HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-13 - Agendas - Final I
k
S
j
f
FAYETTEVILLE
r
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
125W. Mountain St..
" Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:(479)575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
F ,
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday, October 13,
2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room
E
219, Fayetteville,Arkansas.
f ;
Roll Call
The following items will be considered:
Approval of minutes from the September 22,2003 meeting.
New Business:
1. PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323)was submitted by
Northstar Engineering for property located at 3110 Mount Comfort Rd. The property is
zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains 21.15 acres. The
request is to modify the approved preliminary plat of 56 Single-family lots to allow for 2
additional (58 total)residential lots. Planner: Jeremy Pate
2. PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat (Overton Park,pp 220)was submitted by
Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Terry Gulley for property located on the 3400
block of Gulley Rd. The property is located in the Planning Area and contains 58.81
acres. The request is to approve the development of 51 Single-family lots. (previously
Remington Subdivision) Planner: Suzanne Morgan
3. CUP 03-21.00: Conditional Use (Jernigan,pp 524) was submitted by James P.
Jernigan for property located at 604 Blair Avenue. The property is zoned RMF-24,
Residential Multi-family, 24 units per acre. The request is to allow construction of a
Single-family residence on this tandem lot. Planner: Suzanne Morgan This item tabled.
4. CUP 03-22.00: Conditional Use (Covenant Presbyterian Church, pp 438) was
submitted by Freeland-Kauffman &Fredeen, Inc. on behalf of the Covenant Presbyterian
Church for property located at 4511 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned
Residential-Agricultural. The request is to change the non-conforming use of this
property by adding 24 additional parking spaces. Planner: Suzanne Morgan
5. CUP 03-23.00: Conditional Use (Kantz Fitness Center, pp. 271)was submitted by
Kathy Ball on behalf of the Kautz Center LLC for property located at 2668 Citizens Dr.
The property is zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial. The request is for the operation
of a recreational facility in a C-1 zoning district. Planner: Dawn Warrick
6
k
5
r:
6. LSD 03.33.00: Large Scale Development g . p (Millennium Plaza,pp 177) was
submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Kirk Elsass for
property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Crossover Rd. The property
is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 3.205 acres. The request is to
construct a 32,344 square foot retail commercial building with 144 parking spaces
cproposed. Planner: Suzanne Morgan
7. LSD 03-34.00: Large Scale Development(Collision Repair Center, pp 287)was
submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for
property located south of 2787 N McConnell Ave. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.39 acres. The request is for the construction
of a collision repair center. Planner: Jeremy Pate
-i 8. LSD 03-32.00: Large Scale Development (The Crowne,pp 598)was submitted by
Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of LEC Properties for property located on both
sides of Beechwood Avenue, south of 15'' Street. The property is zoned RMF-24,
Residential Multi-family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 32.3 acres. The
request is to build an apartment complex with 444 dwelling units proposed. Planner:
Jeremy Pate
9. ADM 03-24.00: Administrative Item: (Master Street Plan Amendment, pp 247,
248) was submitted by Joe Tarvin of EGIS Consulting on behalf of Colin Haynes in
conjunction with the springwoods PZD. The request is to remove the proposed westward
extension of Trucker's Dr., designated a Collector street, from the Master Street Plan.
Planner: Jeremy Pate
10.ADM 03-25.00: Administrative Item: (Master Street Plan Amendment, pp 286)
was submitted by Joe Tarvin of EGIS Consulting on behalf of Collins Haynes in
conjunction with the springwoods PZD. The request is to remove the proposed
Technology Blvd., designated a Collector street, from the Master Street Plan. Planner:
Jeremy Pate
11. C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District(springwoods,pp 248)was submitted
by Joe Tarvin, P.E. of EGIS Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Collins Haynes for property
located on the southwest side of I-540 and Arkansas Highway 112. The property is zoned
I-1,Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, in the Design Overlay District
and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a
Planned Zoning District to allow for development of Residential and Commercial sites.
Planner: Jeremy Pate
12. R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District(Lazenby,pp 560)was submitted by
Landtech Engineering Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the west
side of Razorback Rd. between Baum Stadium and the State Revenue office. The
property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, and contains approximately
8.79 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential PZD (Planned Zoning
District)to allow for the construction of 112 Multi-family residential units with 168
bedrooms and 168 parking spaces and 15,400 s.f of office/retail space with 57 parking
spaces proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate
r
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item—Chairman
B. Presentation of Staff Report
C. Presentation of request—Applicant
D. Public Comment
E. Response by Applicant/Questions &Answer with Commission
F. Action of Planning Commission(Discussion&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.
2003 Planning Commissioners
Nancy Allen
Jill Anthes
Don Bunch
Alice Church
Bob Estes
Sharon Hoover
Alan Ostner
Loren Shackelford
Christian Vaught
PPL 03-12.10
Page 1
FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of October 13, 2003
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:479-575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick,A.I.C.P.,Zoning&Development Administrator
DATE: October 06, 2003
PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat(Crofton Manor,pp 323)was submitted byNorthstar
Engineering for property located at 3110 Mount Comfort Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4,
Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains 21.15 acres. The request is to modify
the approved preliminary plat of 56 Single-family lots to allow for 2 additional(58 total)
residential lots. Planner: Jeremy Pate
Background:
In August of 2003, Planning Commission granted approval of a Preliminary Plat for Crofton
Manor,a single family residential subdivision 58 total lots,comprised of 55 proposed residential
lots, one large existing residential lot and two lots containing detention ponds. At the time,the
applicant expressed the desire to retain the existing conditions of Lot 1, on which the existing
residence is sited. Specifically,the conditions read:
1. Access to Lot 1 shall remain in situ until such time as redevelopment on this particular lot occurs.
Lot 1 access shall be restricted to interior streets at that time.
2. planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Mt. Comfort Road.Staff is
recommending 14 feet from centerline to include pavement, curb and gutter, storm sewer, and a 6-foot
sidewalk at least I o feet from the curb, extending the entire length of the property. The sidewalk
opted b Lot I shall be constructed at the time of redevelopment
ement or that portionfronted Y included a
regmr f
and/or development of any new structure or access change to said lot. The applicant has
note to this effect on the plat,and will also address Lot 1 requirements as an existing lot in the
covenants.
