Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-28 - Agendas - Final Plannine Commission Planning Commissioners Officers Blake Pennington William Chesser Craig Honchell, Chair Ron Autry aTyve ev1ile Ryan Noble Kyle Cook,Vice-Chair Porter Winston Tracy Hoskins Sarah Bunch, Secretary ARKANSAS Tentative Agenda City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2013 A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held on October 28, 2013 at 5:30 PM in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville, Arkansas. Call to Order Roll Call Consent: 1. Approval of the minutes from the October 14, 2013 meeting. Old Business: 2. ADM 13-4510 Administrative Item (CHAPTER 166.08 ACCESS MANAGEMENT). Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to the Unified Development Code, Chapter 166.08. The proposal is to amend block layout and connectivity requirements. Planner: Jesse Fulcher New Business: 3. VAC 13-4516: Vacation (BRENDA DRIVE, COURT STREET, WALTON STREET, ALLEY/UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, 482): Submitted by DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. for properties located at WEST OF RAZORBACK ROAD AND NORTH OF CENTER STREET. The request is to vacate the right-of-way of Brenda Drive, Court Street,Walton Street, and a 30-foot wide alley off of Hotz Drive. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 4. ADM 13-4512: Administrative Item (WEDINGTON DRIVE AND SALEM ROAD/FOREST HEIGHTS PZD MODIFICATION TO PLANNING AREA 2, 440): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS for property located in the Forest Hills Development at Wedington Drive and Salem Road. The property is zoned R-PZD FOREST HILLS. The request is to modify the zoning criteria for Planning Area 2 to change the density and use. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 5. ADM 13-4513: Administrative Item (WEDINGTON DRIVE AND SALEM ROAD/FOREST HEIGHTS PZD MODIFICATION TO PLANNING AREA 5, 440): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS for property located in the Forest Hills Development at Wedington Drive and Salem Road. The property is zoned R-PZD FOREST HILLS. The request is to modify the zoning criteria for Planning Area 5 to change the density and layout. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 6. ADM 13-4539: Administrative Item (4732 CASTLEWOOD LN, 99): Submitted by BLEW AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 4732 CASTLEWOOD LANE. The property is zoned R-O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.58 acres. The request is for a variance of the 15-foot greenspace requirement between the street right-of-way and parking lot. Planner: Quin Thompson 7. CUP 13-4514: Conditional Use Permit (1728 E. MISSION BOULEVARD/FAIRVIEW MEMORIAL CEMETERY, 370): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at 1728 E. MISSION BOULEVARD. The property is zoned R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 28.13 acres. The request is for a conditional use permit to bring the existing cemetery into compliance and for construction of a new columbaria. Planner: Quin Thompson 8. CUP 13-4519: Conditional Use Permit (2070 N. GARLAND AVENUE/CHILD CARE CENTER, 174): Submitted by MARSHA BILDERBACK for property located at 2070 N. GARLAND AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow a child care facility(Use Unit 4). Planner: Andrew Garner 9. ADM 13-4529: Administrative Item (PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY): Submitted by City Staff for revisions to the Planning Area boundary map to be consistent with recent changes in state statute. Development Services Director: Jeremy Pate Discussion Item: 10. (BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS): Submitted by Planning Staff at the request of City Council to review and discuss proposed amendments to Chapter 164.11 Height and Setback Regulations; Exceptions. Development Services Director: Jeremy Pate The following items have been approved administratively by staff, • LSP 13-4515: Lot Split (888 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE/SUGG, 563): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 888 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains 0.38 acres. The request is to split the parcel into two lots of 0.18 and 0.20 acres. Planner: Quin Thompson • LSP 13-4498: Lot Split (4081 N. CROSSOVER RD./NAPLES, 138): Submitted by JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 4081 NORTH CROSSOVER ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE AND R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE. The request is for a lot split and property line adjustment to the subject property resulting into four tracts of approximately 1.56, 2.77, 0.85, and 1.13 acres. Planner: Andrew Garner NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment Once the Chair recognizes you,go to the podium and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official, staff, 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. Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 575-8330. As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers. A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page I of 12 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 14, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville,Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN Consent: MINUTES: September 23,2013 Approved Page 3 VAC 13-4491: Vacation (2315 &2319 N. MARKS MILL LN./ZWEIG,329): Page 3 Approved VAC 13-4493: Vacation (491 E. FAIRWAY LN./JARRETT,680): Page 3 Approved VAC 13-4501: Vacation (3466 E.JASPER LN./KINNEY, 061): Page 3 Approved VAC 13-4503: Vacation (516 & 518 S. EASTERN AVEJU OF A, 521): Page 3 Approved ADM 13-4525: Administrative Item (CORNER OF W.WATSON ST. & N. ST. CHARLES AVE./PARKING VARIANCE,484): Page 3 Approved New Business: ADM 13-4489: Administrative Item (617 N. COLLEGE AVEJBOUCHEE BISTRO, 134): Page 4 Approved PPL 13-4437: Preliminary Plat(CORNER OF N. OAKLAND AND ZION RDJOAK CREEK ESTATES,257): Page 5 Approved CUP 13-4499: Conditional Use Permit(4081 N. CROSSOVER RD./NAPLES, 138): Page 6 Approved ADM 13-4510 Administrative Item (CHAPTER 166.08 ACCESS MANAGEMENT) Page 7 Tabled ADM 13-4511 Administrative Item (CHAPTER 151.01 DEFINITIONS) Page 8 Forwarded ADM 13-4486: Administrative Item (UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 178,OUTDOOR VENDORS): Page 9 Forwarded October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 1 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 2 of 12 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Blake Pennington Ryan Noble Craig Honchell Ron Autry Tracy Hoskins Porter Winston Kyle Cook William Chesser Sarah Bunch STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Quin Thompson CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams, City Attorney 5:30 PM—Porter Winston called the meeting to order. Porter Winston requested all cell phones to be turned off and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call all members were present. Consent. October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 2 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 3 of 12 Approval of the minutes from the September 23,2013 meeting. VAC 13-4491: Vacation (2315&2319 N.MARKS MILL LN./ZWEIG,329): Submitted by ALAN REID AND ASSOCIATES for properties located at 2315 AND 2319 NORTH MARKS MILL LANE.The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains a total of 0.36 acres. The request is to vacate a utility easement. VAC 13-4493: Vacation(491 E. FAIRWAY LN./JARRETT,680): Submitted by GRAY ROCK,LLC for property located at 491 EAST FAIRWAY LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY,4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains a total of 1.15 acres. The request is to vacate a utility easement. VAC 13-4501:Vacation(3466 E.JASPER LN./KINNEY,061): Submitted by ERIC HELLER for property located at 3466 EAST JASPER LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4,RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY,4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains a total of 0.32 acres. The request is to vacate a drainage easement. VAC 13-4503: Vacation (516 & 518 S. EASTERN AVEJU OF A, 521): Submitted by MCGOODWIN, WILLIAMS&YATES for properties located at 516 AND 518 SOUTH EASTERN AVENUE.The properties are zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains a total of 5.66 acres. The request is to vacate a right-of-way and two alleys on the subject property. ADM 13-4525: Administrative Item (CORNER OF W. WATSON ST. & N. ST. CHARLES AVE./PARKING VARIANCE, 484): Submitted KAREN KING for property located at the CORNER OF WEST WATSON STREET AND NORTH SAINT CHARLES AVENUE.The property is zoned MSC,MAIN STREET/CENTER and contains approximately 0.98 acres. The applicant proposes to remove three parking spaces that were approved as off-site parking spaces for Theo's restaurant on their property in 2005. The applicant requests a parking variance to pay money-in-lieu for these three spaces. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. New Business: October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 3 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 4 of 12 ADM 13-4489:Administrative Item(617 N.COLLEGE AVEJBOUCHEE BISTRO,134): Submitted by VINCE PIANALTO for property located at 617 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE. The property contains approximately 0.25 acre and is zoned C-2,THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. The request is a variance to allow for a temporary retail structure(airstream trailer)to remain on the property for longer than 90 days. Quin Thompson, Cuurent Planner, read the staff report. Vincenzo Pianalto, applicant, was present to answer questions, and stated that his intention of is to establish the business and then move into a permanent location. Tracy Hoskins,Commissioner,asked staff to verify that there are no similar brick and mortar businesses in the area. Thompson indicated that staff review had not found any restaurants with a French Bistro style menu in the area. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve ADM 13-4489. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 4 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 5 of 12 PPL 13-4437:Preliminary Plat(CORNER OF N.OAKLAND AND ZION RDJOAK CREEK ESTATES, 257): Submitted by MILHOLLAND COMPANY for property located at the CORNER OF NORTH OAKLAND AND ZION ROAD.The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 16.21 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 9 single family lots. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Mel Milholland, applicant, was present for any questions and discussed the septic permit issue. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the Skillern Road Master Street Plan amendment. Garner discussed that the extension of Skillern Road east of Oakland Zion Road would be removed from the Master Street Plan, although local street connection would still be provided. Commissioner Pennington asked about sidewalk being installed on both sides of the street in the future. Garner discussed that sidewalk on both sides of the street would not be likely in this area of the county. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve PPL 13-4437 in favor of all conditions of approval in the staff report as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. CUP 13-4499: Conditional Use Permit (4081 N. CROSSOVER RDJNAPLES, 138): Submitted by October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 5 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 6 of 12 JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 4081 NORTH CROSSOVER ROAD.The property contains approximately 6 acres zoned RSF-4,RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY,4 UNITS PER ACRE AND R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow a tandem lot. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Kyle Napes was present for the applicant. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Chesser asked if this property could be legally split without the tandem lot. Garner discussed that, yes,it could. Commissioner Chesser asked about property ownership of the different homes. Commissioner Hoskins discussed that this configuration appeared unusual and that maybe a private street would be appropriate. Commissioner Chesser asked about selling the homes without a lot split. Garner discussed a horizontal property regime scenario. Motion#1: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to deny CUP 13-4499. Commissioner Pennington seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 4-5-0(Commissioners Winston,Bunch,Noble, Autry, and Hoskins voting `no'). Motion#2: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve CUP 13-4499,adding condition#4 that driveways for the homes shall be placed in a shared access easement. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0(Commissioners Chesser,Pennington,Cook voted`no'). October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 6 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 7 of 12 ADM 13-4510 Administrative Item (CHAPTER 166.08 ACCESS MANAGEMENT). Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to the Unified Development Code, Chapter 166.08. The proposal is to amend block layout and connectivity requirements. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner,presented the staff report. Commissioner Hoskins about the double-frontage section of the code and what would happen with houses facing busier street. Fulcher described various design scenarios that could be used. Commissiner Hoskins asked about multiple driveways on arterial roads. Fulcher described a street layout to limit the need for multiple driveways.The Planning Commission will see these layouts because they will be part of a preliminary plat. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the 600 and 800 foot block length. Fulcher state that we are proposing only one at 660 feet. Commission Chesser described the tunnel effect that can be created when streets are lined with fences. I would like to avoid this design situation. There are some situations where we would want to allow a double frontage lot, due to unique circumstances. It appears that the code will allow us that leeway. Fulcher stated there are times when you might want to vary this section and the code will allow that. Commissioner Chesser stated the code will require more creativity up front and may make costs go up. Fulcher stated that density could be increased to offset additional costs, or the linear feet of street could be reduced as a cost savings measure. Commissioner Hoskins asked about multiple driveways on a busy street. I think we need to look at this ordinance a little more before forwarding it on. Commissioner Chesser asked about preserving access rights to a public street. Kit Williams,City Attorney,stated that each property owner has access rights to an adjacent street.We have a problem of two competing interests. We don't want the fences down the street,or a lot of driveways. The developer probably spent more money because people don't want their house to face a arterial road. Commissioner Chesser asked if the Planning Commissioner would get a chance to review these situations. Fulcher stated that most of these situations will be presented to the Commission as a preliminary plat.You could balance the pros and cons of double-frontage lots and multiple driveways along a busy street. Commissioner Chesser stated that the current code can't prevent the double frontage lot configuration. The October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 7 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 8 of 12 proposal at least gives the Commission the option to review it. Fulcher describes the current variance sections in the access management code. Williams stated that the two code sections won't cover this particular requirement. Commissioner Chesser stated he supports the direction of the ordinance and would like staff to work with the City Attorney to address the variance section. Motion#1: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to forward ADM 13-4510. Commissioner Chesser withdrew the motion. Motion#2: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table ADM 13-4510. Commissioner Pennington seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 9 of 12 ADM 13-4511 Administrative Item (CHAPTER 151.01 DEFINITIONS). Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to the Unified Development Code, Chapter 151.01. The proposal is to amend the definition of a tandem lot. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner,read the staff report. Commissioner Hoskins asked about lots that were made conforming by the Board of Adjustment. Fulcher described the difference between a conforming lot or one that has been made conforming by the Board of Adjustment, and a lot that has the required frontage under the zoning code. There is a difference between the two. The current code only allows the"required"frontage. Kit Williams asked about conforming vs. nonconforming lots. Fulcher stated that the Board of Adjustment can't solve the issue with the current definition by recognizing a nonconforming lot. This amendment will address this issue by stating"conforming" instead of"required." Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to forward ADM 13-4511. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 10 of 12 ADM 13-4486: Administrative Item (UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 178,OUTDOOR VENDORS): Submitted by SUSTAINABILITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING STAFF to amend chapter 178, Outdoor Vendors. Several changes are proposed including the allowance of outdoor mobile vendor courts and an increase in the permit timeframe. Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability Director, gave the staff report. Public Comment: Matthew Petty, Ward 2 Representative, gave background for this request and proposed changes to the ordinance. He discussed the economic benefits and political background to this code change. He discussed that no permanent business have been put out of business by food trucks. This ordinance would help vacant lots to be activated. He wants to see food trucks on vacant lots turn into permanent development. Cynthia Morris, Yacht Club owner, discussed that the proposed code would help them. This would reduce the Planning Commission's valuable time by reducing the number of vendors that request variances. Aubry Shepherd discussed than any previously paved area should be allowed to have this type of use. He was in favor of using a grass lot for this. He is in support. Amber Henley is a future food truck owner looking to move to Bentonville if she can't be in Fayetteville. The food truck ordinance would give her the ability to move around to different locations. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Chesser discussed the difficulty in determining what similar vendors are around a location. Nierengarten discussed that we know many of these areas and will be easily able to determine similar businesses and products. Garner discussed the enforcement process if vendors present false information in the application,that the annual permit could be revoked or brought back to the Planning Commission. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the revocation section of the code. Commissioner Chesser asked about how the determination of the primary food or beverage will be determined. Williams responded that the Zoning Development Administrator makes that determination Commissioner Chesser asked about food truck locations. Nierengarten described the process for moving a truck to multiple locations. Commissioner Chesser asked about vending in public parks. October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 10 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 11 of 12 Garner indicated that it was not permitted and not currently proposed. Commissioner Chesser discussed concerns about a restaurant opening next to a mobile vendor. He also discussed he would like this to go further to allow vendors on streets and public property. Commissioner Hoskins discussed that he has never been anti-mobile vendor. He discussed the current permit process. He is concerned because where the code now says"an unfair advantage"has been removed. He is opposed when a temporary business becomes a perennial business and does not meet the same requirements as a permanent business. He discussed the development codes for permanent businesses that a mobile/temporary business does not comply. Food truck and mobile vendors should be the same in the ordinance. The six month permit right off the bat,he is not in support. We are taking the responsibility off of staff to list the surrounding businesses and putting it on the applicant. Why make them list similar business at this point when the annual permit cannot be denied because of it. The old language had a test, the new language doesn't have the same test. It is now more of an unfair advantage to permanent businesses that have to meet development regulations. Nierengarten recommended an amendment that the temporary vendors have to meet the same standard as the food trucks. Commissioner Autry highly commended staff on this proposal. The Yacht Club has been a perfect scenario. We want to keep businesses here and revenue here in Fayetteville. I highly recommend we solve this tonight. Commissioner Chesser discussed that he is glad language for comparison has been removed. He was never comfortable determining what is an unfair advantage. He asked Matthew Petty how he felt about tabling. Matthew Petty, Ward 2 Representative, discussed there is some pressure to get this passed sooner rather than later. Some compromises have already been made on our side based on political considerations. Commissioner Pennington stated that he supports this and the changes. He discussed protection is needed for the mobile vendors that have an existing permit and a permanent business comes in next door. Commissioner Winston stated that he supports the ordinance and that he agreed with other comments that mobile vendors and food trucks