, yes. It depends on how the numbers come out and whatever
we end up with costs and offsite improvements.
Allen: Based on the neighborhood compatibility and traffic concerns and safety
concerns that I have I suggest that this development be put on hold until
the hillside ordinance study is completed.
Hoover: That is an interesting discussion item.
Williams: That was your motion to table?
Hoover: That is a discussion item, that's not a motion yet, I'm assuming that's not
a motion yet is that correct?
Allen: No, that is just my opinion.
Estes: Dawn, the parking concerns me. How did we calculate the required
number of parking spaces that is the standard 48 and the 3 ADA with the
56?
Warrick: One space per bedroom is the requirement by ordinance.. ADA spaces are
required one every 25 spaces within a parking area and then bicycle racks
are required one per every 25 parking spaces.
Estes: Ok, thank you.
Hoover: Commissioner Estes, were you done? Is there any response to Nancy's
comments about perhaps waiting for the hillside ordinance?
Estes: I would like to hear our City Attorney's opine and comment.
Williams: When the issue was brought before the City Council there was in the
original resolution actual contained a moratorium on development while
the Planning Commission and the Planning staff looked at the possible
rezonings of R-2 land that was on 15% slopes and especially they were
looking at Mount Sequoyah because this was around about the time that
the other development on Fletcher Street had been before you turned down
and also before the City Council and was turned down there because of
traffic safety issues. The City Council decided not to grant a moratorium.
They removed the language from the resolution that would have had a
moratorium on development while this was being studied. They
intentionally did that from some comments from the City Council because
they did not want to stop particular development and at that point it was
known that Mr. House was looking at attempting to develop his property.
I think the City Council went on record basically as saying that they
wanted to have the hillside density studied but they did not want to stop
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 68
development at that point in time until the study was completed. Of
course that was quite a while ago and hopefully the study will be moving
forward. I know they have had one person in the Planning Department
that was doing this was Shelli Rushing and as you know she left to assume
another planning job in a sister city so I think that probably has slowed
down this process a little bit and now I think we are closer to getting back
up to full staff again. I don't know if we are even there yet.
Warrick: It is actually more a matter of the GIS Division being able to
accommodate our mapping needs. They are very overwhelmed with
mapping requirements from City Council and other divisions as well and
they are trying to get the information. We do need to get more staffing
placed on this project but it is one of those items that is in our work
program as a priority for this calendar year.
Williams: I would be a little bit reluctant to put all potential developments on hold,
all multi -family developments in 15% land on hold. The City Council
potentially could do that and probably could do that without incurring
substantial risks although there would be some risk for developers who are
saying well you're denying me my development and going after the City
for inverse condemnation. I think that would have to be a City Council
decision. I don't think the Planning Commission itself should try to make
such a decision. I think there would be some danger to the city if you
decided to try to do that unilaterally and just say well we are not going to
approve the development, we are going to put it on hold until the City
Council has acted. There is nothing to prove that the City Council is
going to take any action on rezoning. They are going to have a study done
and then they will look at the study and decide what they want to do.
They might decide to do nothing. We don't know what they are going to
do. Since we also can't give you a definite time period when that can be
done at this point in time we are in a little bit of a dangerous ground to
stop consideration of a Large Scale. Development that meets the other
requirements of the ordinance, if you would determine that this meets the,
requirements of the ordinance. Just to wait for a study when we don't
know when it is going to be done nor do we know what the results shall
be.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Williams: Are there any other questions about that
concern?
Vaught: I do have a question on the cost share agreement and this might be for the
City Attorney as well. It is my understanding that if we approve this here
it still has to go before the City Council for the cost share section. Does it
go for the whole thing or just the cost share portion of the ordinance?
Williams: My understanding, and corrcct me if I'm wrong Dawn, it's just the cost
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 69
share that you all can make a recommendation but the ultimate decision is
up to the City Council on whether or not they want to participate in that.
Is that the way you understand it?
Warrick: I agree. The development approval is in the hands of the Planning
Commission, or consideration is in the hands of the Planning Commission.