Current Status:
The current request is to amend the preliminary plat to provide for an additional two (2)
residential lots, split from the existing Lot 1 as approved with the Preliminary Plat. The two
I additional lots would bring the total to 60 lots,with 57 proposed single family residential, one
existing single family residential,and the remaining two lots utilized for detention. Staff is in
support of the request,provided that the conditions of the original approval regarding access
nstruction are met. All other conditions of the original Preliminary Plat
change and sidewalk co
remain in effect.
i
October 13,2003
K..-Teports120031PCREPOR7Si]0-13WPLa3-12.10(Lofton manor).doe Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.1
PPL 03-1210
Page 2
Recommendation:
Staff recommends PPL 03-12.10 (Crofton Manor)be approved,with the following conditions:
Conditions,of Approval:
1. The applicant shall alter the existing access to Lot 1 to prohibit all vehicular access from
entering onto the lot from Mt. Comfort Road. A drive shall be constructed from the
interior street to access said lot, in accordance with current City regulations for residential
drives.
2. The minimum distance between the Mt. Comfort Road intersection and a residential curb
cutis 60 feet.
3. The subdivision developer shall construct a four-foot sidewalk along the west side of the
proposed lots 1-3 and a six-foot sidewalk along Mt. Comfort Road prior to final plat.
Sidewalk location along Mt. Comfort shall be coordinated with the Sidewalk
Administrator due to existing vegetation. Where possible, sidewalk construction along
Mt. Comfort should be located at the right-of-way line for future provision of an On-
Street Linkage,pursuant to the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation & Trail Master
Plan. Sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed as provided in §158.01.
4. Parks fees shall be adjusted to accommodate for the additional residential lots. Fees shall
be paid in the amount of$31,635 at the time of Final Plat.
5. Tree mitigation fees shall be adjusted to accommodate for the additional canopy. Fees
shall be paid in the amount of$99,675 at the time of Final Plat.
6. All conditions of the approved PPL 03-12.00 shall remain applicable, with the exception
of those noted herein.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date: October 13.2003
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
K:IReports120031PCR6POR7SIIO-131PPL 03-12.J0(6ofton Manor).doc October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.2
•
NORTH STAR Civil&Environmental Engineering
Landscape Architecture
ENGINEERING Geological services
N CONSULTANTS, INC. LandsPlanning
Planning
September 5,2003
Mr.Jeremy Pate,Associate Planner
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville,Arkansas 72701
Re: Revised Preliminary Plat
Crofton Manor Subdivision, Fayetteville,Arkansas
NEC Project No.`319-001
Dear Mr. Pate:
The purpose of this letter is to submit a revised preliminary plat for Crofton Manor Subdivision. The
proposed revision includes dividing Lot 1 into three (3) lots creating two(2) additional lots in the southeast
corner of the subdivision. The revised plat consists of 60 lots including 58 lots for single family-dwellings
and the remaining two (2) lots utilized for detention. Proposed street and drainage improvements remain
as shown on the original layout approved by the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission at the August
11, 2003 meeting. We understand additional park fees and tree mitigation will be required for the
additional lots.
Please call meat 479-271-0906 if you have any questions or need additional information.
Best Regards,
AZ 4V
Mike Bender, PE
Project Manager
Cc: Mr.Aaron Nickell, Woodworks Plus, Inc. RE( EIVED
�17M.—a
Mr.William Kimbrough, Owner
SEP0n
File
PLANI� iNG DIV.
October 13,2003
C:\Data-F%DATA\WORD\319\Revision Request 9-5-03.doc p ission
211 South Main SVeet - PPL g�-�.ffi ) .h 4 anor)
Bentonville,Arkansas 72712 - Email nseng@swbe11-nX#ge 1.3
The City of Fayetteville will hold two public hearings regarding this proposed development. The tunes and
locations of the public hearings areas follows:
The Subdivision Committee will be held Thursday, October 2,_2003 at 8:30 a.m. If will be held in the City
IIWe have received notice of the public meetings for the proposed development of the above described
property and:
O IIWe have no objections to the proposed development. RECEIVED
(J4 IIWe object to the proposed development because: SEP 5 2003
2 3
Address Signature
i r t
For more information, you may call the Fayetteville Planning Department at 479-575-8267. nIQ CJNI 'NN V1d
I/We have received notice of the public meetings for the proposed development of the aiwosserihee4
property and: G�aJJ
( )�INVe have no objections to the proposed development. 03AGo3a
(- Ime object to the proposed development because: /4MS7///
Uv✓S 4.n� 7/e 'J'5�-u,P� /, �c Ic/v� /�r7e, tib
aL-ii r� I�IJSr�. G_U�TC� Gig �CI G.G G� (,�� cL:�Y� �0/c� 'TtiPlt� Cf YPY('( C12Ji.M� CG...L1G'%YL:i/
� r �vv1h
�Que 7L¢ olcl `56.c'e" /irlr G( cv (� r3Pa� �P�r��Cad ;1 P(sv c+7-7 C l Tt� fcn7 Tit
>eeri2of�.5 leo I'L, pzU l 7 SPL! hr�1 T /Ze.si�
Address Signature
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.4
Planning Commission
August 11, 2003
Page 2 ,
Hoover: Welcome to the August 11, 2003 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning
Commission. Renee, will you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present.
Hoover: Thank you Renee. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting
from July 28th9
Bunch: So moved.
Allen: Second.
Hoover: Renee, would you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from
the July 28t meeting was approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) was submitted by Northstar
Engineering on behalf of Aaron Nickel of Woodworks Plus, Inc. for property located at
3110 Mt.' Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4
units per acre and contains approximately 21.15. The request is for a proposed residential
subdivision containing 58 lots with 56 Single- family dwelling units.
Hoover: Item one on the agenda is PPL 03-12.00 for property located at 3110 Mt.
Comfort Road. Jeremy?