should be treated the same way. Commissioner Honchell asked Nierengarten about potential changes to the code based on comments already heard. Nierengarten discussed potential changes to the proposal. Commissioner Honchell discussed the lack of design standards for mobile vendors. He discussed concerns with vacant lots filling up with mobile/temporary buildings and food trucks. I don't see in this proposal any place where we say, okay it has been here for a certain number of years and it can't be here any more. People can get rooted in these places for years. It could be a damper to a permanent business going in. Nierengarten discussed a pod of mobile vendors coming through once,then every year they come back October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 11 of 12 Planning Commission October 14, 2013 Page 12 of 12 for another annual permit the site is improved incrementally over time. Commissioner Honchell discussed that there needs to be a point where the mobile vendor/building can't be there any more, say permitting them a time of four years. Then you have to build a building there. Commissioner Autry discussed the advantages/disadvantages of brick-and-mortar versus mobile businesses. Commissioner Chesser made a motion to forward the item to city council with a recommendation for approval modifying the proposed code changes as follows: "The mobile vendor shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent to and on the same side of the street of the proposed mobile vendor location unless the original permit held by the mobile vendor predates the establishment of the aforementioned permanent business." "Also striking the similar statement found under food trucks and replacing it with the same language as above except substituting food truck for mobile vendor in the two places in which it appears." Commissioner Pennington seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0 (Commissioners Honchell and Hoskins voting "no"). There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 814 PM. October 28,2013 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-14-13 Agenda Item 1 Page 12 of 12 TayetZl lePC Meeting of October 28, 2013 THE CITY OFFAYETI�EVILLE„ ARKANSAS 125W. Mountain Fayetteville,AR 7270101 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: October 24, 2013 ADM 13-4510 Administrative Item (CHAPTER 166.08 ACCESS MANAGEMENT). Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to the Unified Development Code, Chapter 166.08. The proposal is to amend block layout and connectivity requirements. Planning Staff: Jesse Fulcher BACKGROUND Chapter 166.08, Street Design and Access Management Standards, were adopted by the City Council on August 5, 2008 by Ordinance No. 5156. These standards were created to ensure that new development provides safe and efficient movements for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and greater connectivity and openness. Over the last several years these standards have improved public safety and roadway efficiency by limiting the number of curb-cuts and conflicting turning movements, especially along busy roadways and near congested intersections. Further, the ordinance provides clear development standards, in most cases. In a few areas, further clarification would be helpful, which is the primary purpose of this ordinance update. PROPOSAL Staff's proposal is to amend Chapter 166.08 to restate and/or revise several existing regulations and add one new section, as follows: (C) Applicability. The section regarding private street design is being removed. Private streets may only be permitted through a Planned Zoning District application and are subject to the development standards of 166.05. (D)(4) Tangents. Tangent requirements are already a part of the Minimum Street Design Standards Manual. (E) Block Layout/Connectivity. The code currently has two different block lengths for local and residential streets, 800 and 600 feet respectively. This is a very clear standard. However, deciding when to utilize a local street or residential street is not a clear requirement. Often the decision is based on the need for on-street parking, or number of G:\ETC\Developmen[Services Review\2013\Development Review\13-4410 ADM UDCDcfobe8 ZB,%,Management Ordinance\I7 Planning Commission\10-14-2013\Comments and Redlines Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 1 of 10 houses per block. Changes to the street width or block length create obvious challenges for the designer and developer, and often these issues continue into the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission meetings. To address this, staff is recommending that the maximum block length be the same for both street types, 600 feet. This will create greater certainty for a developer during the design phase. Presented 10114/13: (E)(2) Double frontage lots. This is a proposed addition to the Access Management Ordinance. A double-frontage lot is a lot, other than a corner lot, with frontage on more than one street. The intent of this code is to prevent double- frontage lots and ensure that new residential blocks are two lots deep, unless the lots would front on an expressway or interstate or topographical challenges require the formation of double-frontage lots. Presented 10/28113: (E)(2) Double frontage lots. With the exception of corner lots, double street-frontage lots are prohibited except where the lots front on access restricted roadways such as interstates or expressways. Residential blocks shall be wide enough to provide two tiers of lots except where the lots adjoin a separate property that is already developed, or may be developed with a second tier in the future. Alleys are not considered as frontage. This standard may be varied due to topographic or physical features, or along high-speed or high-volume roadway such as a Principal Arterial, provided, the Planning Commission finds that the design makes efficient use of infrastructure, provides a safe pedestrian environment, and creates an attractive streetscape for the general public. (F) Access Management. A statement has been added for instances when a lot has frontage on two streets of the same classification. (F)(1) Curb cut separation. A statement has been added to clarify that a 5 foot separation is required between a curb cut and an adjacent property. (F)(2) Separation for two-family, three—family, multi family and nonresidential development. This is a new title to clarify that the separation requirements are specific to these types of developments. A separate section has been created for single-family homes. The existing tables are being removed, since this information is already stated and they have been found to be confusing. (F)(3)(a)Separation for single-family homes. The separation requirements for a driveway serving a single-family dwelling were 5 feet from the property line and 10 feet from another driveway even before the adoption of the Access Management Ordinance. However, the section title, "Residential Subdivisions" together with other management standards were confusing. The intent is to create a clear standard for single-family homes. (F)(3)(b) Arterial and Collector Streets. This section was a part of the original Access Management Ordinance and applied to all development along arterial streets. It has been restated here to cover the development of single-family subdivisions along arterial roads. G:\ETC\Development services Review\2013\Development Review\13-4410 ADM UDC 166.08 Access Management Ordinance\17 Planning Commission\10-14-2013\Comments and Redlines October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 2 of 10 The proposed changes are shown in strikeout/highlight in the attached document. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward ADM 13-4410 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Planning Commission Action: O Forwarded D Denied O Tabled Motion: Second: Vote: Meeting Date: October 28, 2013 G:IHT0Devclopmnu Services Revicw120INkvelopment ReviewO-4410 ADT/t1I71�c1�o(JOSer NcgffManagcment Ordlnanct"7 I'laonin;Commi5sionl10-14-20131Commcrosand Redlines Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 3 of 10 CHAPTER 166: DEVELOPMENT 166.08 Street Design And Access (6) Street standards. All street requirements Management Standards shall be met as set forth in the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan and adopted (A) Intent. These standards are intended to ensure Minimum Street Standards. that development is designed to be inherently (E) Block Layout/Connectivity. safe, walkable, and efficient for the facilitation of traffic and pedestrian movements. (1) Block Length. Block lengths and street intersections are directly tied to the (B) Fitness for development. Based on topographic functional hierarchy of the street pattern that maps, soil surveys prepared by the Department exists or is proposed. of Agriculture and drainage information from the Future Land Use Plan and the Hillside/Hilltop (a) Principal and Minor Arterial Streets. Overlay District, the Planning Commission may Signalized intersections should be require that steep grades, unstable soil and flood located at a minimum of one every plains be set aside and not subdivided until 2,640 feet (half a mile) along principal corrections are made to protect life, health, and and minor arterials and should be based property. on traffic warrants. (C) Applicability. The standards set forth herein shall (b) Collectors. Intersections should be apply to land which is proposed to be developed or redeveloped where the creation of public located ata minimum of one every 1,320 feet (quarter of a mile) along streets are required, or proposed, or in which collector streets. new or existing access is created or modified. (c) Locals and residential. Intersections shall occur at a minimum of one every (D) Street design principles. NG 660 feet. (1) Extensions. All street extensions shall be 8 FRiRiRq IFA Of ORA 9%18FY 600 fast. constructed to Minimum Street Standards. Street extension stub-outs to adjacent (d) Variances. Block length standards may properties are required to meet block be varied by the Planning Commission layout/connectivity standards unless existing when terrain, topographical features, development or physical barriers prohibit existing barriers or streets, size or such. shape of the lot, or other unusual (2) Substandard widths. Developments that conditions justify a departure. adjoin existing streets shall dedicate (2) Double-frontage lots. With the exception of additional right-of-way to meet the Master comer lots, double street-frontage lots are Street Plan. prohibited except where the lots front on access restricted roadways such as (3) Street names. Names of streets shall be interstates or expressways. Residential consistent with natural alignment and blocks shall be wide enough to provide two extensions of existing streets,and new street tier; of lots except where the lots adjoin a names shall not duplicate or be similar to separate property that is already developed, existing street names. Developers shall or may be developed with a second tier in coordinate the naming of new streets the future. All, si iale dbt .CO SiGered ;iib through the GIS Office during the plat review ff4n` 'a; process. (4) Tangents A nbalght tangent •a1 least 100 (5) Pedestrian. Pedestrian-vehicular conflict points should be controlled through (3) Connectivity. Wherever a proposed signalized intersections and proven traffic development abuts undeveloped land, street calming design principles. stub-outs shall be provided as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to CD166:1 October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 4 of 10 Fayetteville Code of Ordinances abutting properties or to logically extend the cuts along arterial streets shall be street system. shared between two or more lots. Where a curb cut must access the (4) Topography. Local streets should be arterial street, it shall be located a designed to relate to the existing topography minimum of 250 feet from an and minimize the disturbance zone. intersection or driveway. (5) Dead-end streets. Dead end streets are discouraged and should only be used in situations where they are needed for design Guts and development efficiency, reduction of g�gg{f, 4- necessary necessary street paving, or where proximity 6944000-f- 2 to floodplains, creeks, difficult topography or 40044509-f- a existing barriers warrant their use. All dead MGF .h ,cnnw 4 end streets shall end in a cul-de-sac with a radius of 50 feet, or an alternative design (b) Collector Streets. Curb cuts shall be approved by the City and the Fire located a minimum of 100 feet from an Department. The maximum length of a dead intersection or driveway. When end street(without a street stub-out)shall be necessary, curb cuts along collector 500 feet. streets shall be shared between two or (F) Access Management. Safe and adequate more lots. vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access shall be provided to all parcels. Local streets and LBROth of Street Frontage driveways shall not detract from the safety and Guts efficiency of bordering arterial routes. Property 4 that fronts onto two more that one public Streets ,n,�Gn wa 2 shall place a higher priority on accessing the a 3 street with the lower lowest functional 4 classification, ex. Local and Collector. In a case where the streets have the same classification, access shall be from the lower volume street, or (c) Local and Residential Streets. Curb cuts as determined by the City Engineer. shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from an intersection or driveway. In no (1) Curb cut separation. case shall a curb cut be located within For purposes of the radius return of an adjacent curb cut determining curb cut or street access or intersection. ^••Fb ^ its shall be ^ separation, the separation distance shall be FRRFR'-'M Of fiftAen (15') feet #am the measured along the curb line from the edge adjoining property line, unless 6haF9d. of curb cut to the edge of curb cutlintersection. The measurement begins at I'- the point where the curb cut and intersecting street create a right angle, i.e., the Cuts intersection of lines drawn from the face-of- 0-50-f- 4 curb to face-of-curb. The measurement ends " '��P`^ 2 at the point along the street where the26-2-9 " 3 closest curb cut or street intersection occurs; ""^F^` ^"^""^" 4 again, measured to the point where the curb cut or intersecting streets create a right . In the pose of angle at the intersection of face-of-curb. In all cases curb cuts shall be a minimum of be discouraged along aFtegal andd Ne (5')feet from the adjoining property line, unless shared. shall be AhaFed between #ND or Fine (2) Separation for two-family,three-family, multi- lets family and nonresidential development. leGated a minimum of five Past (5') 4am (a) Principal and Minor Arterial Streets. shared Where a street with a lower functional classification exists that can be (3) Separation for single-family homes. accessed, curb cuts shall access onto those streets. When necessary, curb CD166:2 October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 5 of 10 TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (a) For all street classifications, curb cuts require larger easements for major utility lines, shall be located a minimum of 10 feet unusual terrain or drainage problems. from another driveway. Driveways serving comer lots shall be located as (Code 1965, App. C., Art. IV, §§C, D, F--H; Ord. No. 1750, far from the street intersection as 7-6-70; Ord. No. 1801, 6-21-71; Ord. No. 2196, 2-17-76; possible while still meeting a 5 foot Ord. No. 2353, 7-5-77; Code 1991, §§159.45, 159.58, separation from an adjoining property 159.51--159.53; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. line. In n0 Case shall a Curb CUY be 4757, 9-6-05; Ord. 4919, 9-05-06; Ord. 5156, 8-5-08; Ord. located within the radius of an adjacent 5296. 