Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-27 - Agendas - FinalTELE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: June 22, 2005 PC Meeting of June 27, 2005 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 ADM 05-1606: (Pack Rat): Submitted by Scott Crook of Pack Rat Outdoor Center for property located at 209 West Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains 2.92 acres. The request is to approve a refund of a sidewalk fee -in -lieu of construction contribution along Gregg Street. Planner: JEREMY PATE Background: A large scale development plan was approved for the Pack Rat Outdoor Center located at the southeast corner of Gregg and Sunbridge in May of 2001. As with most large scale developments, sidewalks were required along all street frontages to meet the Master Street Plan. This included a sidewalk along Sunbridge and one along Gregg. After approval of the large scale development and during construction of the project, in April of 2002, the Sidewalk Administrator for the City of Fayetteville requested from the Planning Commission a change in this requirement to construct a sidewalk along Gregg Street. Due to the City's intersection improvements and traffic light installation at Gregg and Sunbridge, and planned improvements in the future for Gregg by the Highway Department, the request was granted to pay a cash -in -lieu fee into an escrow account, as opposed to constructing the sidewalk at that time. A fee of $4,500 was placed in escrow to be utilized specifically for the sidewalk along Gregg Avenue. Current Status: Currently, the Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department (AHTD) has completed all design work for this portion of Gregg Street between Township Road and Fulbright Expressway and is in the process of purchasing the necessary right-of-way for the proposed street improvements to occur in this area. These improvements are scheduled to begin in the fall of this year. The final plans show a concrete sidewalk eight feet in width along the east side of the widened Gregg Street adjacent to the Pack Rat property, which will meet the requirement of the Master Street Plan for pedestrian access along Gregg Street. The City of Fayetteville will not be responsible for the cost of this proposed sidewalk; the state will be paying for this and other improvements as part of its project. Proposal: The applicant requests the amount of money originally submitted to the City of Fayetteville for cash -in -lieu of sidewalk construction be refunded, due to the fact that the City will not be expending these funds on the sidewalk for which it was required. The amount contributed was $4,500.00, which has been held in escrow to date K.: IReports1200S1PC Reports106-27-0519DM 05-1606 (Pack Rat).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.1 RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff and the Engineering Division, who oversees the sidewalk requirements in the City of Fayetteville, recommend approval of the refund of $4,500.00 to the property owner. As with any large scale development, a sidewalk must be constructed or fees -in -lieu thereof contributed, based on the recommendation of the Sidewalk Administrator and Planning Commission approval. The applicant met his responsibility as required and submitted the payment. Had AHTD not been planning the proposed improvements with a sidewalk included, the monies would have been expended on construction of this sidewalk. As it is, though, the cost of the sidewalk is covered with the proposed improvements, thus this particular property owner should be relieved of the responsibility, as the city is also not financially responsible. Planning Commission Action: Meeting Date: June 27, 2005 Comments: O Approval O Denial The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature Date K: Reports12005PC Reports106-27-05WDM 05-1606 (Pack Rat).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.2 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Jeremy Pate, Planning FROM: Ron Petrie, City Engineer DATE: June 20, 2005 SUBJECT: Pack Rat - Request for Sidewalk Refund p;r The purpose of this memo is to respond to a letter dated May 26, 2005 from Scott Crook representing the Pack Rat Outdoor Center. At the time of this development in 2001, the City accepted a payment in the amount of $4,500.00 that was placed in an escrow account in lieu of actual construction of a sidewalk adjacent to Gregg Street (AR Highway 180). Currently, the Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department (AHTD) has completed all design work for this portion of Gregg Street between Township Road and Fulbright Expressway and is in the process of purchasing the necessary right-of-way for the street improvements. These improvements are scheduled to begin in the Fall of this year. The final plans show a concrete sidewalk eight feet in width along the east side of the widened road adjacent to the Pack Rat property. The City of Fayetteville is only responsible to reimburse the AHTD for all expenses incurred for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocations for this project. All other costs will be paid for by the State. Due to this fact, the Engineering Division supports the refund of the $4,500. June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 13 May 26, 2005 Jeremy Pate City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dear Mr. Pate: hack Rat OUTDOOR CENTER (479) 521-6340 209 West 5unbridge Drive. Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 RECENED MAY J 1 NOS PLANNING DIV. HIKING AND CAMPING EQUIPMENT CANOES AND KAYAKS `CLIMBING EQUIPMENT. RENTAL EQUIPMENT.. SERVICE AND REPAIRS In 2001, when I built the building for the Pack Rat Outdoor Center, the city required me to pay $4500.00 to be put into an escrow account for future construction of a sidewalk along Gregg street at the appropriate time. In my negotiations with the state for right-of- way along Gregg street, I found out that the state, is planning to construct sidewalks along the street when they widen it. I would like to know how I can apply for a refund of the money that I paid to the city: Chuck Rutherford suggested that this might be something that would have to be brought before the Planning Commission for decision, and that I should contact you to be added to the agenda of the next commission meeting. If this is so, would you please add my name to the agenda of the most suitable meeting of the commission. You may contact me at the Pack Rat, or at my cellphone 530-3417. Th for your consideration, ram Scott W. Crook June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.4 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYET-TEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8264. PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE July 5, 2002 Scott Crook Pack Rat Outdoor Center 209 W. Sunbridge Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Receipt for Sidewalk funds Dear Mr. Crook: Please find enclosed the receipt that you requested for payment of funds into the Sidewalk Escrow account for the construction of sidewalks along Gregg Street. Thank You, Sara Edwards Associate Planner Dc COO m er r-1.1-, •.5an m ▪ H 2 0. ▪ u A F0� o ]=.n oa mm 4-0 In Y N V 0 ..-1 en. q OJ mz m0 d 0 T =1x5 + v -4 ? • 01 01 04"1 04CC CC O 0 05 Y 0 m m CO0 OD CO CO COI m W .. CO CD 0 00 NW flii,4.011 L 0 F v — ▪ N R L .C4a -, 8 ' • 0000 0 o 0+. 1-- . .. 11 v 0 -N '0 .n cn Juna Z, 21106 N.7.4 ColitanisSie La rA M 0.5-;2606 Nekitia0 M1 u u .0, Page PR POSED EOP EX. S 194C/ PETROMARK INC. P.O. BOX .1697 HARRISON, AR. 72604 (C-0 mime OAK STATfON) EX. £H SUNBRIDUA 4.5' GREENSPACE / N65°OO'43"E 35. V.= 1240.30 NEW 5' SIDEWALK 0 50' BLDG. ETBACK U. .' /Cr'/ 4. f \\ 0 \\ UE� TOP OF POND ELEV. =1240.00 3 BERMUDA S0• + AROUND PERIMETER P� 1W4 E ART 4OPO E D PIPE \ � TOP OF POND I4' PINE EXISTING EOP 4 ARKANSAS CORP. REACH RD. .E, AR. 72701 d) 8 PINE PROPOSED EOP EX. SL — 20 CATAL OSED DRAI t R PIPE • WO}' 22' ELM PROPOSED DRAINAGE PIPE PROPOSED CONCR. SWAGES F. CONCRETE PAD/i (TELEPHONE) ..: OAK 2 OA 50' BLDI 'SETBACK 8 \ \ \ € CREEK \ \ \ \ \ \/'0\ \\`� ne 27, 2005 \ \ ---,Planning commission \ \ ADM 0416061(Pack Rat) (\ Page 1.6 e FAYETTEVILLE TW CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner From: Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk Administrator t Date: April 22, 2002 Re: Agenda item for May 2 Subdivision Committee Sara, please place an administrative item on the agenda for the May 2 Subdivision Committee. Due to current road construction and possible future work on Gregg Avenue, Pack Rat is asking to put money in escrow instead of constructing the sidewalk along Gregg Ave. This sidewalk was part of the LSD 01 - 13.00 approved by the Subdivision Committee May 23, 2001. Thank You. June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.7 Subdivision Commit May 2, 2002 Page 38 ADM 02-13.00 Administrative Item (Pack Rat, pp 289) submitted by Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk Administrator, City of Fayetteville for property located at the SE corner of Gregg and Sunbridge. The request is to put money in escrow instead of constructing the sidewalk along Gregg. Bunch: The final item on our agenda is ADM 02-13.00 for the Pack Rat submitted by Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk Administrator, City of Fayetteville for property located at the SE corner of Gregg and Sunbridge. The request is to put money in escrow instead of constructing the sidewalk along Gregg. Edwards: Rutherford: Bunch: We do not have a staff report for this but Chuck is here to go over this item for you. As part of the large scale development for the Pack Rat they were required to build a sidewalk for their frontage on Sunbridge and their frontage on Gregg. They have completed probably 2/3 of their sidewalk requirement on Sunbridge and there is no question on that, they are going to finish what is required on Sunbridge. The question is on Gregg Street; there has been a new traffic signal put in there and there have been some improvements along there. However, the curb and gutter only goes a short distance to the south of that intersection. The sidewalk, if it is required along Gregg Street and build it to the 2% above the future curb will create somewhat of a drainage problem in that the road will be lower and the water that needs to get to this drainage back here in the back, the drainage ditch is behind where the sidewalk is shown now so that creates a problem if the sidewalk is constructed now. If you build it to the lower elevation, when that road is improved then that is not desirable either because it is sitting down lower than the way it really should be to drain back out and have a sidewalk where the water does not run with the top of it. On the other hand, if the sidewalk is not built now and this is the reason I'm bring back to get your comments and your approval of whichever way we go with this, if it is shown on here and it is not built and someone along here as a pedestrian is out here on the roadway and gets hurt or whatever, that is not good either because the sidewalk was shown and it wasn't built. According to Jim Beavers it is a high priority of this administration to have Gregg Street improved. Part of that is because of the Washington Regional Hospital that is going to open next fall. From the Highway Department on their priority list, probably as soon as this could be a project would be two years and it could be as long as five years to do a project along Gregg Street so it is kind of a dilemma. Do we collect the money for the sidewalk and have them not build a section on Gregg and do it when the road is improved, the money will be there. Or do we go ahead and have them build the sidewalk now. I