Pate: This property is located at Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4,
Residential Single-family four units per acre, and contains approximately
21.15 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision containing 58 lots
with 55 single-family dwelling units proposed. The existing residence is
lot one and the remaining two lots are utilized for detention ponds. The
surrounding zoning is RSF-4 as well and the surrounding land use is
single-family residential and agricultural. Water and sewer are extended
from existing lines along Mt. Comfort Road. There is a typo in your tree
preservation. 1.89% is existing currently on the site. That 1.89% is also
required and preserved is 1.84% so there is a .05 difference and so there is
mitigation required. Street improvements proposed are 14' from
centerline of Mt. Comfort Road with curb, gutter, storm sewer and
required sidewalks along the entire street frontage. Staff is recommending
that the sidewalk construction along lot 1, the existing single-family
residence be waived until such time as redevelopment and change in land
use and ownership occurs. A note to this affect has been included on the
Plat. Stub outs for future connectivity to the west and to the north are
proposed by the applicant. Staff is recommending a provision for future
connectivity to the north and the west as a means to alleviate traffic
congestion on Mt. Comfort Road and provide alternative vehicular and
pedestrian access points in the future. Local streets are designWtober 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.5
Planning Commission
i
August 11, 2003
Page 3
provide access to abutting land uses and to provide connections to a higher
order of systems. The stub out to the west potentially would connect to
Salem Road allowing residents the opportunity to travel north to Howard
Nickle Road and south to Wedington Drive at the time of build out of the
Master Street Plan. The stub out to the north allows for a future connection
to the planned east/west collector street on the Master Street Plan linking
54`h Street to Raven Lane. The City of Fayetteville General Plan 2020
specifically addresses the city policy of connectivity stating that new
development should be regulated to require connectivity in order to
provide for easy access to commercial and residential areas by vehicles,
pedestrians and bicyclists. Staff recommends that the streets shown to be
stubbed out to the north and west for the purpose of connectivity'be
approved as indicated. Projected vehicle trips per day for a single-family
residence is approximately 10 total vehicle trips per day for 550 trips;per
day. The proposed Preliminary Plat was heard at Technical Plat Review
on July 2" and Subdivision on July 31s`. Discussion at Subdivision did
include traffic on Mt. Comfort Road. The detention ponds proposed,
sewer capacity, proposed covenants and the proposed stub outs for future
connectivity. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Preliminary
Plat subject to fourteen conditions of approval. I will go over those for
you. 1) Access to Lot 1 shall remain in situ until such time as
redevelopment on this particular lot occurs. Lot 1 access shall be
restricted to interior streets at that time. 2) Planning Commission
determination of offsite street improvements to Mt. Comfort Road.Staff is
recommending 14 feet from centerline to include pavement; curb and
gutter, storm sewer, and a 6-foot sidewalk at least 10 feet from the curb,
extending the entire length of the property. The sidewalk requirement for
that portion fronted by Lot 1 shall be constructed at the time of
redevelopment and/or development of any new structure or access change
to said lot. The applicant has included a note to this effect on the plat, and
will also address Lot 1 requirements as an existing,lot in the covenants. 3)
Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for required
frontage of 70 feet for an RSF-4 residential lot (Lot 10). The Board of
Adjustment must approve the waiver request prior to final approval. The
applicant is proposing to stub out a street for future connectivity to the
west and to the north. The stub out to the north extends approximately 28
feet along the proposed Lot 10, with future right-of-way dedication
planned. The request is for approval of a buildable lot without adequate
public frontage until such time as the street is constructed by future
development. Staff is in support of this request. 4) Planning Commission
determination of assessment for future road construction along Lot 58, the
northeast detention pond. The developer is responsible for payment of
assessed amount prior to final plat recordation. Staff recommends the
assessment be in the amount of $22,660 for approximately 206 feet of
construction to local street standards, with 14 feet from centerline paving,
curb and gutter, storm drains and required sidewalks. 5) The existing
barbed-wire fences along the property boundaries shall be removed.
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor) -
Page 1.6
Planning Commission
August 11,2003
Page 4
Those fences used for agricultural purposes for adjacent landowners shall
remain. 6) Right-of-way for Mt. Comfort road requires 45 feet from
centerline dedication. Proper dedication shall be made at final plat. 7) All
street names shall be approved by the City of Fayetteville GIS division. 8)
Access shall be limited to interior streets for those lots fronting Mt.
Comfort Road, including lots 26-32, and Lot 1 at the time of '
redevelopment. 9) The covenants must provide for maintenance of the
lots which include the detention ponds. 10) Sidewalk construction in
accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk and a
minimum of ten feet of green space along Mt. Comfort Road. All interior
streets shall have a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace
on both sides where applicable. Sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed
by money in a city escrow account prior to final plat approval. 11)
Payment of parks fees in the amount of$30,525 (55 SF lots at $555) are
due prior to recordation of the final plat. Items 12 and 13 are standard
conditions of approval. If it pleases the Commission staff would like to
add an additional condition be required of the developer reading "Tree
mitigation fees shall be paid into the tree escrow account in the amount of
$450 prior to Final Plat.
Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward please?
Blakeley: Hi, my name is Mark Blakeley, I'm with Northstar Engineering
representing Woodworks Plus on this subdivision. I would just like to add
a few things that Jeremy didn't go over. The homes in this subdivision
will be approximately 1,800 sq.ft. and all brick. We are planning on
putting oil catchers in the detention ponds to make the quality of the water
runoff better than it would be if there weren't any. We have worked with
Carl Strain, the neighbor to the northeast and acquired an easement for our
force main through him. We haven't got the paperwork done but he has
agreed to an easement on that. We have been working with our neighbors
to the north,that's where we decided to put the oil catcher in the ponds to
help alleviate any of their concerns and they are here today and I guess
they will have questions for that. I guess I just want to say if there are any
questions that you might have I can be here to answer them now.
Hoover: Right now we are going to take public comment and then we will come
back to you. Thank you. Right now if we could take public comment on
this PPL 03-12.00. Is there any member of the audience that would like to
address this? Come to the podium and when you do will you please state
your name and if there is a sign in sheet sign in.
Kimbrough, L:I don't see a sign in sheet but my name is Les Kimbrough and I am one of
the neighbors to the north. We appreciate the time and effort that Northstar
has put in to helping us address some of the concerns about our runoff. I
wouldn't be able to say that we are 100% satisfied just with those
recommendations. Our number one concern out there, and I think
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.7
Planning Cornrnission
August 11, 2003
Page 5
everybody in the neighborhood would agree, is traffic. Before you guys
proceed I would simply like to suggest that someone please come out,
especially during the school year, and come down Salem Road and
attempt a left hand turn on Mt: Comfort. Between the hours of 7:45 and
8:30 that is virtually impossible and it gets pretty dangerous even during
other times of the day. It is my understanding that there are other
subdivisions in the Planning on Salem Road. Ibelieve one of the names
of them is Salem Heights. I don't know how far that extends back but I
understand that there is a considerable amount of construction that is
going to go on there with several hundred units. I would suggest that Mt.