12-15-09;Ord.No.5546, 12-04-12) curb cut or street intersection. Cross reference(s)--Bonds and Guarantees, Ch. 158; Variances. Ch. 156; Notification and Public Hearings, Ch. (b) Arterial and Collector Streets. Individual 157. curb cuts for along arterial and collector streets shall be discouraged. When necessary, curb cuts along arterial and collector streets shall be shared between two or more lots. (4) (e) Variance. In order to protect the ingress and egress access rights to a street of an abutting property owner, a variance to the curb cut minimums shall be granted by the Planning Commission to allow an ingress/egress curb cut at the safest functional location along the property. Such a curb cut may be required to be shared with an adjoining parcel if feasible. If a parcel on the comer of an arterial or collector street provides such short frontage along a major street that there is no safe ingress/egress functional location on that street, the Planning Commission may deny the curb cut or may limit such curb cut to ingress or egress only. (5) Speed. All streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds. (G) Non-conforming Access Features. (1) Existing. Permitted access connections in place on the date of the adoption of this ordinance that do not conform with the standards herein shall be designated as nonconforming features and shall be brought into compliance with the applicable standards under the following conditions: (a) When new access connection permits are requested; (b) Upon expansion or improvements greater than 50% of the assessed property value or gross floor area or volume; (c) As roadway improvements allow. (H) Easements. Utility and drainage easements shall be located along lot lines and/or street right-of- way where necessary to provide for utility lines and drainage. The Planning Commission may CD166:3 October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 6 of 10 CHAPTER 166: DEVELOPMENT 166.08 Street Design And Access (1) Block Length. Block lengths and street Management Standards intersections are directly tied to the functional hierarchy of the street pattern that (A) Intent. These standards are intended to ensure exists or is proposed. that development is designed to be inherently (a) Principal and Minor Arterial Streets. safe, walkable, and efficient for the facilitation of Signalized intersections should be traffic and pedestrian movements. located at a minimum of one every 2,640 feet (half a mile) along principal (B) Fitness for development. Based on topographic and minor arterials and should be based maps, soil surveys prepared by the Department on traffic warrants. of Agriculture and drainage information from the Future Land Use Plan and the Hillside/Hilltop (b) Collectors. Intersections should be Overlay District, the Planning Commission may located at a minimum of one every require that steep grades, unstable soil and flood 1,320 feet (quarter of a mile) along plains be set aside and not subdivided until collector streets. corrections are made to protect life, health, and property. (c) Local and residential. Intersections shall C Applicability. The standards set forth herein shall occur at a minimum of one every 600 O PP y f 660 feet. apply to land which is proposed to be developed or redeveloped where the creation of public (d) Variances. Block length standards may streets are required, or proposed, or in which be varied by the Planning Commission new or existing access is created or modified. when terrain, topographical features, existing barriers or streets, size or (D) Street design principles. shape of the lot, or other unusual (1) Extensions. All street extensions shall be conditions justify a departure. constructed to Minimum Street Standards. (2) Double-frontage lots. With the exception of Street extension stub-outs to adjacent corner lots, double street-frontage lots are properties are required to meet block prohibited except where the lots front on layout/connectivity standards unless existing access restricted roadways such as development or physical barriers prohibit interstates or expressways. Residential such. blocks shall be wide enough to provide two tiers of lots except where the lots adjoin a (2) Substandard widths. Developments that separate property that is already developed, adjoin existing streets shall dedicate or may be developed with a second tier in additional right-of-way to meet the Master the future. Alleys are not considered as Street Plan. frontage.This standard may be varied due to (3) Street names. Names of streets shall be topographic or physical features, or along arterial roadways, provided, the Planning consistent with natural alignment and Commission finds that the design makes extensions of existing streets, and new street efficient use of infrastructure, provides a safe names shall not duplicate or be similar to pedestrian environment, and creates an existing street names. Developers shall attractive streetscape for the general public. coordinate the naming of new streets through the GIS Office during the plat review (3) Connectivity. Wherever a proposed process. development abuts undeveloped land, street (4) Pedestrian. Pedestrian-vehicular conflict stub-outs shall be provided as deemed should be controlled through necessary by the Planning Commission to points g abutting properties or to logically extend the signalized intersections and proven traffic street system. calming design principles. (4) Topography. Local streets should be (5) Street standards. All street requirements designed to relate to the existing topography shall be met as set forth in the City of and minimize the disturbance zone. Fayetteville Master Street Plan and adopted Minimum Street Standards. (5) Dead-end streets. Dead end streets are (E) Block Layout/Connectivity. discouraged and should only be used in situations where they are needed for design CD166:1 October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 7 of 10 Fayetteville Code of Ordinances and development efficiency, reduction of streets shall be shared between two or necessary street paving, or where proximity more lots. to floodplains, creeks, difficult topography or existing barriers warrant their use. All dead (c) Local and Residential Streets. Curb cuts end streets shall end in a cul-de-sac with a shall be located a minimum of 50 feet radius of 50 feet, or an alternative design from an intersection or driveway. In no approved by the City and the Fire case shall a curb cut be located within Department. The maximum length of a dead the radius return of an adjacent curb cut end street (without a street stub-out) shall be or intersection. 