HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-10 - Agendas - Final AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday,March 10,2003 at
5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,Room 219,
Fayetteville,Arkansas.
Roll Call
The following items will be considered:
Consent Agenda:
Approval of minutes from the March 3,2003 meeting
New Business:
1. VAC 03-3.00: Vacation (Mee,pp 214)was submitted by Seaside Pools, Inc. on behalf
of David & Sue Ellen Mee for property located at 3305 Southridge Drive. The property is
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request
is to vacate the most easterly 8' of a 20' utility easement located on the western lot line of
the property for the installation of an in ground pool.
2. PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard
Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for
property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots
proposed.
3. LSD 03-7.00: Large Scale Development(Marriott Courtyard, pp 174) was submitted
by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates,LLC on behalf of Mike Hoffinan & Curtis
Wegener of Fayetteville Hotel, LLC for property located east of Mall Avenue and north
of Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 3.30 acres with a 4 story, 113 room hotel proposed
4. CUP 03-6.00: Conditional Use(Tinsley's amusements,Inc. pp 135) was submitted by
Sandy George on behalf of Richard Tinsley for property owned by The Macerich
Company(Northwest Arkansas Mall)which is located at 4060 N. Mall Avenue. The
property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.10 acres.
The request is for the temporary use of this location for a carnival.
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other
pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning(575-8267), 127 West Mountain
Street,Fayetteville,Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for
hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required.For further information or to
request an interpreter,please call Hugh Earnest at 575-8330.
K.UGENDAIP0100313-10-03.DOC
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item- Chairman
B. Presentation of request-Applicant
-_ C. Public Comment
D. Response by Applicant/Questions &Answer with Commission
E. Action of Planning Commission(Discussion and vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item, raise your hand when the
Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission
members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be
permitted during this part of the hearing for each item.
Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your
name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. He
will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please
keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that
everyone has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy,refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the
Planning Commission.
2002 Planning Commissioners:
Lorel Aviles- Chairman
Bob Estes-Vice Chairman
Lee Ward- Secretary
Nancy Allen
Don Bunch
Sharon Hoover
Alice Church
Loren Shackelford
Alan Ostner
VAC 03-03.00
Page 1
PC Meeting of March 10,2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin,City Planner,A.I.C.P.
FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: March 6,2003
Project: VAC 03-3.00: Vacation (Mee),pp 214) was submitted by Seaside Pools,Inc. on
behalf of David and Sue Ellen Mee for property located at 3305 South Ridge Drive (lot 2
Hemingway Ridge Subdivision). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The
request is to vacate an 8' wide portion of an existing utility easement.
Findings: See the attached maps and legal descriptions for the exact locations of the requested
right-of-way vacation.
No objections from the adjacent property owners have been submitted to the City.
The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the
City. The results are as follows:
UTILITIES RESPONSE
Ozarks Electric NA
AEP/SWEPCO No Objections—"SWEPCO agrees
to release 8' only in the area of the
pool. We retain the existing 20'
easement on both sides of the
concrete decking of said pool."
Arkansas Western Gas No Objections
SW Bell No Objections.
Cox Communications No Objections.
City of Fayetteville: .
Water/Sewer No Objections
Street Department No Objections
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
V4CO3-3 Mee
Page 1.1
VAC 03-03.00
Page 2
Solid Waste No Objections
Engineering No objections.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed easement vacation 03-3.00 subject to the
following condition.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The easement shall be vacated for the 8' only in the area that the pool is located.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Date:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
VAC03-3 Mee
Page 1.2
0 0
PETITION TO VACATE AN EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOT 2,HEMINGWAY RIDGE
SUBDIVISION,CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
TO: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and The Fayetteville City Council
We,the undersigned,being all the owners of the real estate abutting the easement hereinafter
sought to be abandoned and vacated,lying in Lot 2,Hemingway Ridge Subdivision, City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas,a municipal corporation,petition to vacate an easement which is described
as follows:
Most easterly 8 feet of a 20 foot utility easement,running north and south along the
western lot line of Lot 2 of the Hemingway Ridge Subdivision,to the City of
Fayetteville,Washington County, Arkansas.
That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of the easement are Lot 1,Hemingway
Ridge Subdivision and Lot 3,Hemingway Ridge Subdivision, City of Fayetteville,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 portion of the above described easement.
The petitioners pray that the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above
described real estate; subject,however,to the existing utility easements and sewer easements as
required, and that the above described real estate be used for their respective benefit and purpose
as now approved by law.
The petitioners further pray that the above-described real estate be vested in the abutting property
owners as provided 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 said
utility and sewer easements, and that title to said real estate sought to be abandoned be vested in
the abutting property owners as provided by law, and as to that particular land the owners be free
from the easements of the public for the use of said easement.
Dated this day of J: i 2003.