don't know if you have a drawing in your packet. We have nothing in our packet Chuck. June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.8 Subdivision Commit May 2, 2002 Page 39 Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Shackelford: Rutherford: Conklin: The bridge is another obstacle. Here is the sidewalk coming along Gregg Street and this is the way that it is shown to be built. You can see the bridge. This is the bridge right here. There is no sidewalk from here up to the corner of Township and Gregg Street. Isn't there a little trail or something that is off down below there that goes from the very end of the cleaners, you know they walk down below, the road is significantly higher. There probably is. The way it is right now... It is not a City trail, it is like a path people have made as a trail. To get across this creek however, the way everything is positioned now people would have to get out on the road. The dilemma is do we build a sidewalk now? We are at the mercy at the State Highway Department because that is their jurisdiction right? Well, maybe I don't understand your question. Do you mean if the road is improved... Who will be responsible for doing the road improvement and also responsible for the timing? Are you saying that that is the State Highway Department's jurisdiction or the City of Fayetteville? Well, it is the State Highway's jurisdiction but as far as on their priority list, that can be maneuvered through the political pressure of accidents, traffic, new hospital opening, etc. Still, the end result is that it is the State's determination. The City can apply pressure but the City does not make final determination. Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong Ron, but the City can't pick a date three years down the road and say this is when we are going to start this project. Chuck, how did you get to the best case scenario two years and the worst case scenario five years? Is that numbers that you got from the State? I got that from Jim Beavers this morning. The City Administration has asked the Highway Department to make that a priority. June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.9 Subdivision Committ ) May 2, 2002 Page 40 Marr: Rutherford: Marr: Conklin: Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Shackelford: Hooker: My concem is, and I agree with you because actually the only reason I am familiar with it is having worked at Staffinark a lot of people used to try and walk from our corporate to all the way down to where Arsaga's and The Bagel Company and all that used to be and they were practically being hit on the road several times. Gregg Street definitely needs sidewalks. In terms of the need of a sidewalk, I hate the thought of not having it there. But the other side of it is, is there a five year limit that we can keep these funds? Can we set that limit longer to ensure that sidewalk actually gets built in this place? What does the new ordinance state? Well, the new ordinance, if we apply the new ordinance in this case for collecting the money and keeping this project, it says the money will be spent within one year. However, if we applied it to this project... As an offsite improvement or delayed improvement or offsite delayed improvement? The way typically in the past, since I've been part of the City of Fayetteville, when it comes to building sidewalks on Highway Department Roads, the City can make recommendations on how sidewalks are built but the Highway Department pretty much builds them to their own standard specification. They don't build them to the City of Fayetteville's specification and also, the City of Fayetteville pays for those sidewalks. But; they do in fact build them? They do build them but the City of Fayetteville pays for them. They wouldn't look at this road as an area that they would only do road improvement and not sidewalk? At the present, the Highway Department builds sidewalks as part of their project if the City asks for the sidewalks to be built. If the City does not ask for the sidewalks to be built then they won't' build sidewalks as part of their project. Morgan, what is the lot process for the developer and owner? My name is Morgan Hooker and I am the contractor. Scott is perfectly willing to do whatever. He just doesn't want to see money wasted. He doesn't want to put the sidewalk in and see it pulled out in two years. One June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.10 Subdivision Committ May 2, 2002 Page 41 Marr: Hooker: Marr: Conklin: Hooker: Shackelford: Rutherford: Marr: Conklin: Rutherford: issue is the sidewalk pretty much dead ends at the creek so either you are going to be wading through the creek or going over the bridge, which in my opinion, there is not a more dangerous place to walk in Fayetteville than on that bridge with traffic. There is literally that much. I completely agree with you. There is a significant elevation change from road to where that sidewalk is. It is a hike just to get up the incline to get to the bridge to walk across it. Again, I certainly don't care, I am just trying to do what is best. Scott is perfectly willing to put it in if it is the best thing to do. Have we approved any prior development in that space between, that wooded space in there now? In the past, is there anything sitting on the books like some of these we are finding that was proposed for development already? I am just not aware of any. I think we can hold the money as an option. You give us cash, a bond or a letter of credit and then we can hold it until it is constructed. Scott is perfectly willing to do that. How much money are we talking about, do we have an estimate? It would be $3.00 a square foot with a 6' sidewalk for that length that is shown. Tim, it would not be tied to the twelve month? We could keep it until it is actually built? It says 'The City has the following