Comfort, Salem, and even Rupple Road coming up to the middle school
are inadequately prepared to handle that many people. I would just simply
make the suggestion that someone please come and look at that traffic.
Although the engineering company has been very helpful with us in
making suggestions that doesn't address the number one concern out
there, that is the safety and traffic issue. Thank you:
Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to
address this Preliminary Plat?
Kimbrough, J: Hi, Jim Kimbrough, I'm also a neighbor to the north. I was reading the
paper the other day and I kind of was concerned after I saw 421 units on
Clabber Creek subdivision and as I listened a couple of weeks ago we
talked about 560 trips for the 560 units for this proposal.
Warrick: Generally a single-family home generates 10 trips per day.
Kimbrough, J: I am also looking at a department of the Army, the Corp. of Engineers,
that speaks to another subdivision right next to us on the west and it has
got about 31 acres of property on it. I looked at the little map and it looks
like there is probably better than 60 units in that one as well. If you kind
of add those up it gets substantially more than 560 trips. You are looking
at more like 4,500 or 5,000 trips once all of these things are put into place.
Again, our chief concern is the traffic flow. My chief concern even more
so than that is the retention ponds, the detention ponds. I think that it is a
bit much to take a subdivision like this and run that thing right up to 2' or
3' of the fence line, build this pond and then build a cement runway right
onto my mother's backyard on one of the ponds and into the other part of
our property on the east side and indicate that that is a good way to handle
the runoff problem that we don't currently have. We don't have any
problem right now but we are going to when this subdivision gets
developed. It is good that we have talked about the oil separators. It is not
good that it is within 2' of the boundary line and is going to run right into
our fence and across some agricultural property. I think that there could
be some other options besides running those ponds right up to the line and
dumping it on us. I think that those that are engineers could look at it,
those that are going to subdivide it look at it. If you all have that in f frroober 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.8
Planning Commission•
August 11,2003
Page 6
of you, take a peak and you can kind of see what I'm talking about. Les '
and my mother are probably more concerned with the wester most
detention pond, I'm concerned with the eastern most because of the lay of
the land. While it may have an oil separator to catch some of the
pollutants that are going to come off that storm drain, all of that water is
going to end up in my backyard eventually and running down a dry creek
bed. The engineers have both come out and taken a look at it and they
understand what my dilemma is and they also understand my concerns,
thus, the oil separators. I do have some questions about these ponds too
for you guys to consider and I'm about to get done here so bear with me.
If the city is not going to maintain these ponds how are they going to be
maintained? The stone drain and that runoff is going to have a great deal
of trash in it before it is all said and done not counting the runoff that
involves gasoline and oil and all the other stuff that is going to be there.
Who is it that will mow those ponds and keep them in some kind of
condition? I want to know who will be accountable for the water quality
and for the trash pick up later on down the line. It may be ok here on the
front end, maybe we won't get a big rain here for a while but eventually
we will and I want to know who's door to knock on as I monitor water
quality as I attempt to protect a federally protected wetland on my
property about 1,000 yards. I think those are things to consider. Again, I
think it is a bit presumptuous too, and I will mention the stub outs just
briefly. The one going to the west I understand that would be a greatidea,
that's our property and we don't have any intention of giving that property
up. To simply have the stub out there is kind of saying well, you are going
to have to before it's all over with anyway. That is why I objected initially
about them and also I know what those stub outs end up being, they end
up being parking lots. The one to the north, while I understand the idea of
connectivity, is going to be a while and you have got a detention pond
right next to the one on the north and why would it be ok having that there
running onto that property if it is going to be developed sooner or later. I
think that the answer the engineer gave me is that they will build a pipe
and they will manage that runoff later on. I want them to build a pipe
now. -I don't want it on me now. If you are going to build one I think it is
time to do it at the front end. I will finish up by saying that the
infrastructure is not in place to handle this much load in terms of traffic.
You are imposing, not you, but this addition will impose on us if it is
handled the way it is. There could be a little space in between those
detention ponds and our fence line. There could be some more planning
built into this concept of dumping that stuff on the neighbor, running it
right up against the fence, oil separator or not. I would appreciate you all
considering those things. Thanks.
Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to
address this Preliminary Plat?
Patrick: Hi, I'm Betty Patrick and I want to ask about the ponds. We have had a
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.9
Planning Comrnission�
August 11, 2003
.Page 7
big problem since I have lived out there for 31 years with water moccasins
and copperheads. Mr. Kimbrough used to have a pond back there and the
water moccasins were incredible. It was not fun, even with my kids going
out in the yard I was having to watch for them to kill them. We had a
problem this year and there is no pond out there, 'he bulldozed that off.
What is going to keep water moccasins out of this water that.is going to be
supposedly behind my house? Of course you know how I feel about the
traffic. That is a major problem out there for everybody. It affects
everybody. I just want to know what the health hazards. I am like this
guy here. What is the oil, who is going to maintain it? Who is going to
take care of the trash? Who is going to keep that up on down the road? '
That is all I have to say.
Hoover: Thank you: Is there any other member of the audience? Seeing none, I
will bring it back to the Commission. Matt, would you kind of review
with us our ordinances for detention ponds and how these are going to
work?
Casey: Ok. As you know it is the policy of the City of Fayetteville that we
require the developer to provide some sort of storm water detention.
Usually we see that in these ponds where they limit the peak flow from the
development to what is actually out there now. They are not allowed to
increase the peak flow from the site so the detention pond holds back the
water to release it at those predevelopment rates. To address some of the
concerns about the maintenance, when this comes through for Final Plat,
assuming it passes tonight, after construction when it comes through for
Final Plat it will be noted and it will be requiredon the Final Plat that the
property owner's association for the subdivision will be responsible for the
maintenance of the pond: hi the future if there are problems with the grass
not being mowed, trash, etc., our code enforcement officers can go out and
evaluate that and through them we can enforce the cleanup of the ponds
and the maintenance of those ponds. Does that answer your question?
Hoover: Yes. Commissioners, are there any other questions about detention
ponds?
Ostner: For illustration, people are talking about water moccasins and what not, I
was wondering how full these ponds would be and how often they would
be fullIt is called a pond.