VG�l.trian F• 1.1✓�Soh1
Printed Name
Signature
1)6,4G✓or /�
Printed Name
Signature Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
VAC03-3 Mee
Page 1.3
.p 'r rFk 1 t3
T aSS{z / �;:' to��d, 'i' 'kh d.��<�"•1���'��1t{`r�u��i��{'��{+��'��U'�. �
iri r Il ittfyll tSt��t�y+ a 7 J ' .
r-
uA...:6-:
c
i ;:f 17 � 'RtL x5yrs fp r t :
i PiP'� 1 1f{ Yep il�Y�l. I N1'- FiiR'1)j lf,t 11l 'l ♦� f.G t
�fA(Oug
f,Y �t�
N` C; 7.ff'fr yp wTJ�s}�I�.5
g{! r
4'rf z
JL 1 >� � i0) }an ••
di I rel f? �4,1 i� f3$p�Y4y t r�. I I
n axil i(vi liF r4�4' ��lr i"'��•e` .°.ay���'�n I 1 t� r
-
f,:
a.
n. �S ��d1( yg' hr f dt 11{,•lt 113 �.
1 x1'. � � Li� ��l§Ht ri p •{ ...
w
.1 � I V1�•[�41(y F � •
yi '� � , Yet,fi ak{tlt"r
j' 1 � ♦"J,{ rrt jl t�
1
1,( 1.Si � 1 of bl` FI L_j llf.
Y•' tPoy` �t) ��I furl ytS�4;
tFd}r�S •
qt
4 as lP�y k � yl r try _.
fHuyy��y1�) rp�al l�_Y-c illt�YY¢giu7 ��ItE Mf��,c��71
i;l µ�lt r °:.�.SCJf'�YJ•...'..:M �k`gY ti.Hn(4�t1Y: �y'�{ {q. ,,i '^� �' I '�k o x 1'
�'r rtCnn t4�WPF"✓�4ft���Cf fi' " td.L t1�LY ��hti`atl+{Ik*:
try
v [lp 4at�ul� , �ttya�i'3
02/11/2003 09: 12 5017561667 SEASIDE GEN OFC SPR PAGE 05
O
I
m.
I )
II
In
li
m iI
a
Pi nningCommission
March 10, 2003
1
VA CO3-3 Mee
f z Page 1.5
FEB-11-2003 0842 5017561667 98%, P.05
SEASIDE GEN 0FC�R PAGE 03/03
02/13/2003 15:17 5017561f�7 Jetrex #95e•Pa g
onurvavry AMINAL; 479 .442 8475; 02111 /-1 8:55, a -2/2
i e
BRONSON ABSTRACT CO., INc.
Abstracts Title Insurance Escrowa 3810 Front StToet
Suite 5
Fayetteville,AR 72703
Fehnlary 11,2003 479 442-2700
Telecopier
479 442.8475
Planning Depart!P=
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
FayettevOle, AR 72701
Ike:Lot 2,Hen»ngway Ridge SIA,Phase I
To Whom It May Colteem,
We have researched the atllacent property owners of Lot 4,°Hemingway Ridge SID,Phase
t Fayetteville, Arkansas, and have detertnined the following;
Parcel Number:78615516-000 Prov.Parch Number.765-15694-003 Type: RV I.onotion:3269 N SOUTHRIDGE
DR Owner Name:WILKINS,0ORDON&FLORAYNE Mailing Address:PO BOX 563 FAYETTEVILLE AR 72702
Lot:001 Block S-T-R:2617.30 Addition: HEMINGWAY RIDGE SID PHASE I School piatrlot:FAYETTEVILLE
SCHOOLS Tax District o11 Citic FAYETTEVILLE
Parcel Number:765.16820400 NOV.Parcel Number.768.16604.003 Type: RI Location,9317 SOUTHRIDGE OR
Owner Nems:MASON,WILLIAM G.S JEAN M Mailing Addrm:3317 BOUTHRI13GF DR PAYETT KVILLE AR
727Q3 Lot 1103 Block S-T-R:26-17-911 Addtion: HEMINGWAY RIDGE SID PHASE I Sa11001 pRtdd
FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOLS Tax Dlatrlot 011 City:FAYETTEVILLE
Parcel Number.765.20508-M Prov. Parcel Number:785-16004004 Type: RI Location:3200 S PICADILLY LN
Owner Name:SANTARELLt,MICHAEL S.Moiling Address:3290 PICADILLY LN FAYETTEVILLE AR 72703 Lot:
046 61ock:S-T-R:28-17-01)Addition:YORKTOWNE SQUARE SID PHASE II School District; FAYETTEVILLE
SCHOOLS Tax District:011 City:PAYETTEVILLE
Parcel Number:766-wao"00 Prov.Parcel Number.766-15694.004 Type:RI Location:3904 N PICADILLY LN
Owner Name:CORNELL,VINCENT JOSEPH H RKIAMAROUI Melling Address 3304 N PICABILLY LN
FAYETTEVILLE AR 72703 Lot 049 So*S-T-R:2547-30 Addition:YORKTOWNE SQUARE SID PHASE 11
School District FAYETTEVILLC SCHOOLS Tax Distllct oil'City FAYPTTIVILLg
Sincerely,
Scott Broom
Bronson
President
REPRESENTING+ Planning Commission
FIRST A>•MCANTITt MURMCE CO. March 10, 2003
VAC03-3 Mee
Page 1.6
VAC03-3.00 M E E
Close Up View
<
r
,-
- f= r—
�
if
,.
