No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-11 - Agendas - Final CITY OF a e evl jq AGENDA Y ARKANS Final Agenda Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Sarah Bunch (Chair), William Chesser (Vice Chair), Ryan Noble (Secretary), Kyle Cook, Tracy Hoskins, Ron Autry, Janet Selby, Matthew Hoffman, and Tom Brown. City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Call to Order Roll Call Consent 1. Approval of the minutes from the December 14, 2015 meeting. 2. VAC 15-5281: Vacation (1211 W. JAMES ST./HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES, 404): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1211 W. JAMES ST. The properties are zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, and contain approximately 6.79 acres. The request is to vacate portions of Utility, Drainage, and Access easements. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 3.VAC 15-5279: Vacation (660 W. MILK BLVD./WALMART NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET, 522): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 660 W. MLK BLVD. The properties are zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contain approximately 6.10 acres. The request is to vacate portions of Utility easements. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 4.VAC 15-5277: Vacation (327 S.WEST AVE./HABITAT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, 523): Submitted by SPECIALIZED REAL ESTATE, INC. for property located at 327 S. West Ave. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.08 acres. The request is to vacate portions of street and alley rights-of-way. Planner: Quin Thompson 5. LSD 15-5275: Large Scale Development (WEST OF 1919 W. FOX GLOVE RD./GRAIN VOLKSWAGON, 286): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL, INC.for property located WEST OF 1919 W. FOX GLOVE RD. The property is zoned CPZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT, and contains approximately 4.76 acres. The request is for a 20,072 square foot car dealership and service center building with associated parking. Planner: Andrew Garner Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville,AR 72701 Old Business 6. RZN 15-5240: Rezone (2514 W. LORI RD./RAZORBACK GOLF COURSE, 285): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 2514 W. LORI RD. The properties are zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL, RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ONE UNIT PER ACRE, AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 128.54 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to R-A, RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL; RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION; and NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. Planner: Andrew Garner New Business 7. ADM 15-5270: Administrative Item (SW CORNER OF PERSIMMON & MTN. RANCH BLVD./PARKHILL AT MTN. RANCH S/D, 479): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties SW OF PERSIMMON AND MTN. RANCH BLVD.. The request is to amend the previously approved PZD 12-4284 adjusting the lot lines to reduce the number of lots from 14 to 10. Planner: Andrew Garner 8. RZN 15-5268: Rezone (NORTH OF 812 S. COLLEGE AVE./CAMERON, 563): Submitted by INFILL GROUP, INC.for properties NORTH OF 812 S. COLLEGE AVE. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 0.53 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to RSF-18, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Andrew Garner 9. ADM 15-5283: Administrative Item (NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE BETWEEN MAPLE ST. & NORTH ST./MSP AMENDMENT, 446): Submitted by PLANNING STAFF for NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE BETWEEN MAPLE ST. & NORTH ST. The request is to amend the Master Street Plan and re-classify this section of N. College Avenue to an "ST 63" street classification. Planner: Jesse Fulcher The following items have been approved administratively by staff LSP 15-5273: Lot Split (1639 W. STONE ST./CRISPIN HOUSE PROPERTIES, 521): Submitted by JAMES LAYOUT SERVICES, LLC. for property located at 1639 W. STONE ST.The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 0.07 and 0.08 acres. Planner: Quin Thompson Announcements Adjourn NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: 2 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. 3 CITY OF Taye ARKeAN SAS le MINUTES AN Planning Commission December 14, 2015 5:30 PM City Administration Building in Fayetteville, AR, Room 219 Members: Sarah Bunch - Chair, William Chesser- Vice-Chair, Ryan Noble—Secretary, Ron Autry, Kyle Cook, Thomas Brown, Matthew Hoffman, Janet Selby, and Tracy Hoskins City Staff: Andrew Garner—City Planning Director, Jesse Fulcher— Senior Planner, Quin Thompson — Planner, Cory Granderson —Staff Engineer, Jonathan Ely— Development & Construction Manager, Blake Pennington —Asst. City Attorney, and Kit Williams—City Attorney 1. Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Sarah Bunch In Attendance: Sarah Bunch, Kyle Cook, Janet Selby, Thomas Brown, Matthew Hoffman, Ron Autry, Ryan Noble, and Tracy Hoskins. Absent: William Chesser Staff: Andrew Garner, Jesse Fulcher, Quin Thompson, Corey Granderson, and Kit Williams 2. Consent Agenda: Approval of the minutes from the November 23, 2015 meeting. ADM 15-5262: Administrative Item (GREGG AVE. BETWEEN CENTER ST. & MEADOW ST./MSP AMENDMENT, 484): Submitted by PLANNING STAFF for GREGG AVE. BETWEEN CENTER ST. & MEADOW ST. The request is to amend the Master Street Plan and reduce the right-of-way requirement for Gregg Avenue. Motion: Commissioner Cook made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 3. Old Business: NONE Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayeN@9H*ye1r?g?i16 Fayetteville,AR 72701 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 1 of 11 4. New Business: PPL 15-5253: Preliminary Plat (EAST OF HWY 45 & FOX TRAIL/FOX HILLS SUBDIVISION, 260): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY. 45& FOX TRAIL. The property is in THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 24.60 acres. The request is for a 17 lot single-family subdivision. Quin Thompson, Current Planner, read the staff report. Justin Jorgensen, Applicant, said that the developer was in agreement with all staff conditions except the connection to Fox Trail. He said this connection was not great for the pedestrian, and that the developer would provide a connecting sidewalk along the Mission BLVD frontage to Fox Trail. Kyle Cook, Commissioner, said that the Subdivision Committee had made no recommendation on the connectivity issue, preferring to have the whole Planning Commission decide. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner, said that he agrees with staff about the connection, saying it would allow options for the residents. He asked staff why connection was not being required to the east. Quin Thompson, Current Planner, said that the terrain to the east was not suited to street connection. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner, said that he was familiar with the road, and concerned with the safety of the single proposed intersection. He said he could not support the project without the connection to the west. Janet Selby, Commissioner, said she agreed with comments made by Commissioners Hoskins, Hoffman, and Cook. Tom Brown, Commissioner, made a motion. Justin Jorgensen asked if the decision could be appealed. Andrew Garner, Planning Director, said that it could be appealed to the City Council within ten days. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve PPL 15-5253 with all conditions as recommended by staff including a street connection to the west. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. CUP 15-5265: Conditional Use (3499 W. MILK BLVD./GRACE COVENANT CHURCH, 596): Submitted by BRIAN BOWERMAN for property located at 3499 W. MLK BLVD. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 1.90 Planning Commission January 11,3016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 2 of 11 acres. The request is for Use Unit 4 (Cultural and Recreational Facilities) in an R-A zoned district. Quin Thompson, Current Planner, read the staff report. Zach Stachey, applicant, said the he felt that the area would benefit from the church use. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner, asked the applicant if he understood all of the recommended conditions of approval. Stachey said that he did understand the conditions. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve CUP 15-5265 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. CUP 15-5248: Conditional Use (1211 W. JAMES ST./NALL PROPERTIES, 404): Submitted by BLEW &ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1211 W. JAMES ST. The property is zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to allow multi-family dwellings in an R-O zoned district Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner, read the staff report. Jorge Du Quesne, applicant, stated that the building will be redesigned to meet codes. Glen Wilson, neighbor, stated that some of the utilities to the east were private and installed by his family. Commissioner Cook asked why the applicants didn't rezone the property. Fulcher stated that it was an issue of timeliness. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve CUP 15-5248 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. CUP 15-5250: Conditional Use (SW CORNER VAN ASCHE & STEELE BLVDS./JJ'S BEER GARDEN & BREWERY, 173): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at SW CORNER OF VAN ASCHE DR. AND STEELE BLVDS. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 1.92 acres. The request is for outdoor music. Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner, read the staff report. Planning Commission January 11,3016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 3 of 11 Jodie Thorton, owner, asked that the hours not be restricted to 7-9 PM. We are only planning on having music during the summer time. Glenn Cancy, neighbor, stated that he supports the restaurant and outdoor music. Would like to have better access from their neighborhood to the CMN district. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave background on the closing of Northwood Lane. Commissioner Autry asked if the music would be acoustic. Jodie Thorton stated that it's mainly acoustic. Commissioner Brown asked if there would be a sidewalk connection. Andrew Garner stated that the neighbors would have to grant an easement to allow a sidewalk through their neighborhood. Commissioner Hoskins asked staff why the hours of operation were contingent on the bank's approval. Jesse Fulcher stated that the hours of operation could be conditioned in many ways and it was up to the commissioner to determine what was most appropriate. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated the commission could condition it as acoustic between 6-9 and amplified between 7-9. Jodie Thorton asked the commission to allow them to operate music from 6-9 and if there's an issue then they can address it at that time. Commissioner Hoskins asked where the stage was. Jodie Thorton pointed to the stage location. Commissioner Hoskins stated he was okay with 6-9 and if there are complaints the conditional use can be brought back for review. Commissioner Hoffman stated that he appreciated a lot of what this project does, by pushing the building up to the street. It's an excellent example of how a project can go above and beyond. No issue with hours being 6-9. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 15-5250 with modified condition #2 to allow the hours of operation from 6-9 pm. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 11,4016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 4 of 11 LSD 15-5191: Large Scale Development (SW CORNER VAN ASCHE & STEELE BLVDS./JJ'S BEER GARDEN & BREWERY, 173): Submitted by BATES &ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at SW CORNER OF VAN ASCHE DR. AND STEELE BLVD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 1.92 acres. The request consists of a restaurant, brewery, and offices totaling 11,774 square feet and associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner, read the staff report. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve LSD 15-5191 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. RZN 15-5254: Rezone (NORTH OF 1016 S WASHINGTON AVE./HOMES AT WILLOW BEND, 563): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN, INC. for PROPERTIES NORTH OF 1016 S. WASHINGTON AVE. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 7.74 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to RSF-18, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Michael Ward, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoffman discussed that he is familiar with the project and lives close to here. He is very excited to have attainable housing move in to his neighborhood. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 15-5254 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. RZN 15-5240: Rezone (2514 W. LORI RD./RAZORBACK GOLF COURSE, 285): Submitted by BLEW &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 2514 W. LORI RD. The properties are zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL, RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ONE UNIT PER ACRE, AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 128.55 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to R-A, RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL, RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, AND NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Ron Caveness, property owner, discussed that they closed the golf course 2.5 months ago. We have been losing money for a number of years. The golf industry as a whole is on a Planning Commission January 11,5016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 5 of 11 decline. He gave statistics about golf courses closing and being in decline. This is the only option I have right here except to go bankrupt. Kim Fugitt, applicant for the Lindsey Company, gave a presentation of the proposed rezoning request. He discussed the background for this potential property sale. The history of the property was to bring this to you as a PZD but there were so much opposition that we abandoned the PZD. He discussed feedback they received from the neighbors. This plan will have less than 480 units, less than half of our original plan. We have developed over 40,000 apartments in over eight states.When it comes to multi-family it is a difficult proposal for approval in any community. What we have boiled potential objections down to is the big five issues. There are five typical areas of objection to multi-family development: property values, drainage, traffic, crime, and school. He addressed these issues in his presentation. Tom Reed, appraiser for the applicant, discussed the impact of multi-family housing to property values of nearby single family housing. He discussed three projects that they analyzed that are Lindsey multi-family development adjacent to single family developments. Greens on Blossom Way in Rogers and its impact to a subdivision to the south called Pleasant Acres. Homes in the area are in the 250 - 500k range, and we compared prices in another single family development to the west. What we found in looking at 18 sales in adjacent subdivisions and compared them to other sales in the area: the projects that were adjacent to multi-family development had higher resale. We looked at the Links at Fayetteville. We looked at a subdivision immediately west, 16 sales. Then we compared it to Clabber Creek subdivision that is not adjacent to the Links. The appreciation was greater in Bellwood Subdivision (adjacent to the Links)than in Clabber Creek that was not adjacent to the Links. The third one we looked at was a little bit older project. Paradise View apartments off of Highway 265. We examined two adjacent neighborhoods (Paradise Place and Paradise View) and the Huntingdon neighborhood that is not adjacent to the apartments. The appreciation in the adjacent subdivisions was greater than the subdivision that was not adjacent to the apartments. There was a greater increase in property values in the subdivisions that are closer to the multi-family development than the ones that are removed. There is no support at all for decline in property values in single family neighborhoods adjacent to multi-family development. Jorge Duquesne, applicant's engineer, discussed storm water drainage. He described how the storm water volume and water quality standards will be met with their development. Hugh Jarrett, applicant's attorney, discussed the impact of multi-family development to schools. We have about 0.25 school age children per dwelling unit. He concluded that the impact of their proposed rezoning would have less impact than if it was rezoned to RSF-4. He discussed the surrounding street system and potential impact of this rezoning to traffic. He discussed the impact of multi-family housing to crime and police activity. He gave statistics from the Fayetteville Police Department