Casey: It is a dry pond. The majority of the time it will be dry, it will be sodded .
just like most of the yards and properly maintained it can be a nice
landscaped area. As far as when it holds water it will just be during the
heavier storm events. It will hold some water in the lower storms and
more up to the 100-year storm but the majority of the time it will not have
water in it. We also require that concrete trickle channels be placed
though the ponds and that the ponds be grated to that to get the small
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.10
Planning Commission•
August 11, 2003
Page 8
amounts of water that could remain in there and be mosquito traps so that
will get out of there so it isnot causing those health hazards.
Hoover: Are there any other questions about detention ponds?
Bunch: When you are looking at these post development flows and
predevelopment flows, predevelopment flows right now are sheet flows
and assuming how this looks, you will still have some sheet flow off the
proposed houses. What impact do you look at on restricting flow? The
Dow is going to be limited to less than predevelopment rates but it will
also be concentrated to a smaller area, what sort of provisions are made for
that?
Casey: On this site there are two ponds and both of them are discharging in the
general direction that it is going now. I am looking at the contours,there
is not a defined channel through there across the property. The lay of the
land is they are discharging in the same direction that it would all be going
anyway and I have talked to them through the preliminary stages and they
have indicated that they were going to try to get some easements to the
north to pipe that because I had told them early on that we are not going to
allow a point discharge directly off onto the neighbors. That is something
that we look at in more detail in review of the construction plans after this
step in the process. I was told by the applicant that they would-be
pursuing easements to the north to try to channelize that or put it in a pipe
to try to make that less of an impact. We have several different options
available. They can release it into different outlet structures for the pond
to where it will spread out and that is something that I will be working
with the design engineers on through the construction phase.
Bunch: Thank you.
Hoover: Are there any other detention pond questions? Ok, shall we move onto
traffic? I guess I would like staff, can you tell us, and I don't know if our
traffic consultants have made any recommendations for Mt. Comfort Road
or what our plans are.
Warrick: I can tell you that staff has requested that they look specifically in this
general area of Mt. Comfort, Rupple, Salem. The transportation study is a
city wide study and therefore, we are looking to the consultants to provide
recommendations to the city with regard to transportation infrastructure
city wide. We know that there are developments occurring in this
particular quadrant of the city and we have asked them to address the
northwest portion of Fayetteville. The transportation consultants are in the
process of finalizing their final draft. It will be presented to the Planning
Commission and the City Council at a public hearing on August 26d,here
in this room at 6:00 p.m. Staff is also working towards preparing the
capital improvements program for the next five years and that is
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.11
Planning Commission
August 11,2003
Page 9
something that the City Council will be considering within the next few
months in part of the budgeting process. I can't say what's in that at this
point in time there is nothing that is solid as far as a recommendation but
that is in the preparation right now.
Hoover: Dawn, when we are looking at these subdivisions and there is a traffic.
issue,is there some criteria that we are basing our decisions on or how are
we basing our decision?
Warrick: ' I'm not sure I know exactly what you're looking for.
Hoover: I guess how do we know when too much is too many trips?
Warrick: A lot of what we know is from what the neighbors tell us as to the traffic
patterns and what is happening in that general area. There is capacity on
Mt. Comfort if you consider the type of street that it is and the number of
trips generated in that general area. I don't have hard numbers for you but
there are certainly peak hours where there are failures in the intersection
out there but there are also times when there is not problem and traffic
flows freely. It is not a 24/7 critical problem but there are situations that
need to be addressed and that is something that staff is looking towards the
transportation study to help us to develop some solutions and some
priorities with regard to our transportation infrastructure. What we can do,
what we feel is appropriate to do, is to work towards meeting the goals of
the city's Master Street Plan and to implement the city's policies on
connectivity through means such as the proposed connections, stub outs in
this case to the west and to the north because we feel that as property
develops in the future, it may long term future, but we need to keep in
mind that property will develop and we need to have connections to keep
those trips off of our major thoroughfares so that people can get for
instance, their children to school without having to go in and out off of
major streets so that children can visit their friends by way of sidewalk or
trails. That is the idea of having this policy for connectivity and we feel
that it is appropriate to look at stub outs as a means of implementing that.
Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners, are there questions or comments?
Bunch: A question on the condition number three,just to clear it.up, it talks about
a future right of way dedicated for the north stub out. I realize that that
might not be a complete full width street but would the dedication be at
this time by deed for future use or would the dedication occur in the
future?
Warrick: We would expect the right of way to be dedicated with the Final Plat
document for this subdivision after construction is completed.
Bunch: Thank you.
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
• Page 1.12
Planning Commission
August 11, 2003
Page '10
Shackelford: Two questions. Do we have signed conditions of approval on this?
Warrick: We do.
Shackelford: A question to the applicant, you have heard conversation tonight regarding
some recalculation on the tree preservation, the fact that there is .05
mitigation required and I believe a tree mitigation fee of$450, are you in
agreement with that as well?
Blakeley: Yes.
Shackelford: Thank you.
Allen: I am still not real clear with the traffic issue whether we depend upon the
future street study in making this decision.
Warrick: The last time that the city had a city wide transportation study I believe
was in 1992. We have had a lot of changes in the City of Fayetteville
since that time. There has been a lot of new development and a lot of
infrastructure changes. It was time for us to go back and request to hire a
consultant to do a new transportation study. Since 1992 we have been
developing. We have been basing our information on our Master Street
Plan and what we feel full build out will be once additional properties
develop. I mentioned at Subdivision that the city doesn't have a lot of
capital improvement projects to go out and build streets. We rely on
developers to do that as they come through with proposed development
projects, we make those streets connect asbestwe can to fulfill the goals
of the Master Street Plan and the General Plan. Through development is
the way that we get infrastructure improvements. As each piece comes
along we.put the puzzle together and eventually we have a street system
that meets the needs of that general area. That is the goal. Without
development there is no need .for infrastructure improvements. As
development occurs there certainly are growing pains and there are times
when the development and the infrastructure are not timed as far as they
don't coincide exactly right. That is a situation where the city needs to go
in and what we are doing is going in and looking at our transportation
infrastructure trying to identify through the consultant's study problem
areas and solutions to those areas so that is how we hopefully get to a
point that there is a balance between the infrastructure and the demand.
Allen: That is a very good answer and hopefully helpful to the neighborhood.