ti
: L
3 C—
1 r < <
r— I
USUBJEC
Ile
OPERTY
S�FUA0.LFFIFLC RU - 4U 5 LEL�Il CRO =_____,.,._ I f
V SnRrNG a0.00K C: t_. t //>Cw
CREEK DR ^o
r �� f �y
� I I ,
9
.I ( % of
L" �
HOLf GP.EEK DR
rr i I -
Overview Legend
Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan
r" o VAC03-3.00 �"<, Planning Area Freeway/Expressway
� rY_
�oocc_cOveray Distrix Principal Arterial
Streets 0000
ICity Limits 4N,& Minor Arterial
Existing L
0%� Collector
Planned ._-._I Outside City Tanning Commission
Historic Collector
- March 10, 2003
0 75 150 300 450 600 VAC03-3 Mee
Feet Page 1.7
VAC03-3.00 MEE
One Mile View
/. CS P R AN4r ?, RO -
� C•2 t tl�� 2.�,� , _ R 2 >f tea% � R-1
r
C_2 PRNC 2DR ... ; _ R
2-1.
zO 'R A-1 R-2 _
!. _<
A_1 `>
2
C-2 R-1 R-1 'OAF r
A -2 3 u A-1 I A-1 l�
A i
R-0 5; -
i R �- ... -�' .tUtQ E.Vp - C _
R O .o
aLVD
2 ] RO R_2
i IR0
^ A \ \ nm AT-nPr 1 R-0
O1
s `'; RGD Rol A-1
HN-2
CY
(�
t _` Kq YLpL nl
rA-t
-- \dk
C_2
aP Rc C
R_2
D ^ '
p40.
f p\TP/
b
=1=5 P OA _.. tu.'SR7S1" _..t. R-2 l -1.5
C-2 C s, C 2 t ` " I. R-1 la' I
:- H �tr
R 2
RO � e SUBJECT PROPERTY
Da
r
_axu P t., lOxcvl t r.: C-2 SHARON 5 r 'R.-1
e
.. r
R1
R O .. A 4 -�
R-1 R 1 HARE r HARROl,D s
ALtH F.DR Y,A'RCIO tom.
R-2 A l C 2 _ aRR�.;Fes a»7RttrrPs /rARRIt;E_ -� k R 1 =. R 1.., j
slRt}GDay' OLD r..RTrfi_ft
' 2 . .. C 2 R 1 COR1Qsxp sT COhi].%fN1 hRlAA ::.�y O� =1-.
R 2 r E30 t L7Oh>.: LArF.cp - A
p R 1� WAWIN op''
{U RMANST I A-
P-1 R 1
nLi4 ' R ' `R`1' �„- R-1
.. G '[!dCt:, tmr."+ �^a.
- s �i aaan e .T R 1 K-1
EoEUD LAR 2R, aoym <ryR R-1
q rs+: A-1
M05A 3 ry D R R65E61 Sr '` ^ as
h ob
C_2 _ ;AyyAxpk R O g R R-1 '
o� A-1 -0 R_1
o" 1
RaxA R t
DR
D R-O n R y srtrry"NcA% t vm�R I'A'
< - S •, <
R R
. Rte o OPs 1nY
R- 1 R t -R -
4.
zR3 R 1< o a`_. - f e A-1
a h SlZASfTH,_ z - 1,
9.
1
A1 -
W r
v OP
# ��^yaice._TOWNSHIP Sy _ T a�51jI-5S i' tP _ P�1V Ptb
Overview F 4Legend
' Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan
_ `"`t,,,,,Planning Area r1�Freexay/Fxpessway
�j VAC033.00 B
�. j LLLJJJ °��P I Overlay District P""opal Artetlal
S streets __ Em Minor Artenal
r City Limits I .Conedor
,Planned Outside City ���� HistonccoiRw.r
lanningCommission
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. March 10, 2003
Lies . VAC03-3 Mee
PPL 03-02.00
Page I
PC Meeting of March 10,2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Salem Heights,PPL
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin,City Planner,A.I.C.P.
FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: March 6,2003
Project: PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat(Salem Heights, pp 284)was submitted by Leonard
Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for
property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed.
Findings: The proposal is for a 65 lot subdivision. Wetlands have been delineated and are
not being disturbed by the development. Floodplain exists on the north portion of the site. A
collector street runs through the subdivision. Salem Road is a collector street located to the east
of the property and Rupple Road is a minor arterial street proposed on the west of this property.
Rupple Road is being constructed by an adjacent subdivision.
Tree Preservation: Existing: 4.27%
Proposed: 2.79%
Mitigation: $10,350.00
Recommendation: Approval Subject to Following Conditions
Conditions of Approval:
1. The area labeled"Not A Part' shall be included in the subdivision. If the intent is for
common open space it shall be labeled as such as covenants will be required which
provide for maintenance.
2. The detention pond,wetland areas and open space shall be labeled as lots in the
subdivision. Maintenance shall be provided for in the protective covenants.
3. A note shall be placed on the final plat which restricts access from Salem and Rupple
Road for lots within the subdivision.
4. All utilities shall be placed underground.
5. Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Salem Road. Staff
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
PPL03-2 Salem Heights
Page 2.1
PPL 03-02.00
Page 2
is recommending improvements to include 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and
storm drainage.
6. Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for Rupple Road. Staff is
recommending an assessment in the amount of$11,494.00.
7. Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for the Rupple Road Bridge.
Staff is recommending an assessment of$7,350.00 based on estimated bridge
construction costs and projected traffic generated by this development.