options if improvements have not been constructed after 270 days.' Prior to that it is talking about large scale developments where the improvements have not been installed and we issue a building permit, which is what we've done. It is built, we issued a building permit and it states that the City can take the money to construct the improvements or hold the money until the developer completes the improvements. After the City Engineer certifies the improvements have been completed the money shall be returned to the developer. It doesn't say anything about any five year period. The five year thing is on the offsite improvement ordinance like we looked at Monday night. The reason I bring this to you is because several of us met out there and looked at this onsite and talked about different ways of doing it and I was asked to make a decision at the time of what could happen and because it went through the Large Scale Development process, I felt that we needed June27,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.11 Subdivision Commit May 2, 2002 Page 42 Marr: Conklin: Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Bunch: to bring it back to the Subdivision level for you to look at it and make a determination. - Would your recommendation be that if we could have the money in escrow without a time limit, because it is a very high priority sidewalk area, that we not build it now and hold that money as long as we didn't have the twelve month period to lose it or is it you believe we should wait on it period? Just to clarify that, what are we going to do with this money? Is Packrat going to build the sidewalk, is the Highway Department going to build the sidewalk? Are we going to give the money to the Highway Department to pay for the sidewalk? I think there are different options there as far as exactly what happens. If the money is collected and the Highway Department does do a road project there then I think that the money should go in to pay for the • sidewalk, because the City would be paying for the sidewalk anyway. We would? The City would pay for the all of the sidewalks so it would just be that portion that would be paid for. So it would be their contribution to the City's payment to the State? Yes. Sometimes we pay for the sidewalks. On Garland, which we just looked at, the Highway Department is paying for the sidewalk and we were cost sharing with them to make a trail. Well, on Wedington the City of Fayetteville paid for the sidewalks on Wedington. Ok, most likely we would be paying for a sidewalk on a highway project. On 265 the City was originally paying for the sidewalks and then the Highway Department was asked to look at the P21 money and so the City paid the 20% plus engineering costs, which amounted to about $53,000 for the sidewalks on the 265 project. Tim, what action are we looking for the Committee to take today? Can we approve this at this level or does it need to go forward to the full Planning Commission? June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.12 Subdivision Committ May 2, 2002 Page 43 Conklin: Hooker: Conklin: Edwards: Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: Hooker: Shackelford: Rutherford: I think you can approve it at this level and direct that money be deposited. Do you know whether he wants to do a letter of credit or cash or bond? I am not sure. Ok, whatever instrument is used and that we hold that money until the improvement. I guess if the improvement doesn't happen then we require it to be built. I would like to go on record against a bond because that is difficult to draw, it is intended to guarantee but it is difficult to draw for cash when we know we are going to do it and this is something that we know we are going to do and that is not the purpose of the bond. It is not for cash that you know you are going to get. With the letter of credit, I would be willing to take that. It is just going to be a renewal thing that we are going to have to keep on top of and renew. He is going to have to pay fees every year when that renews. Yes, that is the point that I was going to make. Depending upon the size of the money, a letter of credit could be probably more economically feasible for the developer and the property owner and I think you can do those for two year windows and not just one so that would cut down on that. Ok, we haven't seen the two year ones. I think we could do that. I was just guessing, we are looking at $3,600 or $4,000. My take on it is even if we built the sidewalk right now we are not going to be able to solve the safety issues because I am in complete agreement with what everybody else is saying. The real safety issue is at the bridge and I hate to see the effort and the money be spent on this to just to improve a very small part of the problem. I would be more inclined to escrow the money and do it right and hopefully that will happen fairly quickly. I think the safety issue kind of works both ways as far as looking at it. The pedestrian is going southbound from Sunbridge and the sidewalk is built now, they have a sidewalk to walk on up to that point, however they have to get up on the bridge. If they are coming north bound and the sidewalk is built now, as soon as they cross that bridge they have a sidewalk to access to. If the sidewalk is not built they have to go all the way down to Sunbridge to access the sidewalk. June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.13 Subdivision Commit, ) May 2, 2002 Page 44 Bunch: It looks like a good place for a community organization to put in a temporary bridge. - Rutherford: I think he is willing to do this if you do decide to accept the money and build on Gregg Street, I would request that they go ahead and build the sidewalk up to the access ramp on Sunbridge where the driveway is that goes into Pack Rat, where the sidewalk goes a little way up there and then ends, I would