Shackelford: If I am hearing correctly it looks like there are mainly two issues of
concern here. One being the detention pond. I think that our ordinances
do a very good job of addressing these issues. There is some
misconception when you hear detention pond, you think that it holds water
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.13
Planning Comm-3ission
August 11,2003
Page 11
year,around and that isnot the case. It is made to control runoff during
high rain situations. The. second point obviously is traffic. I have friends
irl this area and I spend time in this part of town and obviously there is a
traffic concern here. I concur with what our city staff is telling us and I
have heard other commissioners say in the recent past of how we look at
these deals. We are basically dependent upon development to increase
revenue through impact fees and property taxes to allow funds to improve
the infrastructure in these areas. That floes cause a problem because there
is always going to be a need before there is a solution in these high growth
areas for infrastructure improvement. In my opinion the only way we are
going to get the infrastructure improvement is to allow the development
that is going to fund these improvements over time. With that being said,
I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve PPL 03-12.00
subject to all 15 conditions of approval.
Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second?
Vaught: I will second.
Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Vaught,is there any more discussion?
Ostner: It seems a little confusing if Mt. Comfort has times where it is very heavy,
and as you said, some of these intersections are breaking down and aren't
adequate, I'm not understanding why we are adding two. This is not a
huge subdivision, why could we not add one to lessen the friction of
stopping and starting and turning to lessen the friction out onto Mt-
Comfort?
Warrick: You're talking about one access point as opposed to two?
Ostner: Yeah, I guess I'm asking that to you if that has been considered and if that
is part of the equation or is the eventual build out and connectivity what is
going on there?
Warrick: I feel like there is some balance in that as far as the eventual build out
having additional connections and alleviating some of the traffic trips or
motions that would happen on the Mt. Comfort intersection. Mother
thing that is probably to important to look at is access in and out for
emergency purposes and trash pick up and getting people in and out of the
development in the interim while we are waiting for additional properties
in the vicinity to develop and provide that connectivity. You are correct
that every time you have a curb cut you provide additional conflicts on the
street but we are talking about a relatively large tract of land and a pretty
good spacing between the proposed curb cuts. When you talk about the
amount of improvement that is required by a developer for streets for
specifically off site improvements it is very important to realize that the
amount of improvements the city can require has to have some sort of
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.14
Planning Commission
August 11, 2003
.Page 12
relationship to the amount of development that is being proposed. For
instance, we can't look at one 56 lot subdivision and say you are going to
solve all of the city's traffic problems in this area. There is not a balance
to that, they don't bear a rational"nexus to the amount of development that
is being proposed and so that is why we are looking at improvements to
Mt. Comfort to 14' from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drain, To
get back to your particular question with regard to the number of curb
cuts, I feel like there is enough distance to provide some relief in between
these curb cuts, could three be just on? Probably. :It is better for
emergency vehicles and if there is an accident or something that causes
people not be able to get out of one they have an alternative until such
time as that future connectivity is developed.
Bunch: Before we vote, a question for the applicant just to reiterate and get it on
the record. What is the fence situation particularly on the north and the
west properties? Right now that is agricultural land with livestock
operations, site, sounds and odors associated with livestock and the
liabilities with animals and agricultural practices. What are you proposing
on screening from those operations?
Blakeley: What he has proposed is at the time that the house is built for each
individual lot at that time with the house that the fence would be built
then. There is not going to be an overall outside boundary fence to be
built during construction or after it's over, it is going to be with individual
lots.
Bunch: What about the covenants that were mentioned at Subdivision Committee
that would include pond maintenance and that sort of thing. Do you have
those? Have you been working on covenants?
Blakeley: Yes, we have been working with the client on getting a draft of those. We
haven't got that with us today, he hasn't given them to us. I do know that
some of the information that the surrounding neighbors were asking for
that I got information about was the house size, the materials used. The
concern was with the fences on the north and the west was they wanted the
fences to remain and then.there was some confusion about whether the
outside boundary fence would be taken down or not. They will stay and
just a 6' privacy fence that usually goes up standard with the individual
houseis all they have proposed for that. The ponds will be maintained by
the P.O.A. and the trash in the ponds.
Bunch: The covenants will include a recommendation for 6' privacy fence you
said?
Blakeley: I didn't know if that was going to be in the covenants. Typically the
houses that they build they do build 6' fences with them.
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.15
Planning Commission
August 11,;2003
Page 13
Bunch: Ok, but the existing fences will remain.
Blakeley: Yes, the existing fences for agricultural purposes will remain. The interior
fences that are barbed wire will be removed that are on the property.
Allen: Could the traffic study possibly come forward with some idea such as a
stop light or something that might eliminate traffic problems in this area
until the rest of the area has developed? Is that a possibility?
Warrick: I think there are a lot of possibilities. I have not been personally involved
in a whole lot of the direction that has been given to the traffic consultants.
Our Long Range Planning Division has been more on point with that and
the Engineering Division is actually the project manager for that project,
for the study. I don't know exactly how the results are ping to come
forward and the final draft that will be presented on the 26 At that time
though we will have a forum with the consultant and will be able to ask
specific questions and hopefully get more information as to what their
recommendations mean and to how they might be able to be implemented.
Allen: Is that open to the public so that the neighbors might be able to attend if
they have concerns?
Warrick: Yes Ma'am it is and that meeting again is at 6:00 in the evening on August
26u'here in this room.
Allen: Thank you.
Hoover: Are there any other questions? I am just curious Dawn, when we have arl
intersection in the city that fails what is usually the remedy to that? I
know you are saying that it only fails at peak times and I know we have
other, I've seen the charts from the traffic engineers that there are lots of
intersections that fail at peak times.
Warrick: I don't know if I am going to be able to answer that question because each
one is handled probably a little bit differently. There are different reasons
that intersections fail. There are different times that they fail and then
there are different solutions. Typically we would look to our traffic
engineer and request some sort of solution as to how to deal with that.
Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would
you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-12.00 was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero.