indicating that the impact of the Links at Fayetteville has substantially fewer police calls per dwelling than other land uses. Public Comment: Brian Sorensen, lives on Purple Fox. Thanks for reading the petition. We have about 347 signatures on the most recent petition. A lot of people have an interest in the outcome here. I am not anti-development. I have lived in a Lindsey property. I appreciate the guys to my left. These guys at Lindsey went out of their way to meet with us. I think they really listened to us. I think the second draft of the plan is much better than the first. I also really like the Planning Commission January 11,6016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 6 of 11 idea of single family buffer along Deane Solomon. I am not real sure what to think about NC yet. The conditional uses are scaring me quite a bit. The chief concern is the RMF-24 zoning. Apartments would seem more compatible with better road access. Deane Solomon and Mount Comfort wasn't intended for that many vehicles. Many of us and the new residents will use the entire stretch of Deane Solomon, a lot of it on the north end is not improved. I am really concerned about traffic, yes, but I am more concerned with safety as we drive the entire length of Deane Solomon. The water table is extremely high in the area. Tim Stidham, I know in the agenda session compatibility was discussed and I don't think that this rezoning is compatible. RMF-40 would allow a unit up to 60 feet tall. You are talking at the south end of this someone could really go pretty high. We would like something appropriate in scale and context. He discussed that a group of citizens are concerned about this. I don't feel like I hear another side of citizens that want this project to go in. Only Lindsey and the landowner want this to go in. The people of Fayetteville are not behind this. We are taking away a golf course. All of those other multi-family projects described by the appraiser had a golf course available, which is going to make property values a little bit higher. It is really compatibility. Obviously the citizens in the area do not want this. Lindsey Smith, I am a young professional that have lived in Fayetteville for 12 years. On behalf of myself, my husband and many others I object to this development. This will increase flooding. Lindsey did not address traffic north of their entrance. She discussed that this rezoning is not consistent with City Plan 2030. If the City approves this plan it will be the city siding with one owner against many citizens. Do not let Lindsey destroy this greenspace. Jon Bull, Appraisal value is something you can select. We have significant issues with flooding in the area. To say they will follow guidelines will not be enough. He discussed problems with the data as it was presented including the school statistics and crime statistics. My big issue is the 24 acres of NC. It is 10 units per acre. In a worst case scenario you could end up with 2,000 units. I don't know of any people in favor of it. If you plan to vote in favor of it I encourage you to be very certain this is the right thing for the citizens. Ryan Green, I could echo everything, but what I will say that we moved here so we could send our kid to this school. Holcomb Elementary would be doubled in size with this rezoning. I would echo everything else that everyone said. However many citizens are against versus how many are for should be considered. John Calhoon, new resident to the area. There is already a traffic issue. It is very difficult to turn left to get onto Highway 112. It doesn't feel very safe.Adding traffic to Deane Solomon will make it difficult. This will make things more congested. People will be going north but it is already a problem. Southbound is already an awkward roadway. There is already a problem with this small road. If we are going to create some type of park it will be difficult to access. I have a problem with their data selection, particularly on property values, you can see data on bankrate.com that it could go either way. There is lots of evidence either way. The appraisal was promoted and brought on by Lindsey. Going northbound is already a huge problem. Kyle Smith, I do not oppose dense efficient multi-family development even in my backyard. My family has seven different houses west of 1-49. 1 look forward to connectivity improvements identified on the Master Street Plan. Residents should never buy a house next to an open field and expect it to stay that way. The biggest concern is environmental and potential impacts to Wilson Springs and Clabber Creek. Development done poorly here Planning Commission January 11,7016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 7 of 11 could be catastrophic. There is standing water anywhere. Anything we pave will put more runoff that has to go somewhere. Over the past several weeks I have watched the rezoning request evolve. Trails along the lake and parkland go a long way to the concerns I have. My biggest concern is that these great ideas may be overlooked. Neighbors have identified a lack of parks in the area. City Plan 2030 already identifies this area as open space and the northern area is on the Enduring Green Network map. Some of my concerns are probably best answered during development review. I feel for the property owner. I wish the PZD had been more successful because more details could have been addressed. I think what we are asking for needs some assurances and careful conditions. Carly Grace, property owner in the area. I have been involved in this proposal since the beginning. Although Lindsey has listened to us no one at the meetings was for this. Lindsey started out with this huge project but it is