Any cost share, any allocation of city funds requires the City Council to
act on that. Typically, the process is that the project is forwarded to the
Street Committee of the City Council. They make a recommendation to
the full City Council with regard to entering into a cost share on a
particular project. The Planning Commission is asked to in this particular
case determine if it is appropriate that a cost share be considered. Again,
you don't have the ability, nor does staff have the ability -to allocate funds.
Estes: Dawn, one concern that.I had when we saw this in.an advisory capacity
and which we discussed was the determination of whether Olive is a local
street or a collector street, did we ever make that determination?
Warrick: We have treated Olive as a residential street because of the section and the
amount of traffic that, it carries. A residential street is designed to carry
between 300 and 500 vehicles per day and is typically a narrower street.
Estes: What is the city standard for a residential street?
Warrick: A residential
street is.
a 24' street
with curb and gutter,
storm drain,
sidewalks on
one side.
Olive doesn't
meet that requirement.
Estes: We're recommending, or staff is recommending, Center Street between
Olive and Walnut be a 20' street?
:Warrick: In this particular, situation we are trying to .work within existing
conditions. The right of way existing is 30', which is a narrow right of
way for a residential street a 40' right of way is really necessary in order
to meet the city's standards. Working within the existing conditions we're
trying to get the amount of street that is consistent with many of the
surrounding streets and that will provide a two way access to this
development. No it will not be a.standard street. It will meet the grade
requirements, it will meet the width necessary in order to provide access
for fire and emergency vehicles.
Estes: What are we recommending for. Olive?
Warrick: For Olive Street, which is in. a 60' right of way it has a width that varies
between 18'. and 20'. Our recommendation is that'the developer provide a
consistent 20' uniform street width from the.development north to Spring
Street.
PIanning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 70
Estes: Somewhere I got the notion that a standard residential street was 281
.
Warrick: A local street is 28'.
Estes: Ok, a local street is 28' and a residential street is 242. The reason that we
are recommending that Olive be 20' and that Center be 20' is because we
don't have the right of way, is that correct?
Warrick: On Olive Street the right of way does exist. If Olive Street north of this
development to Spring were widened out to either residential or local
street standards the steep driveways that currently access the structures on
Olive Street would be made more steep. I think that there would be more
of an issue in dealing with existing conditions and trying to work around
the infrastructure and improvements that people have made to that street.
Estes: _What troubles me is that we have a piece of property that is R-2, if we
follow the ordinance and if we look at the applicant's compliance with the
ordinance we fall into on that basis alone that the Large Scale
Development is appropriate. Yet, if we look at it in a practical pragmatic
sort of way it just doesn't seem like it is appropriate, it is just not
appropriate. That is the quandary that I have. If you make a list of each of
the ordinances and the applicant's compliance with each of the ordinances
you pretty much have to check off all but about maybe one or two of them
but then if you look pragmatically at what we're doing it sure isn't the best
place to put this project but that is whatwe are being asked to do.
Hoover: Are there any other comments?
Bunch: I have a question for legal staff. Could you elaborate a little bit on
creating a substandard street? I understand retrofitting Olive from the
development north to Spring Street that that is a preexisting condition and
basically any work that would be done there would be more of a
maintenance issue. What sort of legal issues are we looking at creating a
substandard street on Center?
Williams: I don't think that we are creating a dangerous legal position for ourselves.
It might be a policy issue that certainly the City Council should look at.
Why would we not follow our own street standards that we require other
developers to do. From a legal point of view you know we are protected
from our own negligence by sovereign immunity so I think at worst
someone could bring a cause and say that we were negligent in building a
street that is too narrow. Of course you look throughout this area of
Mount Sequoyah you will see lots of 20' and more narrow streets with no
sidewalk and no curb and gutter. Basically once you get up on the
mountain to Fletcher and Rogers, Oklahoma Way, Lighton Trail, that is
n
LJ
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 71
the way all of these streets are built and that is the way they were
developed in the past before we had street standards. It is not out of tune
with the regular neighborhood even though it does not match our current
street standards. Of course normally it is the city's policy that it is going
to follow all of the ordinances that it requires other people to follow when
it does developments.
Estes: Mr. Williams, I have a question regarding city resolution 9496. It is in our
materials at the bottom of page8.2 and the top of 8.3. In the third full
paragraph about half way down it says "The developer's share shall be
that cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the
development. In no event shall the developer be responsible for less than
the cost of a standard 31' local street." What does that mean? Plain
reading of that to me means that the developer is responsible for 100% of
the cost of the street until it goes to 31 plus something.