8. Planning Commission approval of the tree preservation plan which a payment for
mitigation into the tree fund in the amount of$10,350.
9. Street"G" shall end in a cul-de-sac.
10. The developer shall pay$6,192.00 pursuant to City Council ordinance for connection to
waterlines along Salem.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
11. 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)
12. 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.
13. Payment of parks fees in the amount of$35,075.00 (65 lots @ $555).
14. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six
foot sidewalk with ten foot greenspace along Rupple Road, Salem Road and Street "A"
and a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot sidewalk along Streets"B and G".
15. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year.
16. Prior to signing the final plat the following is required:
a. Project Disk with all final revisions
b. 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. Final layer of pavement
and sidewalks are the only items which may be guaranteed. All completed
improvements will be verified by the City Engineering office and shall include
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
PPL03-2 Salem Heights
Page 2.2
PPL 03-02.00
Page 3
monuments, lot stakes, curbs and gutters,,storm drainage, culverts and bridges,water
supply, sanitary sewer system, and street lights.
c. Payment of parks fees and or receipt of signed deed. One original signed deed shall be
provided to the Parks Division and one original shall be recorded by the developer
with the final plat. When the deed is filed a file marked copy shall be provided to the
Parks Division.
d. All street lights are required to be installed prior to signing the final plat. Proof of
payment by certified check to the electric company for installation and materials with
a receipt is required if not installed.
Background:
The project was reviewed at the January 03, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the February 27,
2003 Subdivision Committee Meeting.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included the street improvements,
assessments,wetlands,tree preservation and parklands dedication.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning
Commission subject to all staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments:
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
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
PPL03-2 Salem Heights
Page 2.3
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:501-575-8264
ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Matt Casey P.E., Staff Engineer
DATE: March 6,2003
SUBJECT: Salem Heights Subdivision(PPL 03-02.00)
Off-Site Assessments
The following is the Engineering Division's recommendation to the Planning Commission for off-site
assessments:
1. RUPPLE ROAD FROM MOUNT COMFORT ROAD TO SUBDIVISION:
Rupple Road was completed in 2000 from Mount Comfort Road to this subdivision's southern
property line to serve the new Holt Middle School and land to the north of the school that was
being developed at the time.However,the development was not construcuted. This portion of
Rupple Road was constructed with a street width of 36'. Therefore,the Engineering Division
recommends an offsite street assessment for this portion of Rupple Road based on the following
rational nexus calculations:
Projected Traffic from Subdivision (65 lots at 9.57 vpd/lot)—622 vpd
Assume 50%.use Rupple Road—311 vpd
Street Capacity for Minor Arterial— 14,800 vpd
Percentage of Traffic from Development—2.1%
Actual Costs of Rupple Road Construction(36 foot street section)- $547,361.26
Salem Heights Subdivision's Assessment-$547,361.26(.021)=$11,494.00
2. BRIDGE OVER CLABBER CREEK:
In addition to these costs,the Engineering Division recommends that this subdivision be assessed
for a percentage of the construction costs to construct a bridge over Clabber Creek. The following
is a rational nexus calculation for this offsite improvement:
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
PPL03-2 Salem Heights
Page 2.4
Approximate Rupple Road Bridge dimensions:
Length—250 L.F.; Width-56'; Surface Area of Decking— 14,000 s.f.
Projected Traffic from development—(65 Lots * 9.57 vpd/lot)-622 vpd
Assume 50%of vehicle trips will use Rupple—311 vpd
Assume 50%of vehicle trips using Rupple go north— 156 vpd
Minor Arterial traffic capacity= 14,800 vpd
%Traffic from development= 1.05%
Clabber Creek Bridge Costs:
14,000 s.f($50.00/s.f.)=$700,000.00
Salem Heights Subdivision Percentage of Costs:
0.0105($700,000.00)=$7,350.00
Therefore, the Engineering Division recommends that the Clabber Creek Subdivision be assessed
$7,350.00 for the future Rupple Road Bridge across Clabber Creek.
3. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Offsite assessment for portion from Mount Comfort Road to South Boundary: $11,494.00
B. Offsite Assessment for Rupple Road Bridge over Clabber Creek: $7,350.00
4. ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT:
In November of 1995,the Fayetteville City Council passed an ordinance(#3938)assessing any developer
connecting directlyto the waterline extension on Salem Road. This proposed subdivision is located within
the assessment area established for this extension. The ordinance establishes an assessment of$200.00
per acre of development.
Waterline Assessment—30.96 acres($200/acre)_$6,192.00
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
PPL03-2 Salem Heights
Page 2.5
City of Fayetteville
Tree Preservation Plan Review Form
Project: Salem Heights Developer-Palmco Properties
Location Address: South of Salem Village Engineer:Landtech Engineering
This form shall stand as a: Olnitial Review/Letter of Confirmation
✓Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council
OFinal Administrative Determination*
Submital requirements met:
6/Initial Review OSite Analysis ✓Analysis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan
Comments:
Canopy measurements:
%Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Land Use R-1 Acres: 1.32
%To be Preserved 25% Square Feet: 57,714
%of Total Site Area:4.27%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 30.96 Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Square Feet:_1,348,618 Acres: 0.86%
Square Feet: 37,728
%of Total.Site Area 2.79%
Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: ✓Yes ONo
10n-Site Mitigation OOff-Site Preservation OOff-Site Forestation ✓Tree Fund
Tree Preservation Criteria Met: ✓Yes ONo (See back for criteria list and
comments)
Applicant's Plan: ✓Approved ODisapproved OConditionally Approved
Conditions of Approval Mitigation is required for 19.986 sfofmmoved canopy and is required
in the form of the tree fund equaling 810,350.00 due prior to Final Plat approval:
Planning Comr1ission
Si a Landscape Landsca a Administra �a M°r 11 3
L03`fSae rle
7 osO�
f Page 2.6
Criteria used by Landsc*Administrator to evaluate Tree Prewation Plan:
I The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or
species.