like to see the sidewalk go ahead and be finished now because there is curb and gutter there, there is an access ramp now on the corner of Gregg and Sunbridge, if this is what they choose to do. Hooker: Ok, you are saying to go ahead and build that portion of it even if we put that in escrow. Rutherford: Exactly. Go ahead and build the Sunbridge portion. Hooker: Ok, I think he planned on doing that. Conklin: That is what I was trying to figure out. How the City of Fayetteville is putting traffic signals in and widening that street right there, are we really going to be tearing those out when they widen Gregg Street. Ron and I were just having that discussion and Ron doesn't believe that is the case so we should be able to get the sidewalk in while the road is being widened. Rutherford: That part is all improved. One of the reasons was this issue on the sidewalk to make the complete tum, because they have done their frontage on Sunbridge just past their driveway. However, as part of this intersection improvement, it was up to that contractor to put in the access ramps, and that has been done within the last week or two. Conklin: My point was that we are doing intersection improvements there and we are probably going to set the plans for future widening of Gregg at that intersection. I would think that we are not going to rip out the new traffic signal poles and everything. Hooker: I think there is a lot of elevation up there and drainage. I think what Chuck is saying that we could still go ahead and put this section in, this being Gregg Street and this being Sunbridge, go ahead and put this in because this isn't going to change. Bunch: One of the things that is probably confusing is that we have a state project and a City project both going. Hooker: I think Chuck, you are talking about from here to wherever this access is? June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.14 Subdivision Commit, May 2, 2002 Page 45 Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Conklin: Hooker: Rutherford: Hooker: Shackelford: Bunch: They have currently constructed the sidewalk along the front to approximately right here. A new access ramp has been built right here as part of the intersection improvement so my request would be to go ahead and finish this sidewalk if you choose to accept the money for this but to go ahead and build the sidewalk up to this access ramp because this will not be changed. Curb and gutters are all built. Ok, the intersection work that the City is doing, is that on Sunbridge or Gregg or a combination of the two? A combination of the two. They have done some work along here, there is some curb and gutter and there is an access ramp here with the short piece of the sidewalk here and an access ramp here. A comment was made, I believe it was Tim that made the comment, that the City work could possibly show or indicate the extent of the State work? That was just a guess, do we know that? I think the problem is the elevation of this sidewalk. I can't imagine that not changing, can you Chuck? Well, if the sidewalk was built I would push for it to be built, we are trying to save money here for everyone, in other words, not have to take out the sidewalk, so we would really try to build the sidewalk from what Ron was talking about, to the right of way line to an elevation that hopefully would work with the future improvement. However, when there is drainage along here, along the back of this, which is really not shown I guess, where all this drains back to the creek so if you build a sidewalk up that elevation you kind of block that drainage. In other words, there would have to be some sort of swale built from where the water on this side could get over here or you build a sidewalk down the existing grade to where all this water could cross over it and get to this drainage and go. But if you do that and the new improvement is built then you have a sidewalk that is built to an undesirable elevation. You are talking probably 6' below the road from here to there. More than likely that area will be built up as part of the State Highway project. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be. This proposed drainage pipe, has that been put in? Is that your project or is that somebody else's project? June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.15 Subdivision Commit May 2, 2002 Page 46 Hooker: Rutherford: Bunch: Hooker: Rutherford: Bunch: Motion: Man: Bunch: Marr: Shackelford: Bunch: No, we decided not to do that. This is actually kind of an old plat. We ended up not having to do all of this. Another issue that we haven't talked about this morning, and Ron can weigh in on this probably, there is some pine trees along here and I'm not sure all of them are shown, we could meander through, some of them would be in between so we didn't take them out. However, if the road is improved at a later date some of those trees may go. Basically we are looking at bringing this sidewalk on down to here and then our motion, if we so decide, would have to reflect bringing this down to the existing access or the one that is going to end on part of the City project? Bring it down to there and then we would be talking basically the section from that access to the end of the creek or to the end of the property along Gregg. Just a question. The access is right here right? It is right on the corner. It is kind of a straight line because there is a new one here and a new one here. I guess we are looking for a motion. I will take public comment at this time. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. I would like to move that we collect the sidewalk fee at $3.00 a sq.ft. from the existing access on the west side of the property from where the existing access currently is through the entire western sidewalk on the large scale development plan that was previously approved and that we build out the sidewalk from the existing access to the point that it connects to the part that is already done and that we hold that money until the improvement is made either by the State and apply it to the City's cost to the state, or require it to be built. Are you saying that we have to collect the money or can we use a letter of credit? Whatever the ordinance allows us to do. Point being, whatever that dollar amount is for that footage. My main thing is I want to make sure we hold it until it is built because I think it is a high priority road for a sidewalk as well as I think we need to build out down the rest of Sunbridge. I will second that motion. I will concur. That concludes our meeting. Are there any announcements? Meeting is adjourned. June 27, 2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.16 LSD01-14 PACK RAT CLOSE UP 'EPLEc Y__ ________ YIII ( 11 ______ ` li♦♦ II I __JI SII ___ TT _ f- III ♦♦ I` � III I Iu I *___ TE___ _ ____. -1- 4. ' III t ____ ___________ _ f _ III III III ill Il. 41 tit III HI444 I III ,4 11 r':` -----------F--- II .-�TSLWRA nrF I I. r----------- �=-- R-0 1-1 Yr100.shp Lsd01-14.shp Master Street Plan Freeway/Expressway N Principal Arterial . .6 Minor Arterial • 1 Collector Historical Collector A/ STREETS 1101011 300 300 600 Feet E June27,2005 Planning Commission `ADM 05-1606 (Pack Rat) Page 1.17 S71.ye tentle ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer DATE: June 22, 2005 PC Meeting of June 27, 2005 - 125 W. Mountain St Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 FPL 05-1476: Final Plat (Maple Valley Subdivision, 363): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 2809 MOUNT COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.69 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 19 single family lots proposed. Property Owner: TIM BRISIEL Planner. JEREMY PATE Findings: Proposal: The applicant is requesting final plat approval of Maple Valley Subdivision located on the south side of Mount Comfort Road approximately one-quarter mile west of I-540. The property is zoned RSF-4 and consists of approximately 5.69 acres with 19 single family lots. Background: On November 8, 2004, the Planning Commission approved PPL 04-1264 for development of Maple Valley Subdivision. The approved subdivision contains 19 single family lots one detention pond, and one out -lot for an existing church. A portion of the subject tract that was formerly owned by the adjacent church was rezoned from P-1, Institutional, to RSF-4 in summer 2004 to allow for the development of the single family residential subdivision (RZN 04-1099, for Brisiel). The church property is included as an out -lot (noted as Lot 21 on the plat) of the subdivision, in order to legally subdivide the property from that which is being developed. Since approval of the preliminary plat, City staff has worked with the applicant and changed the conditions of approval for the required Mount Comfort Road improvements and tree mitigation. Staff recommends that the applicant pay an assessment for required improvements to Mount Comfort Road that included: pavement 14 feet from centerline, curb, gutter, six-foot sidewalk, storm drains and streetlights. Additionally, the applicant has approached staff requesting to utilize the residential on-site mitigation planting option, as opposed to paying money -in -lieu as required per the preliminary plat. These changes in the conditions of approval require Planning Commission approval. K:IReports120051PC Reporfs106-27-051PPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley Subdivision).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.1 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Single family homes RSF-4, Res. Single-family, 4 units/acre South Agricultural fields RSF-4, Res. Single-family, 4 units/acre East Single family homes RSF-4, Res. Single-family, 4 units/acre West Agricultural fields RSF-4, Res. Single-family, 4 units/acre Water & Sewer: Water and sewer lines have been extended to serve development. Right-of-way being dedicated: 50' of right-of-way built to City standards for all interior streets. Right-of-way for Mount Comfort Road, a minor arterial in this location, is being dedicated 45 feet from centerline. Street Improvements: All streets within the proposed development have been constructed at 28 feet in width as approved. An assessment for improvements along Mount Comfort Road shall be paid prior to signing the Final Plat. Parks: In order to meet park land dedication requirements, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended money -in -lieu of land assessment in the amount of $10,445 for 19 single family lots due prior to signing the Final Plat. Tree Preservation: Existing: 23.5% Preserved: 13.0 % Required: 23.5% Mitigation: Required Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of FPL 05-1476 with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. The final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Division with revisions prior to the application of any signatures. a. There is a typo on the street table that should be corrected: Sauter Lane is misspelled as Suater Lane. b. Please reference the off-site document number for the 25' utility and drainage easement traversing south from the detention pond at Lot 15. c. Revise the street table to reflect a 7' greenspace to yield a total of 50' for right -of way. 2. Final inspection of required improvements including paving the temporary cul-de-sac at the westernmost end of Sauter Lane and posting a sign indicating the future extension of the street at this location shall occur prior to signing the Final Plat. 3. Additional grading shall be completed along Mount Comfort Road to eliminate ponding issues prior to signing the Final Plat. K.:IReports120051PC Reports106-27-051FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley Subdivision).