Williams: I think that refers to, and of course 31' used to be what a local street
standard was and that was reduced after this resolution was made. What
that means is when a collector on the Master Street Plan would go through
a developer's development and the city would determine that it needed to
go ahead and have a collector built, the developer's cost would have to be
the full cost for the 31' street and then the city would pick up at that point
the extra 5' cost to make it a 36' wide collector. I think that is what that is
referring to as opposed to this particular situation where this street is not
actually even abutting Mr. House's land.
Anthes: I guess I am a little concerned that someone with the city staff was
disingenuous with the neighborhood in telling them to wait for a hillside
study in order to take action. That was eluded to and I hope that is not
what happened. Also, when I first went to this site after knowing that this
Commission required' connectivity I approached a drive through from the
south part of Center and am very familiar with where Ms. Bryant's house
sits. It is concerning me that we're looking at taking that street down it
looks like it would go within 5' of the exterior wall of your home. That is
not necessarily the nicest thing to do to somebody; long term residents of
the neighborhood as I know you have been. My question of staff is if we
are requiring connectivity as part of this project, and 1 know Mr. House is
not being required to build the street west of Walnut Street, but assuming
that that connection would then happen as a result of this loop happening,
what provision is made within our design to alleviate the impact of
running a street within that close of an existing property? What happens?
Warrick: I am going to ask our engineer to address that.
Casey:
I'm not
sure
that
I can
fully answer
that.
We
will have to
look
at the
grades
and
the
cross
sections in
the
area
where there
have
been
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 72
improvements made. Lbelieve there is a stone wall that runs east and west
along the Bryant property and other landscaping and improvements. We
might refer to Mr. Williams to see what the responsibility of the city is if
improvements are made, private improvements are made within city right
of way. Is the city required to replace those? Would that be at our
expense or would that be something that the owner would have to take
care of?
Williams: I would think if it is within a city right of way it actually is city property
even if someone else has placed it there. Occasionally someonewill
inadvertently place something within the right of way and usually it is not
actually within the street itself and then often times we will see that we
will make an exception and reduce the amount of setback so that it will not
be within the right of way: If it was actually within the street area I don't
know what the city could do. That has been supposedly property
dedicated to the city and it is city property at that point in time until it
would be vacated. If it was vacated then it would go back to the abutting
property owners on both sides of what the dedicated street was. Until that
happens it is city property and a city.easement and a public easement to
use that property and if someone would build something across it, it would
be subject to be taken down 1 think with no compensation.
Anthes: I beg the indulgence of the applicant because I realize this is off your site.
I just have some questions about this procedure. I understand that Mr.
Estes was looking at your deed and that your home was built somewhere
around 1936 you were saying and we were saying that the street plats were
done in the 1970's, is that correct?
Warrick: No, current city. regulations with regard to setbacks and zoning were
adopted in 1970. This portion of the city I'm guessing that this>area of the
subdivision was created and adopted by She city in the 1920's, maybe the
early 1930's.
Anthes: Per her comments about that no one has been able to show the Bryant's
the exact right of way on a map, is that the case?
Warrick: I have not had an opportunity to speak with the Bryants. I will be glad to
sit down in the office and show our plat maps if that is necessary. I have
not had that opportunity, I have not been asked the question.
Hoover: Mandy, do you know the dimension from the right of way to their
structure approximately? I know we saw a marker out there when we
went on tour.
Bunch, M: From all accounts I have heard it is 5' to 10'. and just looking at it, it looks
like that too. It is close.
A
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 73
Ostner: Is that to the road bed or from the right of way? Five to ten feet from
house to curb or from house to right of way?
Bunch, M: I believe it is from the right of way. The right of way is 30', the street
would be 20' centered within that. The reason Matt answered you the way
he did is because of the grading in that area. It is kind of hard to say
where the limits of construction would actually fall.
Hoover: How much do you think that would be from the curb to the structure
about?
Bunch, M: Well it is 20' with no curbs so.probably 15'. It is hard to guess at this
point.