Comments: Overall yes, the need to stay out of wetland areas drove the design and most trees
are of equal value throughout the site.
2. Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
Comments: See above comments
3. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to
removal of the tree or group of trees.
Comments:Since most of the trees are in the wetland areas, they are very valuable to that
ecosystem, most are shown preserved in these areas.
4. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties,the surrounding
neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
Comments: Average impact.All trees impacting adjacent land is shown to be preserved.
5. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
Comments: N/A
6. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
Comments: The wetland areas reduced the flexability of design.
7. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease,
injury or hazard.
Comments: Many of the trees are in poor condition due to age and neglect, those that are healthy are
wetland trees that thrive in their environment.
8. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of
the property.
Comments: The trees to be removed are due to vehicular circulation or sewer extensions.
9. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing,
replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities.
Comments: Minor
10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and
routed, where possible,to avoid damage to existing canopy.
Comments: Yes, the subdivision was designed around the wetland areas.
11. Construction requirements for On-Site and Off-Site Alternatives.
Comments: N14
12. The effects of proposed On-Site Mitigation or Off-Site Alternatives.
Comments: 46 mitigation trees are to be planted in place of the 19, 986 sf of canopy to be
removed.
13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development
design.
Comments: N/A
14.- The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by
state and federal regulations.
Comments: Wetland requirements drove subdivision design.
15.. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant.
Comments: Recommended for approval. Planning Commission
'An appeal may be filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with� p�gr� 1 i ifiied
Development Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator determinations/decisions maybe a ease eervs s7F
aggrieved to the Planning Commission within 10 business days. Recommendations go straight to Planning 9e
Commission,thus no formal anneal is necessary for recommendations.
City of Fayetteville
Tree Mitigation Form
Project: Salem Heights Subdivision Developer: Palmco Properties
Location Address: North Salem Road Engineer: Landtech Engineering
South of Salem Village
It is required that this form be submitted concurrently witb the Tree Preservation Plan if mitigation
of any kind is sought.
Canopy measurements:
%Tree Canopy: 25% Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Required to be Preserved Acres: 1.32
Square Feet: 57,714
Total Area of Site: %of Total Site Area: 4.27%
Acres: 30.96
Square Feet: 1,348,618 Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Acres: 0.86%
Amount of Preservation Requirement Requested for Square Feet 37,728
Mitigation: %of Total Site Area 2.79%
Acres:
Square Feet: 19,986
%of Total Site: I A8%
Type of Mitigation Pursued:
OOn Site Mitigation OOff Site Preservation OOff Site Forestation ✓Tree Fund
List Mitigation Species, Caliper, and Quantity of trees to be planted in the space below. Refer to
table and on back for figuring quantity and cali er sizes.
Species IF Caliper Qty.
Amount proposed to be deposited in the City of Fayetteville Tree Fund:
$10,350.00
Mitigation Proposal: ✓Approved ODisapproved
Planning 90mmission
ms_ 003
Signe Landscape Administrator gh se
Page 2.8
Tree Mitigation Base Density/Off Site Alternatives
When preservation cannot be accomplished and existing canopy is to be removed below minimum canopy
requirements,mitigation is required. Before any Mitigation/Off-Site Alternatives are carried out,approval
must be granted by the Landscape Administrator. When mitigation is an issue a mitigation form, available
from the Landscape Administrator,detailing all proposed actions should be submitted with the Tree
Preservation Plan. Mitigation and reforestation densities, preferred species, spacing, and amounts are
determined by the tables below.
Existing High Priority Existing Mid-Level Existing Low Priority
Canopy Proposed For Priority Canopy Canopy Proposed For
Removal Proposed For Removal Removal
Caliper of Required#of DensityRequired# of trees Density Required# of trees Density
Replacement trees per acre Factor pre removed Factor per acre removed Factor
Tree removed
2" 200 F 11 218sf 150 290sf 100 436sf
11/2" 230 111;0sf
173 252sf 115 380sf
1 250 11 175sf 188 232sf 125 350sf
*The Density Factor is a ratio of canopy removed to number of trees replaced
Here are the 5 simple steps on how to calculate the size and number of trees needed for mitigation
1. Establish how many acres/square feet of canopy is proposed to be removed on site that falls
below the minimum canopy requirement
19,986
2. Establish the Priority type of the canopy proposed to be removed.
low
3. Select what caliper of mitigation trees are going to be used. Note: Contact Nurseries to
confirm caliper availability in the species desired
2.
4. Refer to the table and find Density Factor that correlates with Canopy type removed and
caliper size proposed for replacement.