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.2 4. Subdivision area signage shall be permitted in accordance with applicable city codes, located outside of the right-of-way and coordinated to not encroach into necessary easement areas. 5. Payment of an assessment in the amount of $12 782.05 for Mount Comfort Road improvements shall occur prior to the application of signatures to the final plat. 6. Payment of an assessment in the amount of $3,975 for the unconstructed portion of Sauter Lane shall occur prior to the application of signatures to the final plat. 7. Payment of Park fees in the amount of $10,545 shall be paid prior to the application of signatures to the final plat. Prior to signing of the Final Plat, a Letter of credit in the amount of $17 000 shall be submitted and accepted by the City of Fayetteville for tree mitigation purposes. This letter of credit shall be renewed annually for a period of three years. 9. A minimum of 68 mitigation trees shall be planted in the general locations as shown on the Tree Mitigation Plan. 10. The Tree Mitigation Plan shall be binding to subsequent property owners, along with all notes, general location of trees and covenant restrictions for the subdivision. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for each of the homes constructed, all trees on each respective lot shall be installed. 11. Covenants that ensure the continued health and vitality of the mitigation trees, as well as outlining the responsibility of each homeowner or builder for the planting of trees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, shall be reviewed by the Landscape Administrator and filed prior to Final Plat recordation. 12. Trees to be planted by the developer shall be coordinated with development of the homes in the subdivision in order to protect their longevity and health. Timing of planting shall meet with the approval of the Landscape Administrator. Standard Conditions of Approval: 13. 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). 14. 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. 15. All street names and addresses shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 16. All overhead electric lines under 12Kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. K:IRepons120051PC Reports106-27-051FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley Subdivision).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: June 27, 2005 The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", stated in this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date K:IReports120051PC Reports106-27-OSWPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley Subdivision).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.4 PC Meeting of June 27, 2005 THE CITY OF FAYETTEV1LLE, ARKANSAS TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Jeremy Pate, Landscape Administrator Date: June 22, 2005 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 ITEM #: FPL 05-1576 (Maple Valley) Requirements Submitted: ✓ Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator 7 Site Analysis Map Submitted ✓ Site Analysis Written Report Submitted ✓ Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted Canopy Measurements: acres 5.67 square feet 246,814 Tar acres 1.33 square feet 58,105 percent of site area 23.5% acres 0.73 square feet 31,968 percent of total site area 13.00% 23.5% FINDINGS: Per the Planning Commission approval of PPL 04-1264 for Maple Valley, the developer was required to contribute money into the Tree Fund in the amount of $17,000.00 to meet K: UeremylLandscape AdminIPROJECTSIPlats-20041Maple ValteylFPL - TreePreservationReport - PC.doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.5 mitigation requirements. Since that time, the applicant has requested to utilize the residential on-site mitigation planting option, as opposed to paying money -in -lieu. A Tree Mitigation Plan has been submitted and reviewed. Staff recommends in favor of utilizing this option, as it provides a suitable manner in which tree canopy can be replaced and added to the neighborhood in a timely fashion. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Tree Mitigation Plan associated with this project, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to signing of the Final Plat, a letter of credit in the amount of $17,000 shall be submitted and accepted by the City of Fayetteville. This letter of credit shall be renewed annually for a period of three years. 2. A minimum of 68 mitigation trees shall be planted in the general locations as shown on the Tree Mitigation Plan. 3. The Tree Mitigation Plan shall be binding to subsequent property owners, along with all notes, general location of trees and covenant restrictions for the subdivision. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for each of the homes constructed, all trees on each respective lot shall be installed. 4. Covenants that ensure the continued health and vitality of the mitigation trees, as well as outlining the responsibility of each homeowner or builder for the planting of trees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, shall be reviewed by the Landscape Administrator and filed prior to Final Plat recordation. 