Bunch: Matt, is there a water line within this same area and would that create a
different offset to where it couldn't be centered because the City of
Fayetteville's water line, what part of Center Street does that line up with?
Casey: It generally runs along the north portion of the right of way. The roadway
can be constructed over that line.
Bunch: Ok, so the water line is not a reason to make the street not be centered on
the right.of way?
Casey: That is correct.
Hoover:. Are there other comments? Do we have a motion? Can I call for a motion
a second time? I will call for a motion a third time.
Williams:: Let.me advise the Planning Commission that there, must be a motion. If
you, I think your habit has been if there is not a motion it is denied. Then
you would be denying a Large Scale Development with no reasons given.
Please, you might want to deny it but give your reasons that you are
denying it: Do not just sit mute and. no .one say anything because I
guarantee you we lose if we deny this with no reasons given. Somebody
needs to make a motion yes or no.
Vaught: .I have a question for staff I guess. The idea of finishing out Center is
something you are recommending, would you recommend the project
without that connection?
Warrick: We brought this to the Planning Commission as a Concept Plat. The
Planning Commission voted to .connect. Staff is recommending the
connection. The city, has a policy of connectivity. We feel that it is
important to have street connections and not to provide additional dead-,
E
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 74
ends for conflicts in the future. Yes, staff is recommending the
connection. I believe that it is important to be consistent with the Concept
Plat that the Planning Commission heard in April recommending that
Center Street be connected.
Vaught:. I think I agree with Commissioner Estes again on the fact that you look at
this on density and so many issues that they are falling within the code.
There are a few things that are a little more objective in our standard. I
just don't know if we have the basis to turn it down. I guess that is what I
would like to hear.
Hoover. If we could get Mr. Williams to reiterate on what reasons can we turn
down a Large Scale Development like this?
Williams: If it is not meeting the requirements of our developmental ordinances,
whether or not they are agreeing to do the infrastructure as required by our
ordinances, whether it is creating or compounding a dangerous traffic
situation, whether .ithas adequate water and sewage access. I think those
are about the only things you can look at. If I could, let me answer
Commissioner Vaught's question about connectivity and what was done
before. There was a Concept Plat and it was asked of the Planning
Commission about whether or not they favored connectivity down to
Walnut Street. There are winners and losers in every decision you make.
Of course the losers if you said no would be the people who lived on Olive
Street who would then have all of this traffic run by their street. The
losers if you said yes would be the Bryants who would then have half of
this traffic run right by their house within 5' to 10' of their house. Keep in
mind that Olive right now is a dead end street. In fact, I think that it
would be extended to some extent but it already runs in this direction a bit
of the way. The Planning Commission in April voted for connectivity.
That wasn't a unanimous vote but I think there are only two people
descended from that particular vote. Just as the City Council is not
completely bound by what it did in passing the resolution, it is always the
most recent resolution that controls, you are not absolutely bound on that
decision. Nobody is, even if you voted for it. Even though there has been
a lot of work done by staff and by Mr. House and his engineer based upon
your decision that you made back on April 28d. The other option would
be to decide that the theory of connectivity that is supported in our 2020
Plan , as correctly stated by our Planning staff is not an absolute
requirement in' every case, especially when he doesn't awn the land down
to Walnut Street. All his land that he owns is east of Olive Street so you
are asking him to make a connection away from his property, not even
adjoining his property. That is just another thing to consider. You
considered it in April though, not all of you because not all of you were on
it. That was a hard decision then and it is still a hard decision now. That
is my only other comment on that. You are not absolutely bound on that
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 75
even though you made that decision just a month ago.
Vaught: I. have an additional question for staff. I noticed that there was a traffic
study in our material that was done by an outside engineer. Have you
guys done a traffic study and what is your take on the traffic situation I
guess, your recommendation?
Warrick: The traffic study was commissioned by the developer. It is included for
your review. That traffic study indicates that either of the two options that
the developer is considering, either a hammer head on Olive without the
connection or the connection would provide a reasonable traffic flow for
this development. I will let the developer's engineer address anything
additional.
Vaught: Is it staffs opinion that it does not create an excessively dangerous traffic
situation?
MOTION:
Allen: Based on lacking neighborhood compatibility and traffic concerns and
safety concerns I move for denial of LSD 02-29.10.