5. Take Density Factor and divide by the square feet of canopy removed to get number of
mitigation trees needed.
19,986/436=46 trees @ $225.00ea =$10,350.00
6. On-Site Mitigation is preferred over Off-Site Alternatives. Show the location and species of
mitigation trees on the tree preservation plans and submit the Mitigation/Off-Site
Alternatives form at time of submittal
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
PPL03-2 Salem Heights
Page 2.9
PPL03.2.00 SALEM HEIGHTS
Close Up View
3R-1 / �\ e.x f j
A .9.1
ar
_ _...
sr
e!7ra
R3
a
------ #
ly
F �
xt
'(411LIiirlEilitiiNi?+l±r'71rrtfiiiiir.I,411mt"l�;l•;' I.
Ihl+,;3eill+riltl�l�ilrf=l
SUBJECT PROPERTY �w
3 ; w
r"
0 r _
04
o � j
R-.
Overview Legend
Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan
PPL03-2.00 I^aye Planning Area �y-' Freeway/Expressway
Streets rp000q Overlay District Principal Arterial
�00000
ICity Limits Minor Arterial
Existing L__
Planned ��Outside City
0♦�Collector Planning Commission
--• ` / y ;
-^15-x- ••••• Historic Collector March IQ 2003
5 0 125 250 500 750 -1,000 PL03-2 Salem Heights
Feet Page 2.10
PA0
OnneeMMile View SALEM HEIGHTS
Mile
WE
1._
Y
,.r w�'i.T?>•! ��c!•+s,7�EFlltt�t�,{!-1 ;Irll-�?mi!trlEr,'4'r:>r•!r„t�11
is
” SUBJECT PROPERTY -
........
!s-
I - _..
3 -
;rtP nii�(�ir.'I'r',i77+`1!}'I7}�iiT}�' IlifiE,.INN#�lt�ill{�'IN{!I{r!3}1i�11.!tiSdts
A ,+�i�l(it,Im3�l.,�,IF.3,irilr.,i5-4r�1t4;� �❑t,._
X -
� a
� 8
ss.
.o
is
"a "iii ',(AYINidliylik';IN#liiit� °
;
o
0
o
s
0
i o
Overview Legend
Subject Property Boundary Masterstreet Plan
71 } PPL03-2.00 1% �Freevay/Fxpressway
'6A, i Planning Area
" -
CP 00% Prindpal Anginal
Lr Streets °ro°oo$Overlay District
Mnor Arterial
rJ �, �'� �'�1-��� ,usfi g �__I City Limits i .Cnnedor
'. ..�mj VWPlanned
Outside City e'e. Neto"ocdleotor Planning Commission
st L March 10, 2003
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. L03-2 Salem Heights
_. Miles Page 2.11
O
¢ J F I
LIERLY LN
11 1
V l CRYSTAL DR
I;1
Meadows
I'
i--.________I
Y
W
¢ ' LCIR
` � I
1 THAMES Rte'`
1 Pw 1
I
1' I
f f
I I
f' I
1 Clabber Creek 1
1 1
----- -- 1I I
I
I
�- I
IIS r
t
- _. 1 ' PRIVATE DR 1
g
w �
1 J
I
1 1 1
1 MOUNT COMFORT RD
1 .I
N Clabber Creek, Salem Heights,
W+ & Salem Meadows Subdivisiu omm,ss,On
S March 10, 2003
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75PL03-2 salem Heights 1
Miles
LSD 03-07.00
Pagel
PC Meeting of March 10,2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Marriott Courtyard,LSD
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin,City Planner,A.I.C.P.
FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: March 6,2003
Project: LSD 03-7.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard,pp 174)was
submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates, LLC on behalf of Mike Hoffman&
Curtis Wegener of Fayetteville Hotel, LLC for property located east of Mall Avenue and north of
Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 3.30 acres with a 4 story, 113 room hotel proposed.
Findings:
Proposal: The construction of a 113 room hotel with 123 parking spaces proposed. The proposal
includes the construction of a private drive that lines up with Van Asche Drive to the west.
Sidewalks will be constructed along both sides of the private drive. A lot split was approved at
Subdivision Committee which created this tract.
Square footage: 19,027
Existing Development: The site is currently vacant and is part of the CMN II Business Park.
Surrounding Zoning: North:R-O
South, East, West: C-2
Surrounding Land Use: North: deed restricted area
South: Olive Garden
East: vacant
West: vacant
Water:Available along Mall Avenue.
Sewer: Available along Mall Avenue.
Tree Preservation: Existing: 9.03%
Proposed: 9.03%
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
LSD-3-7 Marriott Courtyard
Page 3.1
LSD 03-07.00
Page 2
Recommendation: Approval Subject to the Following Conditions
Conditions of Approval:
1: The curb cut for this development shall line up with the curb cut proposed for the
Olive Garden. Olive Garden was approved with a temporary access from Mall
Avenue until such time that the private drive was constructed. The new access for the
Olive Garden will be required to be constructed with this development.
2. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from the five foot
greenspace required between the parking lot and the eastern property line. The
proposal is for the property owner to the east to grant a ten foot greenspace easement.
In the event that the easement is granted, staff is in support of the variance. This
easement shall be granted prior to building permit.
3. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design
Standards and Design Overlay District Regulations. The proposal is for a brick base
on an E.F.I.S. building with E.F.I.S. pilasters on the east and west elevations. Staff is
recommending that the pilasters be constructed of brick as well to further articulate
the wall surfaces.
4. The parking lot lighting shall be full cut off sodium lighting fixtures, not to exceed 35
feet in height.
5. All mechanical, utility equipment and dumpsters shall be screened.
6. The private drive shall be constructed to meet minimum street standards. This will
allow for future street dedication to the City of Fayetteville.
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. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six
foot sidewalk along both sides of the proposed private drive.
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
LSD-3-7 Marriott Courtyard
Page 3.2
LSD 03-07.00
Page 3
10. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
H. 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
Background:
The project was reviewed at the February 12, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the February 27,
2003 Subdivision Committee Meeting.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included commercial design standards, the
private street extension, sidewalks and the landscape requirements.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning
Commission subject to all staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments:
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
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
LSD-3-7 Marriott Courtyard
Page 3.3
LSD 03-07.00
Page 4
§166.14 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION AND
APPEARANCE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.
D. Design Elements Guidelines for Commercial Structures.
1.The elements to avoid or minimize include:
a.Unpainted concrete precision block walls.
b. Square,boxlike structures.
c. Metal siding which dominates the main facade.
d. Large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces.
e.Large out of scale signs with flashy colors
2. Construction and appearance design standards for commercial
structures.
a. A commercial structure or development shall be designed to avoid or
minimize the elements set forth in D.1. above.
b. A commercial development which contains more than one building
should incorporate a recurring,unifying, and identifiable theme for
the entire development site.
c.A development should provide compatibility and transition between
adjoining developments.
§161.21 DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT (U.S. 71 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR).
A. Purpose.The purpose of establishing a Design Overlay District for the U.S. 71
Highway Corridor is as follows:
1. To protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the U.S. 71 Highway
Corridor by providing for nonresidential developments which will maximize preservation and
enhancement of the natural, rural, and open character of the terrain and foliage.
2. To address the issues of traffic and safety.
3. To address environmental concerns which include but are not limited to, soil
erosion, vegetation preservation, drainage and heat islands.
4. To preserve and enhance the economic value and viability of property within
and near the overlay district for the U.S. 71 Highway corridor.
B. Overlay District Boundaries. The overlay district encompasses all lands lying within
660 feet of each side of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway 71 from the intersection of U.S.
Highway 71 and State Highway 471 (a/k/a 71 B)north to the city limits of Fayetteville, (a/k/a the
71 Bypass and/or John Paul Hammerschmidt Expressway), and also that portion known as State
Highway 471 S described more fully as that portion of State Highway 471 which connects U.S.
Highway 71 to State Highway 471 (a/k/a North College) and all future extensions of U.S.
Highway 71 within the City of Fayetteville. Said boundaries are set out on the official plat pages
along with a legal description of such boundaries located in the planning office.
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
LSD-3-7 Marriott Courtyard
Page 3.4
LSD 03-07.00
Page 5
C.Application of Overlay District Regulations and Standards. The regulations and
standards contained herein shall apply to all nonresidential properties, (including but not limited
to new development, redevelopment and expansions of existing development), located within the
overlay district boundaries. Such regulations and standards shall be in addition to and shall
overlay all other ordinance regulations and standards, including but not limited to nonresidential
zoning district and signage regulations and standards. Should the regulations and standards of the
underlying and overlay districts conflict,the overlay district regulations and standards shall
control.
D. Nonresidential Site Design and Development Standards.
1.Deleted by Ord. No. 4128
2. Green Space.A minimum of 25 feet of landscaped green space exclusive of
right-of-way shall be provided along the highway right-of-way and any public street to which the
development has frontage. Parking lots shall not encroach into the green space and shall be
screened when abutting a required green space area.Trees shall be planted at the interval of one
tree per 30 linear feet of green space area when practicable.
3.Deleted by Ord. No. 4128
4.Deleted by Ord No. 4128
5. Signage.
a. Nonresidential Free Standing Signs.
(1). Each separate nonresidential lot will be allowed a single
ground-mounted (monument) sign located on the building site. In the case of lots with double
frontage,two ground-mounted (monument) signs shall be allowed.
(2). The sign shall be a maximum of six feet high, 75 square feet in
area, and set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
b. Wall Signs. One wall sign may be installed per business. Sign area
shall not exceed 20% of that wall area or 200 square feet, whichever is less. A second sign may
be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway
right-of-way.
c. Illumination. Only indirect lighting may be used for illumination of all
signs.
d. Multiple Tenants. The owner of the building shall be responsible for
the provision of one monument sign with sign area for multiple tenants.
e. Sign Content. Content of monument and wall signs shall be limited to
the name of the business. Advertising shall not be permitted on the structure,wall sign or
monument.
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
LSD-3-7 Marriott Courtyard
Page 3.5
LSD 03-07.00
Page 6
6. Curb Cuts. One curb cut shall be allowed per 200 feet of frontage. No curb
cuts shall be allowed within 250 feet of any intersection.
7. Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner
to preserve the scenic appearance of the corridor. Lighting shall be shielded and directed
downward to the parking lot and light spread shall not reflect into the adjacent neighborhood.