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
Page 1.16
P oseUp View CROFTON MANOR
Close Up View
mlhi{IHI� FSF-allHiilkllrtflMlliil.' I�fiil!}lIlir11F.rIIrilWlliMllsrll-!IfF(Ifi{IEill!t`IIIc,IWiliiiifiilMNi,ir}Ihr','I'IRiiIFi411-11k11rII:�I�i�I+II+tIfr.IlitilE}rIh1111411�IFfII'4'fie{sli,;;lhillii{IIrll�'I
�p SUBJECT PROPERTY
jjr l
fl;
I
PRrvAr DR 2 -
f Io I I orL_V
l I ��pi
1 ,
'-_I
1 .LR-A
RsP-4
P.=
RSF-4
y
R-A
RMF24
Overview Legend Boundary
,�- Subject Property
Planning Area Master Street Plan
- --- I—` PPL03-72.00
y000g Overlay District �`��%Freeway/Expressway
Streets L_J City Limits
Principal Arterial
'i \ \...� Existing Outside City Minor Arterial
-�
4i +. Collector October 13,2003 a Planned �.� Planning Commission
Historic Collector g
L" 0 200 400 600 1,200 1,600 L 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)-
Feet Page 1.17
PPL03-12.00 CROFTON MANOR
One Mile View
aaRn =cverrrao = - _ { R A 1 R_q
RSFhyf
£ 1 �fi11k a gal I J MA uAIMIIkr41 {
�} I-
I
- N411ifIMil
RSF-4 p,LEY
Iltl
II
A.__
' I hIIMIhhlfrHl
1a
RLP
SF4'
..... i RSF-$��"
FZSF-4
1 al
M00 E
Ni9fIN1FHIX1 14i11ee(ieii(F,�I+,�{l�!,I}�,I,yyal,.�,r,4i�14H34f'ri4 11+�Sr'rf4ttih?;1h�1}r`ti1F1)I�)h}!IIyIiMlMlfjt}ilhlMilI
SUBJECT PROPERTY Riksa�in
RMF=24C Z
I �'�bV_�.c� J� L R A
'MEnDOFLLnA� G2`f �R' fo,
_lo nklo rl l _ o
R9Iw� I I �F'4iI� -i7 I �o<:" �`i RA,.
__—b-
i ..
P-1
1 I_
�� - ItSF-4 #. RSF-4 r�- _ t -
h
I —
1 1jiNlNl ,({ �lif, - RMF 24RMF 24
Fl i; I 1 I gal �••�ix.11R ��sl ss�a ,I�, s �e 'y�. R_q oe< {
I '�'�'
!RMF-2q l�.
00—
D I II II
r
R A I 't - � A`vi .Cr I ✓�"I i`�' a` Iry ltl ?n iRSF-4 _
R-A i'
'� Iib -.,I�-� ore E t� pts
.I aE9y
�r eiI atRt `�gt Rlvi -6�I
l� 111 FR �
T-12 ;r_ SAM na -1
RMF I o :RSF-4 RSF
— °e' / i a I' sON'S7:
a
a\
II R-A C-2-r-- R-0
C 2 Ilio �I Si -i sM1 I.I.1 ,_� ..I
-- -1 C-1' —PST.
l } iOverview Legend
- _ Legend
Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan
MIPPI-03-12.00 ,~0 Planning Area '-% Freeway/Expressway
c o00
0 Overlay District Pnngpal Arterial
Streets o00o Minor Menal
City Limits
Exi54nB L—— �� Collector
planned Outside City .. - October 13,2003 -
•� Histanc Collector
R Planning Commission
} , L 03-12.10(Crofton Manor)
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 iles Page 1.18
PPL 03-16.00
Page I
FAYETTEVILLE _ PC Meeting of October 13, 2003
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701'
Telephone:501-575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
FROM: Suzanne Morgan,Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P.,Zoning&Development Administrator
DATE: October 6, 2003
PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat(Overton Park,pp 220)was submitted by Jorgensen and
Associates on behalf of Terry Gulley for property located on the 3400 block of Gulley Rd. The
property is located in the Planning Area and contains 58.81 acres. The request is to approve the
development of 51 Single-family lots. (previously Remington Subdivision)
Findings:
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create a 58,81 acre subdivision in the Planning Area
with 51 Single-family lots:
Surrounding Land Use: Single-family residential in the Planning Area.
Water Water will be extended to serve the property.
Sewer: Individual septic systems. Approval of the septic systems for each lot has been granted
by the Arkansas Heath Department. (See attached)
Right-of-way being dedicated:
35' on Gulley Road(collector on the MSP)
70' for the proposed Maywood Road. This street has been proposed as a collector
street to potentially replace the MSP East Bridgewater Lane.
50' for the proposed Briargate Drive, Suddleridge Drive, Appalachian Way, and
Gunnison Drive.
Street Improvements Proposed:
• Gulley Road will be improved to Washington County Standards.
• Proposed Briargate Drive,Maywood Road, Suddleridge Drive, Appalachian Way, and
Gunnison Drive will be built to 28' with curb and gutter.
All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Gulley Road is classified as a Collector on the Master
Street Plan. East Bridgewater Lane classified as a planned Principal running diagonally
K.IREPOR7S120031PCREPOR7SV 0-131PPL 03-16.00 0VE1MV'p*�;.PNC2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-16.00(Overton Park)
Page 2.1
PPL 03-16.00
Page 2
northwest of the property.
Background: The preliminary plat for Overton Park was heard at the Technical Plat Review on
September 17,2003 and at Subdivision Committee on October 2,2003. The Subdivision
Committee forwarded the project to full Planning Commission.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. The name of the subdivision shallberevised on the plat.
2, The centerline of Gulley Road shall clearly be noted on the plat.
3. Requested note limiting access of lot 2 to the interior street shall be reflected on the plat.
4. Approval from the Washington County Health Department for each septic system on lots
less than 1.5 acres. Conditional letter of approval is attached.
5. Proposed right-of-way shall be dedicated with the Final Plat.
6. All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator.
7. One copy of the plat with revisions shall be submitted.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
8. 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).
9. The approved Preliminary Plat is valid for one calendar year.
10. Additional conditions:
a:
b.
C.
K.IREPOR7S120031PCREPOR7S110-131PPL 03-16.00 OVEROft6w.40RO03
Planning Commission
PPL 03-16.00(Overton Park)
Page 2.2
PPL 03-16.00
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Date: October 13,2003
Comments:
The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page two of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
K.WPOR7SI20031PCREPOR7SV0-13W,PL03-16.00 0VERWtblJWW,2003
Planning Commission
PPL 03-16.00(Overton Park)
Page 2.3
wcwhmgton eaunt*Jufeie Weam ewt"
3270 Wimberly Drive
Fayetteville,AR 72703
479-521-8181
Memorandum
To; Fayetteville City Planning
Roy Davis,P.E., Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division.