Hoover: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Allen, is there a second?
Estes: I voted
no when this was before us
before and I
hope my reasons are
stated in
the motion and based on that
I am going to
second the motion.
Hoover: Thank you. There is a second by Commissioner Estes. Is there anymore
discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny LSD 02-29.10 failed
by a vote of 2-0-6 with Commissioners Church, Ostner,`Vaught, Hoover,
Anthes, and Bunch.
Thomas: The motion fails two to six.
Hoover: Thank -you, so then do we need to do another motion?.
Williams: Yes. Nothing has been approved at this point.
Hoover: Thank you. Seeing that, do I have a motion?
Planning Commission
May 27, 2003
Page 76
I agree this is a complicated issue. I cannot find the reason to vote against
it though I have a lot of opinions. I believe with the case before us that the
developer has satisfied our requirements. I would like to make a motion
to approve LSD 02-29.10.
Subject to the conditions with the addition of number
improvement of Olive Street to a 20' width north to Spring?
Does that include your recommendation of the appropriateness of a cost
share to the City Council?
Is there a second?
Is there any more discussion?
A clarification. This is based on all of staffs recommendation so also the
connection within the existing street right of way for Center Street as part
of this motion?
Yes. That is number two. If anyone is interested, as was eluded to earlier,:
someone always loses. It is an unfortunate situation and I think we can
mitigate it as best we can by making the street as narrow as we can for it
to still safely operate.
Commissioner Vaught, did you include condition number two also?
Yes, based on staffs recommendation I think that that is the appropriate
thing to do. They have obviously studied it and looked at it.
Ok. Is there anymore discussion?
I will vote against the motion and I would like to explain my reasons why.
I voted no on the issue of connectivity because I was not in favor of
connectivity because of the hardship that results to existing land owners.
Without connectivity it is my opinion that the project then creates or
compounds a dangerous traffic situation and that is my reasoning for
voting no on this motion.
Planning Cotmnission
May 27, 2003
Page 77
Hoover: 'thank you. Are there any other comments?
Bunch: I will reluctantly support the motion. This is very similar to the preceding
item on our agenda. We have an unpopular issue but our rules and
regulations have failed to legislate good taste, which is not our job.
Requirements have been met and I feel that legally I feel that personally I
am bound to vote in favor of it because I have worked with this all the way
through and they have met the requirements and the problems with the
requirements so I will reluctantly support it.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none,
Renee, would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-29.10 was
approved by a vote of 6-0-2 with Commissioners Allen and Estes voting
no.
Thomas: The motion carries six to two.
Hoover. Thank you. Dawn,. is there any other business?
Warrick: No Ma'am, that is all.
Hoover: We are adjourned. Thank you.
Meeting Adjourned: 9:32 p.m.
FAYETTEALLE 0
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
City Clerk Division
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8323
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division �� Q
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman 1
City Clerk Division
Date: July 9, 2004
Re: Ordinance No. 4585
Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, July 9, 2004, approving VAC 04-
11.00 vacating and abandon a utility easement in Block Three and Four of the Harrison's Addition.
This ordinance will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilmed. If anything else is needed please
let the clerk's office know.
Attachment(s)
cc: John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering
Rat
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
do solemnly swear that I am
Leg Cler oft e A as De ocrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Time newspaper, hated and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication, that advertisement of:
Or(t pL(%� . R �-I was inserted in the regular editions on
PO# 0'4 - 3 18 k�o
** Publication Charge: $ _ 12 8-- l )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
tq t day of Su IIy 2004.