5. Trees to be planted by the developer shall be coordinated with development of the homes in the subdivision in order to protect their longevity and health. Timing of planting shall meet with the approval of the Landscape Administrator. K LLeremylLandscnpe AdmintPROJECTSIPlats-2004LLJaple Va11eyIFPL - TreePreservationReport - PC.doc June 27; 2005 Planning Commission FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.6 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479-444-3469 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Meeting Date: Item: Park District: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Matt Mihalevich, Park Planner June 15, 2005 Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Comments June 16, 2005 FPL 05-1476 Maple Valley, pp 363 NW Zoned: RSF-4 Billing Name & Address: Fayetteville Baptist Church, 2809 Mt. Comfort Rd. Single Family Multi Family Mobile Home Lot Split COMMENTS: Current Land Dedication Requirement @ .024 acre per unit = acres @ .017 acre per unit = acres @ .024 acre per unit = acres Money in Lieu 19 @ $555 per unit = $10.545 @ $393 per unit = $ @ $555 per unit = $ @ $555 per unit = $ ▪ The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in Lieu of land on September 13, 2004. • Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $10,545 for 19 single-family units. • This fee is based upon the present park land formula in accordance with U.D.O. 166.03K. Also, Ordinance 4068 requires the formula base to be updated every two years to the current average market price. Therefore the actual_park land fee will be determined on the date of the Subdivision Meeting approval unless it must be approved at the Planning Commission level. • Parks fees are due prior to issuance of the final plat. FPL05- 4 June 27, 2005 Planning Commission FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.7 MEATO MARK pR Legend ,poop. Oveaay District exeows Principal Anenal FLOODWAY --'--- 50O YEAR Master Street Plan ^as", Minor Arterial 100 YEAR --- LIMIT OF STUDY Master Street Plan — .0 Collector — — - BaseLine Profile Freeway/Expressway a e e • Histonc Collector p Fayetteville Jugew2C4 39U5 PlanniaorififitiAion 75 150 aoo 450 600 FPL 05-1476 (Maple Valley) Feet Page 2.8 FPL05-1476 One Mile View RSF-4 MAPLE VALLEY RSF-4 RSF-* 14. - fRYSTAt. DR 1 i0 .—z �a iE• £ P 111 SFi'; RSF-4 CPZD/ 0-2 1 0-2 C-2 h,FjfS.4 f P, o RSF-1 110C1,43111 :33110a1.311.11Q1'.&JI1.,14:211341,1-S1,1‘1": RSF 1 1 r D ' , z.: R -A 4 SF -4 R -A NT COMFORT RD Y-. FiO'Gn`T yC .1: QUAIL DR RSF-4 RSF-4 APP 5T j-3 RSF-4 PIT -12 RT -12 RT -12 RSI RT 12 ` J. F -Z4 F -A .33 RT -12 RT 12 3+¢. RTl2 ' RMF -24 ET-12RaRA I RT II 24 ---R11F-4q - RT 12 RMF -24 I RI 12 RA Rsf-0I Rt R1,34:34 ams -24 RMF 24 -12 RT 12 RM4-24 y - _... 1 V2, DI C-2 C1 R_o 0-1 R-0 R -A RMF -24 Overview RO 0-1 Ct A au:ns-�.�-i=a _a- 0-1 o-1 0'i R-0 R-0 Riff RA MF -2$ ;RMF24 R RSF-4 SF -4 w': wi RSF-4 RT -1: RSF4 RSF-4 MF -24 RMF ---44 Legend Subject Property FPL05-1476 Boundary Planning Area 000 Overlay District i Outside City 0 0.1250.25 0.5 -o -.-- _' - RSF-4 RSF- i r RSFd RMF 26t RSF-4 RSF4' ff'/i F RSF- a i c y • RSF-4 -- W o. 1 .,' • ORP. DR RSF-4 , z, ?; RSF-4 _ Y ST ••a EASY STB£RRY 5T !• Master Street Plan Master Street Plan Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial mixt Minar Arterial Collector •• • • Historic Collector 0.75 1 RMF -24 June 27, 2005 Planning Commission L Iles 1476 (Maple Valley) Page 2.9 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of June 27, 2005 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer DATE: June 23, 2005 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 VAC 05-1522: Vacation (Springwoods, pp 247) Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS for property located at SPRINGWOODS & SW CORNER OF HWY 112 & TRUCKER'S DRIVE. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 90.93 acres. The request is to vacate a permanent multi -use easement and a temporary construction easement within the subject property. Property Owner: COLLINS HAYNES Findings: Planner: JEREMY PATE Property Description and Background: The subject property is located southwest of I- 540, Arkansas State Highway 112 within the Springwoods Commercial Planned Zoning District (C-PZD) and adjoining parcels to the east. The final plat for the Springwoods C- PZD was approved by the City in June 2004 and the future vacation of this permanent multi-use/water/sewer easement was noted on the final plat. Currently no public utilities or public uses occupy the easement. As part of an agreement between the City of Fayetteville and the applicant (see attachments to this report), the easement would stay in place until an alternative easement serving the same purpose was located, secured, and conveyed to the City. It was only a matter of timing as to when the alternative easement would be conveyed. The required conditions regarding this alternative easement have been met between the City and the applicant, and an easement has been granted along the north property line in a similar fashion. Request: The applicants request to vacate a 50' multi -use easement and a 100' temporary construction easement, as it is no longer necessary to facilitate the construction of future sewer lines. K:\Reports\2005\PC Reports\06-27-05\VAC 05-1522 (Springwoods).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission. VAC 05-1522 (Springwoods) Page 3.1 The appli cant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the City. The results are as follows: UTILITIES RESPONSE Ozarks Electric No Objections Cox Communications No Objections Southwestern Electric Power Company No Objections Arkansas Western Gas No Objections Southwestern Bell Telephone No Objections CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: RESPONSE Water/Sewer No Objections. Transportation No Objections Solid Waste No Objections Engineering No Objections Public Continent: The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the adjacent property owners. Adjacent property owners had no objections to the proposed vacation. Recommendation: Staff finds that vacating the easement would not adversely affect the provision of utilities to the property or any other properties. Staff recommends approval of the proposed easement vacation VAC 05-1522 with the following conditions: 1. The Concurrence for release of easement for Southwestern Bell shall be recorded at the Benton County courthouse prior to vacating the easement K:\Reports\2005\PC Reports\06-27-05\VAC 05-1522 (Springwoods).doc June 27, 2005 Planning Commission VAC 05-1522 (Springwoods) Page 3.2