From: Melissa Wonnacott, R.S.
Environmental Health Specialist, Washington County
Re: The Gulley Subdivision (proposed)
Location:
Part of the NW '/4 NW 1/4, of Section 28 Township 17N, Range
29W; Guy Terry Rd Fayetteville
Developer: Te��a}t Tz C-jc,�J�
Designated Rep: Richard Murphree
Date: 04 September 2003
This proposed 51-lot subdivision is to be serviced by public water. Soil pits were
observed on each lot to determine the suitability of the available soils for the placement
of individual subsurface sewage disposal systems. I have confirmed the findings of Reba
Bailey, Designated Representative,that all -lots have suitable soils for placement of
standard or alternate septic systems.
This proposed subdivision is hereby approved for development using standard or
alternate sewage disposal systems with the following comments and conditions:
1. This approval is contingent upon approval of the water lines by the
Division of Engineering-ADH. No development may take place on any lot
until that approval is granted.
2. The appropriate detailed drawings of water lines,plats, and review fees must
be submitted to the Division of Engineering before approval of the
subdivision. These drawings shall include the location and number
designation of the soil pits.
3. Each lot has a septic system designed. The individual owners of lots 1, 4, 17,
and 44 will be required to obtain an individual sewage disposal permit
from the Washington County Health Department before construction of any
kind is initiated on the lot.
j
4. The disposal system for each lot must be located in the area of
the observed and approved soil pita Any relocation of the system
will require further investigation by the Department.
5. The areas of the proposed primary and secondary disposal fields must
be protected during the construction of all structures and roads and the
placement of service lines so as not to disturb the natural properties of the
soils.
6. This approval is for Lots 1- 51: No lot may be further subdivided without
prior approval from the Department. Any further subdivision will require
prior approval from the Arkansas Department of Health.
7. Lots 2, 5, 10, 27, 31, 44, 45, 46, 48, and 51 will require alternate technology
for sewage disposal. These will be it either a cap and fill design or as drip
irrigation design:
8. Preliminary Permits for construction,for all Lots except lots 1,4, 17,
and 44 have been submitted to the Washington County Health
Department Office and will be approved for construction once approval
for the subdivision as a whole has been granted. Act 402 of,1977,
prohibits a property owner from obtaining approval of an individual
septic system permit before final approval of said subdivision has been
granted.
9. This approval is based upon information provided by the Designated
Representative and the Local County Environmental Health Specialist.
If any of that information is found to be inaccurate, the approval may be
revoked.
CC: Richard Murphree, DR
Terry Gulley
File
r
a „s
F
I
•
8
•:4:i:n:«K««; f1�':a.iec....:» f::
• ,tx.fi S.S' LSliail:R Z. f :x i i1,F I: :i
.u.
as uzf asr :u t.dxa:su3 z r: : s xrx tu : r
^ttL'iY^:d :iLLEEx'•S]Sx!R.k_. vfiFa^�^i�'^iS:i::px�Rj^"51'F'R:[`F«gF:r}%FniF:(:F�,g"ifni:ii:v3¢
2£!S!£!£... .£. � tt.•'['G.MS!£:£!.'!x! '!£. .......L...,x..!'F•{j:{ni�xrxFt.iniiari�._,.�,,.'•.
� aAS
3»ΡLqi 1111.
f
ni
. x^R!3£4^^.x"J$^O:JItxt3C.3^Y:!!H£:x£••• 43^'•:SY•xfx£:^F93:}:,xn.j12'yly •:Sa':?'SS.SJ_^x "�rj�::2•j}F::x:.yx::•;::.z,.
f:^L'f:f"!-tYa:.[i^.9`P^S£'2:`S tR::SR�Fk•YAmrnniniin uy:{xFiu�<S:.pFixn»"x ugxi�•i,:iTry!Fvx:vi:;::�.n':r»:,':4:xj:r:LF�LS::•»,^::xjrvv:::::::»iiy:aia:
t:n:xaiiiisxa::3::•^:aa:^iaa:: ^:::::iiiii«aaii:5n.::.m::xsa:xr.:as::::E€:¢"Li«iSS.aii�ie:xT:x6d ica:::..i_ ::::is=i2«akiixs::-:::.::•:,.�^:c•:r'i
nus:.:nscsyssrsrc.;uars£:a:::rEfac:mu,::ri:::
,:._^stx£::Y,;:xF:.�.::•;:Fx;::�¢::wnF:x!^;;�:R¢::Si�xa L x..M
Y u.£.£x x w»+£ x r•t:tea x tztM :zr 3 z Y s e n
a.'.......,......f...f..J.,a...,,
:2=1 ts s i S isx ^r x ixF z' c ran s rc aLz:anrse:xxaa:r»sy^^^^r•'^rxnwixs.. sxwo
..,.. :.... ..._..__.- ..,.,..,.,_R.,...., ....
•f!
`:xx:::.YiSxiaY::R2Fi::«F2CL:t3:i:t,"C*It�;:i'.:� x,_3L'xx6.x::SS:SF:a.x:tt•:::"F:F`.::i::::z::`F.f;::'
LSubjeegeodt Property
Nbster sweet PLO
u
—I ow unft
P
• I {
�!
PPL03-16.00 CAVERTON PARK
One Mile View
t
SUBJECT PROPERTY : x - ------
s „_ f fes. � }-..v�s,...�._-. ,��ff� _`•:� �" .�
r
1
m
3
zi
g.
r ' t
Overview Legend
a Suliect Properly Bo"ary WSW Street Plan
PP103-16.OD "N",Sarum Atoll :EwKse,,�w
Streams Dmday 6strid. nawpn�f�iy
Litp�Pfkktl
r�`..
allow �L-^--^--�1 C1ty limit ♦ <emr<e+
Wade Chy
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. P L 03-16.00(Overton Park)
Mi18S Page 2.5
FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of October 13, 2003
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:(479)575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Morgan,Associate Planner
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AlCP, Zoning &Development Coordinator
BATE: October 06, 2003
CUP 03-21.00: Conditional Use (Jernigan,pp 524)was submitted by 1 es P.Jern for
property located at 604 Blair Avenue. The property is zoned 4, R tial ti-family,
24 units per acre. The request is to allow construction of a Si y r this
tandem lot.Planner: Suzanne Morgan
October 13,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-21.00(Jernigan)
Page 3.1