My Commission Expires: 013
** 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
IdLc>
w,/k` Atl")
r�a.an rtJ/
RECEIVED
JUL 2 0 2004
0 ICITY OFFAYETiEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
0
ORDINANCE NO. 4EE4
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 04-11.00 TO VACATE AND
ABANDON A 30' UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOTS 6, 7,
8, AND 91N BLOCK THREE AND LOTS 7, 8, AND 9 OF BLOCK
FOUR OF HARRISON'S ADDITION AS DEPICTED ON THE
ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NEREAE. the City Cwaoi hag the &AhOny UXor A.CA.'14-
54to vacate Publo WOMM a P0040 a thereof which ero rot reglre0 for owporate pwposee; enO
WHEREAEO the Gty CWI OI has mIOn7*ned that the IObwhg desaibed plaoW uiYty oasemeofe.m
not regwed for corporate puposns; and
WHEREAS, an easement shall be dedicated a minimum of 10' m each We of the existing 36' water
line that perellels Center Street
NOW's THEREFORE' EE ITORDAINED EY THE CITYR
COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF
FAYETTEIRLLE, ARKANSAS:
Se 1: That the Cily of Fayetteile, Arkansas in CarLtitlaalion for petitgner tledlrating a rrtity.
easaront of 10 feet en each side of an existi0g 36• water main pwaW to Cantor SbeeL fl&g Va w
ankle pl in genera downbod WAY easements. eb&tlwth
�fg el of IO V" togeer with the
2: That a copy of this Ordinance dub certllled by the City Clerk, slang Wth the map labeled
'B' attached thereto and made a pert herool, shell be filed in the office of the Recorder of the
enO recorded in Me Deed Recwde of the County.
PASSED AIM APPROVED ft 6th day of Jrry, 2004.
APPROVED:
By.
DAN CODDY, Mq
EXHIBIT 'A'
V
FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT UTILITYEASEMENTDESCRIBED AS RUNNING ALONG
IE EASTERN PROPERTY UNE OF LOTS 6, 7, 8 AND 9 OF BLOCK 3 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO
IE CITY OF FAYErrEVTLLE, ARKANSAS.
A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED AS RUNNING ALONG
THE WESTERN PROPERTY UNE OF LOTS 7, 8 AND 9 OF BLOCK 4 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS i
nl
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, l do solemnly swear that I am
Lega lerk of the sas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Time 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:
Or c1 N n . y5 8 q was inserted in the regular editions on
�Italou
PO# 011-318C.D
"' Publication Charge: $ IZ 8 •'4 9
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of T , 2004.
AQQ
ou
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: 074yaoi'r
" 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
RECEIVED
JUL 2 0 2004
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
r1
ORDINANCE NO. 4004
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 04.11.00 TO VACATE AND
ABANDON A 30' LMUTY EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOTS 6. 7,
B, AND 9IN BLOCK THREE AND LOTS 7.8. AND B OF BLOCK
FOUR OF HARRISON'S ADDITION AS DEPICTED ON THE
ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION [�fcL—'..�ry�_
INMEREAsr the ON Council has the authority under A.C.A.§14- f"/
of
54-104 to vocate public 9roun0s or polhrla thereof v4lich are not M red for cIXporeta papoaae: arc
WNEREA06 the Oty Courgl has peteminsd that the folo i g desork>ed platted u1Ety as sanenis are
rot MqL* d fa corporate purposes: and
WNEREAO, an eaeennent Shall be dedicated a nvntnum of 10' on each akfe of the existing 36- v
we that parallels Center Street.
NOW' THEREFOREI BE IT ORDAINED OY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ME OrlyFAYETTEWLLOL APKANOAO:
Sace0n 1: That the City of Fayetavlla, AMabeaS h cOnsconstab tar peatima dedicating a I
easement of 10 feet on MW side of an Boosting 36• waterman pasta to Center Street, hereby vac
and abandons the tolMvhg described utlItY easements, apandonl g all of its rgMa together vAt
rights of the public In genera:
Exhbt -A- attatlgd hereto and made a part b barn
2: That a copy of this ON'xvanca defy carolled by NB City Clerk, aong wth the nbao Y
'B' attached hereto and trade a pat hereof, SW be filed In the office of the Recorder
"recorded h the Deed Records of the County.
PAOOED mif APPROVED this 691 day of July, 20D4,
APPROVED:
EXHIBIT 'A'
VAC 04-11.00
A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT LITIIJTY EASEMENT OESCRIBED AS RUNNING ALONG
THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS S7.8 AND 9 OF BLOCK 3 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYEREVILLE, ARKANSAS. .
A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT WIDE PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED AS RUNNING ALONG
THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 7.8 AND 9 OF BLOCK 4 OF HARRISON'S ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
EXHIBIT'Bm may be viewed In the OfAce of the City.