500 feet. (3) Separation for single-family homes. (F) Access Management. Safe and adequate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access shall be (a) For all street classifications, curb cuts provided to all parcels. Local streets and shall be located a minimum of 10 feet driveways shall not detract from the safety and from another driveway. Driveways efficiency of bordering arterial routes. Property serving corner lots shall be located as that fronts onto more than one public streets shall far from the street intersection as place a higher priority on accessing the street possible while still meeting a 5 foot with the lowest functional classification, ex. Local separation from an adjoining property and Collector. In a case where the streets have line. In no case shall a curb cut be the same classification, access shall be from the located within the radius of an adjacent lower volume street, or as determined by the City curb cut or street intersection. Engineer. (b) Arterial and Collector Streets. Individual curb cuts for along arterial and collector (1) Curb cut separation. For purposes of streets shall be discouraged. When determining curb cut or street access necessary, curb cuts along arterial and separation, the separation distance shall be collector streets shall be shared measured along the curb line from the edge between two or more lots. of curb cut to the edge of curb cutlintersection. The measurement begins at (4) Variance. In order to protect the ingress and the point where the curb cut and intersecting egress access rights to a street of an street create a right angle, i.e., the abutting property owner, a variance to the intersection of lines drawn from the face-of- curb cut minimums shall be granted by the curb to face-of-curb. The measurement ends Planning Commission to allow an at the point along the street where the ingress/egress curb cut at the safest closest curb cut or street intersection occurs; functional location along the property. Such again, measured to the point where the curb a curb cut may be required to be shared with cut or intersecting streets create a right an adjoining parcel if feasible. If a parcel on angle at the intersection of face-of-curb. In the corner of an arterial or collector street all cases curb cuts shall be a minimum of provides such short frontage along a major five (5') feet from the adjoining property line, street that there is no safe ingress/egress unless shared. functional location on that street, the Planning Commission may deny the curb cut (2) Separation for two-family, three-family, multi- or may limit such curb cut to ingress or family and nonresidential development. egress only. (a) Principal and Minor Arterial Streets. (5) Speed. All streets should be designed to Where a street with a lower functional discourage excessive speeds. classification exists that can be accessed, curb cuts shall access onto (G) Non-conforming Access Features. those streets. When necessary, curb cuts along arterial streets shall be (1) Existing. Permitted access connections in shared between two or more lots. place on the date of the adoption of this Where a curb cut must access the ordinance that do not conform with the arterial street, it shall be located a standards herein shall be designated as minimum of 250 feet from an nonconforming features and shall be brought intersection or driveway. into compliance with the applicable standards under the following conditions: (b) Collector Streets. Curb cuts shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from an (a) When new access connection permits intersection or driveway. When are requested; necessary, curb cuts along collector CD166:2 October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 8 of 10 TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (b) Upon expansion or improvements greater than 50% of the assessed property value or gross floor area or volume; (c) As roadway improvements allow. (H) Easements. Utility and drainage easements shall be located along lot lines and/or street right-of- way where necessary to provide for utility lines and drainage. The Planning Commission may require larger easements for major utility lines, unusual terrain or drainage problems. (Code 1965,App. C., Art. IV, §§C, D. F—H; Ord, No. 1750, 7-6-70; Ord. No. 1601, 6-21-71; Ord. No. 2196, 2-17-76; Ord. No. 2353, 7-5-77, Cade 1991, §§159.45, 159.58, 159.51-159.53; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98', Ord. 4757, 9.6-05; Ord, 4919, 9-05-C6; Ord. 5156. 8.5-08; Ord. 5296, 12-15-09; Ord.No.5546, 12-04-12) Cross reforence(s)—Bonds and Guarantees, Ch. 158; Variances. Ch. 156: Notification and Public Hearings, Ch. 157, CD166:3 October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 9 of 10 I Mgt e [ 1 \ ] o ioo aoo aoo goo goo October 28,2013 Planning Commission ADM 13-4510 Chpt 166.08 Access Management Agenda Item 2 Page 10 of 10 Taye eville PC Meeting of October 28, 2013 Afl NANSA5 111L CITY OF FAYE'I"1'LVILLF, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director DATE: October 22, 2013 VAC 13-4516: Vacation (BRENDA DRIVE, COURT STREET, WALTON STREET, ALLEY/UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, 482): Submitted by DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. for properties located WEST OF RAZORBACK ROAD AND NORTH OF CENTER STREET. The request is to vacate the right-of-way of Brenda Drive, Court Street, Walton Street, and a 30-foot wide alley off of Holz Drive. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Findings: Property and Background: The subject properties consist of three developed public streets and an alley right-of-way that is utilized as a driveway for an adjacent house now owned by the University of Arkansas. All four right-of-ways are located between Razorback Road and Palmer Avenue, and Hotz Drive and Center Street. Every property directly adjacent to the four right-of-ways (23 total properties) is owned by the University. Most of the structures along these streets have already been removed and temporary parking lots have been installed. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Land Use Zoning Site North Single-family on Holz Drive RSF-4, Residential Single-Family 4 Units perAcre South Single/Multi-family on Center Street RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family 24 Units perAcre East University of Arkansas buildings RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family 24 Units perAcre West Single-family on Palmer Avenue RSF-4, Residential Single-Family 4 Units perAcre Request: The applicant's request is to vacate three developed public streets and an alley right-of-way that has been used as a driveway, as indicated on the depicted exhibit. All four right-of-ways are surrounding by property owned by the University, including the residential driveway. G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2013\Development Review\13-4516 VAC Brenda,Court,Walton&Alley(U ofA)Ddtdburnft 2013 Commission\I0-28-2013\Comments and Redlines Planning Commission VAC 13-4516 U of A Agenda Item 3 Page 1 of 20 Pursuant to Arkansas Code (A.C.A), Title 14, Chapter 301 Municipal Streets Generally, cities and towns of the first and second class and incorporated towns are given power and authority to vacate public streets and alleys within the cities and towns under the conditions and in the manner herein provided. In all cases where the owner of property within a city or town shall have dedicated, or may hereafter dedicate, a portion of the property to the public use as streets or alleys by platting the property and causing the plat to be filed for record, as provided by law, and any street or alley, or section thereof, shown on the plat so filed shall not have been actually used by the public as a street or alley for a period of five (5) years and in all cases where all property abutting any street or alley, or section thereof, is owned by any educational institution or college, whether the property shall have been actually used by the public as a street or alley ora period o rve S ears or not the city or town council shall have power to vacate and abandon the street or alley, or any portion thereof, by proceeding the manner set forth in this subchapter. In this particular case, all of the right-of-ways have been used by the public in the last five years, either by the residents who lived in the houses along the streets, or those attending University events. At this time, all of the houses have been removed and the property is used exclusively by the University for parking. Easement Vacation Approval: The applicant has submitted the required right-of-way vacation forms to the City Utilities Departments, franchise utilities, and adjacent property owners (the University of Arkansas) with no objections. UTILITIES RESPONSE Ozarks Electric No objections - Cox Communications No objections AEP/SWEPCO No objections, but retain right-of-ways as easements. Source Gas No objections AT&T No objections CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: RESPONSE Water/Sewer No objections Transportation No objections Solid Waste No objections ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER: RESPONSE University of Arkansas No objections G:\ETC\Development Services Review\20130evelopment Review\13-4516 VAC Brenda,Court,Walton&Alley(U of A)MOda ill8g2013 Commission\10-28-2013\Comments and Redlines Planning Commission VAC 13-4516 U of A Agenda Item 3 Page 2 of 20 Public Comment: No public comment has been received. Recommendation: This is a unique request, in that the applicant is requesting to vacate public streets that have used by the public for many decades. Removing streets tends to reduce connectivity within a neighborhood, which is contrary to the City's adopted policies. However, in this particular case, all four of the right-of-ways dead-end into University property and provide no connectivity within the neighborhood. Further, it is the University's plan to redevelop this entire area, including constructing two new streets that will increase connectivity in the neighborhood. In staffs opinion, the long-term plan for this block of property will greatly increase connectivity for the neighborhood, University students, and those attending athletic events. Staff recommends forwarding VAC 13-4516 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with the following conditions: 1. All right-of-ways shall be retained as general utility easements. 2. Any relocation or, or damage to any existing utility facilities shall be repaired at the property owners expense. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required Planning Commission Action: O Forwarded O Denied O Tabled Date: October 28, 2013 Motion: Second: Vote: Notes: METC\Development Services Review\20130evelopment Review\13-4516 VAC Brenda,Court,Walton&Alley(U of A)da&&Xlfft 2013 Commission\10-28-2013\Comments and Redlines Planning Commission VAC 13-4516 U of A Agenda Item 3 Page 3 of 20 0dtytiltle & c l o s i n g 1450 E.Zion Road -Suite'/ Fayetteville,AR 72703 File No.: 13-3101 For the use and benefit of:Development Consultants,Inc STATE OF ARKANSAS ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) We the undersigned,being an employee of City Title&Closing LLC,do hereby certify that we have made clue and diligent search of the Records in the Assessor's Office within and for Washington County, Arkansas,and find the adjacent owners,which touch the subject property, and addresses as shown in Exhibit"A". IN-SO-FAR as the same affects the following described property, to wit: Brenda Drive,Court Street,West Walton Street and the 30' alley between Lots 18 and 19 and South of Lot 19 of Hotz Addition,in the City of Fayetteville,Washington County,Arkansas.. Dated September 10,2013 City Title&Closing LLC 1450 E.Zion Road,Suite'/ Fayetteville,AR 72703 479-935-4177 By: Jessica L.Wooten,Authorized Signatory Agency License No.382820 Signing Agent No.324795 "DISCLAIMER" This report is being issued from the dates specified above and does not make any representation as to the status or validity of the title and the company assumes no liability by virtue of errors of omission and liability of the company shall not exceed the amount paid for the search. October 28,2013 Planning Commission VAC 13-4516 U of A Agenda Item 3 Page 4 of 20 Exhibit"A" Parcel Nos. 765-06484-000 765-04742-000 765.06482-000 765.04741-000 765.06483-000 765-04740-000 765-14513-000 765-05219-000 765-08273-000 765-08281-000 765-08272-000 765-08280-000 765-08271-000 765.08279.000 765-08270-000 765.08278-000 765-08269.000 765-08277-000 765-14517-000 765-08276-000 765-14517-001 765.08275-000 765-14508.000 765-08274-000 765-04743.000 University of Arkausns Board of Trustees 316 Administration Bldg Fayetteville,AR 72701 Parcel No.765-05227-000 Smith Revocable Trust 5835 E Estate View Road Fayetteville, AR 72703 **DISCLAIMER** This report is being issued from the dates specified above and does not make any representation as to the status or validity of the title and the company assumes no liability by virtue of errors of omission and liability of the company shall not exceed the amount paid for the search. October 28,2013 Planning Commission VAC 13-4516 U of A Agenda Item 3 Page 5 of 20 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WRITTEN CONSENT FORM FOR STREET AND ALLEY VACATION REQUEST Date: September 18,2013 Location of Vacation: Brenda Drive Court Street Walton Street and the 30' Alley between Lots 18& 19 and south of Lot 19 of Hatz Revised Addition.City of Fayetteville,Arkansas Adjacent Property Owner: University of Arkansas Adjacent Property Address: Various alone Brenda Dr.Court St Walton St Hotz Dr,&Razorback Rd Property: Lots 1-4 of Dill Addition Lots 1-5 of Block I of McRae Addition Lots 1-9 of Block 2 of McRae Addition Lots 18-19 of Hotz Revised Additlon and Parts of the SWI/4 NE1/4 Section 17 T16N,R30W all in the City of Fayetteville REQUESTED VACATION: I have requested the petition and I consentto vacate thefollowing streets and alley,as describedon the attached legal description and as shown on the attached sketch: In the matter of the vacation of the aforesaid streets and alley,Allen J.Young of Development Consultants, Inc is authorized to process the etiitiion/on my behalf. / �J i'r� +��.lLS-{i!✓�j'lC U/li�dq�„Ly � iC7c�C�A,¢SA-f Printed Name of Adjacent Owner: / Signature of Adjacent Owner: Applicant Name: The University of Arkansaq October 28,2013 Planning Commission VAC 13-4516 U of A Agenda Item 3 Page 6 of 20