Lighting shall not exceed 35 feet in height and shall utilize sodium lighting fixtures.
8.Deleted by Ord No. 4128
9. Exterior Appearance.All structures shall be architecturally designed to have
front facades facing all streets and highway right-of-way. An elevation drawing shall be
submitted for each side of the building that faces a street or highway.
10. Building Material. Buildings shall be constructed of wood, masonry, or
natural looking materials. No structures shall be allowed that have metal side walls UNLESS
such metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry or natural looking material.
11. Site Coverage. 25% of the site shall be left in open space. 80%of the open
space shall be landscaped which may include ponds and fountains.
12.Deleted by Ord No. 4128
13. Optional Fencing. All fencing shall be constructed of wood, masonry, or
natural-looking materials. No optional fencing shall be located within the green space required by
section D.2.No metal fencing shall be allowed except in the following cases:
a. Wrought iron fencing.
b.If other types of metal fencing are necessary for security purposes,they
may be used if the area is first fenced off with a view-obscuring natural or natural-looking
fencing material. The metal fencing shall be placed inside the view-obstructing fencing, and the
view-obscuring fencing shall be at least the height of the metal fencing.
14. Outdoor Storage of Material and Equipment. All outdoor storage of
material and equipment shall be screened with natural vegetation.
15. Access.
a. Pedestrian. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the
entrance of the structure by way of a designated trail or sidewalk.
b. Multi-Modal. Multi-modal access may be required on nonresidential
sites within the design overlay district. (For example: The provision of bus stops, bicycle racks,
parking stalls for car pools, and bicycle and pedestrian walks and trails).
Planning Commission
March 10, 2003
LSD-3-7 Marriott Courtyard
Page 3.6
City of Favefteville
Tree Preservation Plan Review Form
Project: Marriott Courtyard Developer: Fayetteville Hotel, L.L.C.
Location Address: East of Mall Ave. Engineer: CEI Engineering, James Koch
North of Van Asche Dr.
This form shall stand as a: Dlnitial Review/Lener of Confirmation
6/Recommendation to Plannin-2 Commission or City Council
DFinal Administrative Determination*
Submittal requirements met
✓Initial Review ✓Site Analysis ✓Anal sis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan
Comments: —
Canopy measurements:
% 'Free Canopy Required to be Preserved Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Land Use C-2 Acres: 0.299
%Tobe Preserved 15% Square Feet: 13,015.74
% of Total Site Area: 9.03%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 3.31 Emsuna Tree Canopy Preserved:
Square Feet: 144,176.61 Acres: 0.299
Square Feet: 13;015.74
% of Total Site Area 9.03%
Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: Dees ✓No
00n-Site Mitigation DOff-Site Preservation DOff--Site Forestation DTree Fund
Tree Preservation Criteria Met: ✓Yes DNo (See back for criteria list and
comments)
Applicant's Plan: DApproved DDisapproved ✓Conditionally Approved
Conditions of Approval: Confirm that grading activity and retaining wall construction will not
impeed on the critical root zones of the existing canopy shown. Proposed grades and the edge
of the retaining wall are shown to encroach into the canopy line. If grading is proposed off
site; tree preservation will be required in those locations.
Planning Commission
Si u .the Landscape Administrator. dAar2
LSD-3-7 Marrio our ar
Page 3.7
Criteria used by LandscaWdminisirator io evaluate Tree Pre•ation Plan:
1. The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age. location. size or
species.
Comments All trees are proposed.for preservation.
2. Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
Comments Yes
3. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to
removal of the tree or group of trees.
Comments All existing trees exist along the bunks of A4udd Creek where rento,:al ta:ould be
detrimental to water quality.
4. The impact of the reduction in vee cover on adjacent properties. the surrounding
neiehborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
Comments See comment 43
5. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
Comments-Yes, retaining walls are proposed to reduce area of fill over critical roots.
6. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility_ of the design.
Comments. No, A lot split is proposed io.Tt the development.
7. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease.
injury or hazard.
Comments: Most tires are in good general condition. There ore dead. diseased or week ares within the
canopy shown.
8. The placement of the tree or group of ores in relation to utilities. svuclui-es. and use of
the property.
Comments The development has been designed to preserve all existing canopy.
9. The need to remove the tree or group of-trees for the purpose of installing. repairing.
replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities.
Comments None shown
10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography. and
routed, where possible,to avoid damage to existing canopy.
Comments Yes
11. Construction requirements for On-Site and Off-Site Alternatives.
Comments Currently, grading is shown too close to cunopy and is to be remedied as a condition
of approval.
12. The effects of proposed On-Site Mitigation or Off-Site Alternatives
Comments None proposed
13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and depanntental regulations have on the development
design.
Comments
14. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by
state and federal regulations.
Comments A wetland delineated area is encompassed in the site area, tto eonstntCion is shown to impact
this area.
15. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant.
Comments Reconvnendedfor approval with conditions. Plannin Co, mission
*An appeal maybe filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with Chaptei 8teZbified
Development Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator determinations/decisions mE5be-3PP"WiWi WYW
aggrieved to the Planning Commission within 10 business days. Recommendations go straight to Planniftge 3.8
Commission,thus no formal appeal is necessary for recommendat ions.