now much smaller. In a citizen's view it is still extreme for the area. As far as storm water controls, I would like to know are the storm water control for their development going to be the same as used in the surrounding neighborhoods, because there is flooding in the area. The result is awful. More roofs will lead to more flooding.The retention ponds proposed sound like a great place for mosquitoes to breed. Also in the schools, they took an average of the city for the census. This is a really high dense area for young families. To use a whole city's average is not appropriate. The proposal is notjust for apartments it is for homes.The apartments that were being compared to are already on a bus route. This is not on a bus route so it might be more appealing to young families. The City Plan 2030 shows it was for private open space because it was a golf course, although it leaves room for flexibility. I propose that perhaps we should keep it going to the original City Plan 2030 as a City Park. There is no place to walk or bike to from this area. There is Holcomb Elementary, but you can't use it during school hours. The creek area will not be usable park space, it is not useful. While there are a lot of stronger arguments, I wanted to point out City Plan 2030 and keep moving that way. Kevin Davidson, lives in Belclaire Subdivision north of 112. We started building our house in 2011. We have had six events where runoff from basic rain events where the water was almost over 112 for several hours yesterday which was not a 100 year event and was only 2.5 inches of rain. This is the same lowland area. I would challenge you before you vote to look at this closer. We probably have between 30-35 cars cut through our neighborhood because they don't want to go through the Howard Nickell intersection. Sometimes you have to do the eye test and come out and see it. There is nobody in good conscience that can say that Deane Solomon can support this traffic. Make sure you have all gone out here and see the situation. Craig Smith, lives on west Salem Road. The first issue to consider was crime. Instead of looking at one apartment complex versus the entire city, the analysis should look at drawing a better comparison. What was not discussed was the intersection of 112 and Howard Nickell Road. It is a short, peak time, but it is a very dangerous and busy time. Adding more residents without a solution to this intersection will make things worse. My concern is that this development and once the box (mayor's box around the city) is completed you are adding in more and more. It's not just what is coming with this development but the bigger picture when the box is complete. Jim Erwin, lives on the golf course. The golf course is my back yard. I enjoy watching the golf course when it is wet because the geese come in. Now that the Porter area has been widened to three lanes. He discussed traffic patterns using Highway 112 and Deane Solomon to bypass freeway traffic and get back on 1-49 at Porter Road. He discussed Planning Commission January 11,8016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 8 of 11 problems with Deane Solomon Road being unimproved and narrow. He discussed gaps in Deane Solomon Road. He discussed problems with the data being presented. I like this area and the natural area. I could move to a big city any time I want. I want to go canoeing, ride my bike. The best solution would be to turn it into a park, but we don't have someone that would fund that. I want the City to look at the future. We don't have the infrastructure in place yet for this type of development. We know that there is other land in the area that will be developed. I paid an extra $10,000 to be on this golf course. Look at some of the older Lindsey properties. Look at Leverett Street and the houses around there. That's what I want you to look at. Zack Hewitt, live north of this site. He described that there was so much water on his property that he couldn't get grass to grow. There are already problems in the area. No one has mentioned Deane Solomon in bad winter weather because of the open ditches. It is a big hill. He discussed problems with the statistics given about crime. Stephanie Hewitt, lives north of this site. A portion of this site is identified as an environmentally sensitive area. If you look at the sensitive karst map of the area this is identified as a sensitive water body. I am not sure if any environmental impact assessment has been conducted. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoffman discussed the comment from Carly Grace about usable park space. There has been a lot of discussion of the R-A area being in conservation, but it is primarily unusable. Another issue is the NC zoning district. I live in a neighborhood that is zoned NC. I challenge you to go to these neighborhoods. You will probably not be able to see the difference between your neighborhoods and an NC neighborhood. He described the characteristics of the development of the NC zoning. We have made a commitment to make Traditional Town Form the standard; we need to buckle down and why would we be okay with a conventional zoning district such as RSF-4. I do think it is fair to contrast what would happen here with RSF-4 with a scenario of a mix of different development patterns and zonings. You could end up with the possibility for a more vibrant neighborhood. The only way to fix a traffic problem is to allow people the opportunity to get out of their car. If you stuck with the 480 unit concept and rezoned this to NS or CS you could get a much larger area of conservation. Commissioner Brown asked about the drainage standards. Are the drainage standards going to be required to meet the same as the rest of the area? Didn't we recently change the standards? Andrew Garner discussed that the drainage criteria manual has recently changed over the past year. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the change in drainage standards that occur over time. We are constantly trying to work on these drainage problems. Commissioner Brown asked about infrastructure related to traffic. Can we improve the traffic infrastructure prior to development occurring? If these rezoning occurs and a development results, during the development process we will be looking at improvements that will be necessary. Planning Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 9 of 11 Kit Williams discussed street improvements. The highway department has responsibility on Highway 112. That intersection they put in with the three-way stop at Garland, they will put in a traffic light. It seems like road construction will never keep up with population. We can sometimes get ahead of the curve like the mayor's box. We don't have extra money to do all of the improvements. Commissioner Autry discussed that data is just that, you can make it say what you want it to say. Mr. Davidson's point about safety is my biggest concern. Lindsey is not going to wait for the road to be improved and Deane Solomon needs major improvements. This has been a flood problem area for a long time. I drove past there today and if I heard it correctly the flood and drainage will take place west of Deane Solomon and he discussed the problems with water flowing to the west. I have real trouble with it, I think it is a great place for development, but I have concerns with traffic danger. Commissioner Hoskins discussed that we seem to hear the same opposition to every development that comes through. The line of work that I'm in I try to think of ways to alleviate these concerns. We were talking about property values going down next to multi-family. I disagree with that. Drainage is always a concern with every single development. The foundation of the engineering regulations is that the new development cannot increase flooding. More often new development can often help flooding and drainage in the area. He discussed a recent development in the Mountain Ranch area that helped drainage problems. He discussed traffic patterns in the area. He discussed that there is probably not enough density in this area for non-residential services to survive. Typically in this area of town the minimum zoning would be four units per acre. The NC zoning is one of my favorite zonings. The NC zoning will promote community and a great neighborhood. Some of the best neighborhoods are tight, dense neighborhoods. While some of these acres in the floodplain I think some of these conservation areas can be great parks. I hope the parks department says that we need a neighborhood park here. There is a lot of areas in this greenspace that would make a great park. I don't see how anybody can be denied to develop their property. If this is not a plan that people can support, what kind of plan would they support. Commissioner Cook discussed agreement with a lot of what was previously said. This is a lot of the same development pattern we have seen in this area of the town. They talk about traffic because there is not a lot of connectivity. I tend to agree with the NC that can make more greenspace, gets more options for connectivity. I like the idea for non-residential services in this area and we deserve more than a typical RSF-4 neighborhood. Commissioner Brown discussed that he liked the fact that they kept basically the R-A zoning and extended it to Clabber Creek. I like the sensitivity to locate RMF-24 to the south and away from the creek. I like the fact that the applicant is using one of our form-based zones, NC, along the western area of their property. I encourage the parks department to accept land instead of fees in this area. Commissioner Hoskins asked staff about the two tracts of RSF-4 that could go to NC? Kim Fugitt, applicant, indicated that no, they would not have a problem with it. Commissioner Hoskins asked staff about the NC zoning. Andrew Garner described the NC zoning district. Planning Commission January 1110016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 10 of 11 Kim Fugitt discussed that yes they would be amenable to the NC zoning. Commissioner Hoffman clarified his comments on conservation where something of value needs to be given up. In this case where we would go for NC in this case, what I would prefer is that some of the area that is allotted to RSF-4 the areas in the conservation area would be increased. Hugh Jarrett discussed the parkland area and the ways the parkland area would be used. Commissioner Hoskins clarified that with more NC you need less land and can place more land into usable parkland. Commissioner Bunch discussed that she thinks this is heading in the right direction but I am not completely in support of this issue right now. Kim Fugitt discussed that they are fine with tabling it but we need some feedback from you. Commissioner Hoffman discussed that some amount of NS would be appropriate. I would like to see no amount of RSF-4 on the map. Commissioner Hoskins discussed the same number of units but rearrange them into these different zones. Kit Williams asked for feedback on RMF-24. Commissioner Hoskins discussed that he does not have a problem with it. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table RZN 15-5240 until next meeting. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. S. Reports: No reports 6. Announcements: 7. Adjournment Time: ? PM 8. Submitted by: City Planning Division Planning Commission January 1111016 Agenda Item 1 12-14-2015 Minutes Page 11 of 11 CITY OF a e evi le PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 SUBJECT: ADM 15-5283: Administrative Item (NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE BETWEEN MAPLE ST. & NORTH ST.IMSP AMENDMENT, 446): Submitted by PLANNING STAFF for NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE BETWEEN MAPLE ST. & NORTH ST.The request is to amend the Master Street Plan and re-classify this section of N. College Avenue to an "ST 63" street classification. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding ADM 15-5283 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. BACKGROUND: The subject section of N. College Avenue is located between Maple Street and North Street. The City of Fayetteville is currently designing improvements for the east side of this section, similar to the improvements that were made between Maple Street and Rock Street in 2009. The project will include new 10-foot sidewalks, street lights, and tree wells. Additionally, existing driveways will be reconstructed, and at times, combined to better facilitate traffic movements. A new pedestrian crossing at Trenton Street and Rebecca Street is also under evaluation. Construction will be performed by City crews with funding from the Transportation Bond Fund. DISCUSSION: City staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council vote to reclassify N. College Avenue between Maple Street and North Street from a Principal Arterial Street to a ST- 63 street cross section. This is more consistent with the anticipated full-build out of the street in the near future with four lanes and a 10-foot urban sidewalk, compared to the existing designation that has a five-lane arterial, greenspace and a 5-foot sidewalk. For many decades all of N. College Avenue has been classified as a Principal Arterial Street as it is a state highway that connects directly through the center of the City. The only exception is the section between Rock and Maple that was classified as an ST-63 Street with the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan in 2006. The ST-63 street section is consistent with the 60-feet of right-of-way that was platted between Rock and North Streets and the urban development pattern that still exists in downtown Fayetteville. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding ADM 15-5283 to the City Council. Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Street www.faYfD'il��•av Fayetteville, AR 72701 gena em 15-5283 College Ave. MSP Page 1 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required Date: January 11. 2016 ❑ Tabled ❑ Forwarded ❑Denied Motion: Second: Vote: Notes: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: • Street Improvement Plans • ST-63 and Principal Arterial Street Sections • Close Up Map Planning Commission G G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\15-5283 ADM(N.College Avenue—Maple to North/MNary 11,2016 Street Plan Amendment)\03 Planning Commission\i-11-2016\Comments and Redlines genda Item 2 15-5283 College Ave. MSP Page 2 of 8 00+0 'VIS 0100+0'tl1S NVId 's; t2 •NOISIAIO ONId33NIJN3 1 e " " '1S H1NON 011S 31dVW 11f:a �srsvvsxn o d S1N3W3AONdWIMltlM301S3f1N3AV30311OO 1' o r. 1� 3771/13113Ah'jj0A119 a* ,A11_ I II aCL la ilh' I71 II R Nil S9 J ' A r' 11 fig ar' t' IwE UE oa Fo it i 71 �.7F! �I 4 g a o� i +I Plannin Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 2 15-5283 College Ave. MSP Page 3 of 8 00+0Z'tl1SO1OO+O1'tl1S Ntlld "'•; t2 NOISIAIQY 0114I833N19143 o N ; s '1S KHON Ol'1S 31dtlWCL o o S1N3W3AOHdWI MlYM3019 3nN3Atl 3°031100 P"' •.� o aT� �� r I 3771A3113AHd d0 Al/0 0 V515_�_ 4 - tI Flu ' �• � r ;Y I � J- I ; Y\YY 1 '6 i Ilk Elk ell r:r - L- _' --1 Plannin Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 2 15-5283 College Ave. MSP Page 4 of 8 is+lz'tl1S01ao+oz'V1S Nord NOISIAIQ 0N163314I9N3 o o2 ; � •1S H1NON 01'1S 31dVW S1N3W3AONdWnvm301S3nN3AV 3031109 - '. •: ` 1v sv>xo+xv a 3171A3113AHd dO A110 IL }Ithfwd �pG� V�� IIIIA— 4e lT--'-•. ITI � � I` I._ 3 1 � ��JI✓ __ JJ I r --- t;. , I I Ip C3 m•o ��1�• I � ,�a��_ —_ til' � 1,��= I ! ' .I II - �! IT I I •.. �{ -- '� �_ 7���• '� � Plannin Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 2 15-5283 College Ave. MSP Page 5 of 8 coo a—ad N . 4■ j � > . .7b ° _ \t ail § _ © -1ED - j y � $ { . , { ,t -0 r! \ / . 0 CL H F- � ( § 4 / I=> F- ra ) / \-0 ar I -1Qj § E || k \ � on 7 a ■ § $ ffq q e on t ® on / \ � \§ L § ƒ» �/ § � % { k � / \ � \ � k o ■ » ¥ \ fI � 2@ $ § £ § E � ) _ / \/ � d £ & � S 22Qa £ � � § e � 5zPt ¥ kE § £ V �nwm � § } )• 2 \ � \ � � � % .0E OL 222 » f § \] = B ® .. '' •• - ° 7 ee7k@ § ) F/$ � � a ° \ � k � ) % c � � n� i ° � � k d CL kk / / f ƒ ) ƒ� k Planning C _ January 11, Age_Item ,teeCollege Ave. MSP Page of v to �N i� 3 U rc y v v � com � 0 on > b w N L y y CD E a v v y V IL. Z Z O �D fy/1 S y V 41 N y r r r .. v E Fvb � 3 � m inV c w3 om Na OII T Y L N Ol V OD-O Ti Hm ( E Ln t7 Planning C sion January 11, Agenda Item 2 15-5283 College Ave. MSP Page 7 of 8 i H ` COLLEGE AVE. MSP AMENDMENT i T Reclassified to ST-63 r �, JR,. 0- as-_ WWI tr fff •s' r- � � 4 ••-Y„b 1 j — d - it } � y ,�� •�� r�. 1 i _ , ti r 11� 1� i v. ay � �h •.^�_ ,' � � - -�'i4 -•, f it Y F f •1� I 1 1 11 1 .11 •• • e _� __ CITY OF U. vile PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 SUBJECT: VAC 15-5281: Vacation (1211 W. JAMES ST./HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES, 404): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1211 W. JAMES ST. The properties are zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, and contain approximately 6.79 acres. The request is to vacate a utility and drainage easement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding VAC 15-5281 with conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located between Wedington Drive and James Street, which is west of Garland Avenue and the Harps grocery store. The property is undeveloped, but an area of trees was cleared in 2007 when a previous development was approved for the property. The applicants have submitted proposal to develop the property with apartments. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Table 1 SurroundingLand Use and Zonin Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Sin le-famil RMF-24, Residential Multi-family South Sin le- mil RSF-4, Residential Sin le-famil West Multi-famfail C-S, Communit Services East I RMF-24, Residential Multi-family Proposal: The applicant proposes to vacate and replat a 20-foot utility easement and 30-foot drainage easement. DISCUSSION: Vacation Approval: The applicant has submitted the required vacation forms to the City utility departments and applicable franchise utilities, with the following responses: UTILITIES RESPONSE Cox Communications No objections with conditions AEP/SWEPCO No objections Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W Mountain Street www..4"te6ille' Iegov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Agenda Item 3 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 1 of 15 Source Gas No objections AT&T No objections with conditions Ozarks Electric No objections CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE RESPONSE Water/Sewer No objections Trash & Recycling N/A Transportation No objections with conditions Public Comment: No public comment has been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding VAC 15-5281 with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Vacation of the existing drainage easement shall not be valid until such time that a new drainage easement has been filed of record, covering the current drainage path and as generally shown on the attached plat. 2. Any relocation or damage to utilities and associated new easement dedication shall be at the ownerldeveloper's expense. Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approved 11 Forwarded ❑ Denied Meeting Date: January 11, 2016 Motion: Second: Vote: BUDOETISTAFF IMPACT; None. Attachments: • Petition to Vacate ■ Utility Approvals • Easement Vacation Exhibits • One Mile Map • Close Up Map Planning Commission ment Services Review120161Development Review115-5281 VAC(Haven Campus January 11,2016 WETCtDevelo P Agenda Item 3 Communities)l03Planning Cammission101-11-20861Comments and Redlines 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 2 of 15 BLEW & ASSOCIATES, PA CIVIL ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS Jacob Rennick Blew&Associates,PA 524 West Sycamore,Suite 4 Fayetteville,Arkansas 72703 Planning Commisslon. City of Fayetteville 113 Wiest Mountain Street Fayetteville;AR 72701 SUBJECT: WedingtOn Apartments Easement Vacation December 1,2015 To Whom It May Concene The property developer,Haven Campus Communities,Is requesting the vacation of aUtility Easement,a Drainage Easement, and an Access Easement located within Parcel 4765-15775-009 and 76$-13756-000, located at lames Street. This property Is now being combined%y1th tout utheir parcelsto cleVeloo-an-Apartment complex, Any existing utilities located within these easements are to be removed or relocated.The vacation of these easements would then allow for the creation of this apartment complex. Sincereiy, Jacob Rennick Blew&Associates,PA Planning Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 3 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 3 of 15 BLEW & ASSOCIATES, PA CIVIL ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS PETITION PETITION TO VACATE EASEMENTS LOCATED IN PARCEL 4 765-13775-000,CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and The Fayetteville City Council We,the undersigned;being all the owners of the real estate abutting the easement hereinafter sought to be abandoned and vacated, lying in Woodbury Subdivision, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation,petition to vacate easements which are described as follows: 20'UTILITYEASEMEN1% A PART OF THE SOUTLIEAST QVARTt R OFTIIENORTFWAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8,TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH,RANGE 30'WLST,WASHINGTON COUNTY,LLt1EANSAS,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,TO-WIT:,COMMENCING AT THE;SOUTI-TWEST CORNP.R OF LOT 10, MCCORMICK ADDITION TO TE-1N'CiT'ir O}7 FAV YETTHVIL.LE,ARI i NSAS,SAIL?_POINT BEINQ,A CONCRETE MONUMENT,AND RUNNINGTIIENCE'Ng4°24'000 247j TO A 1-6bi4 IRON PIN, THENCE S02036'03"W 251.86'TO THE TRUE POR, L'OF BLI.GINNAVG,THENCF 502036'03"W 20.00', THENCE N87006'36."W 428.6T,TI-mwti N56007'0411W'38.89;THENCE S87°06'36"13461,88'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,CONTA11,1ING 0.26ACRES,MORE OR LESS - 30'DRAINAGE EASEMENT, A PART OF THE SOUT'I-IF-AST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8,ZbWNSHIP 16 NORTH,RANGE 30 WEST,WASHINGTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS RMNG MORR PARTICULr1$1.Y DESCRIBED ASFOLLOWS,TO-WIT: COMMENCINGATTHE SOUTIMS§ "CORNl3!RoT,LOT 10, MCCORMICK ADDITION TO TUE.CITY OF FAYEITBVILLE,ARKANSAS,SAID POINT BEING A CONCRETE 1.1'IONUMENT,.AND RUNNING THENCE N$4.24'Q6"W 2.47':TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE S02036'03"W 376.95"T0 A FOUND IRON PIN,THENCbF..:.5876519'54"B96.79'TO A FOUND CHISELED"X",THENCE S00°50'27"W 1'46.23'TO A FOUND CHISL-LP.5Y:"X"IN THE NORTH RIGHT-OF- WAY OF WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE,THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N89042'46"W 66.53'TO A FOUND IRON PIN,THENCE.N7433'40"W 35.85'TOA FOUND.IRON PIN,THENCE N74°26'25"W-158.42' TO A FOUND IRON PIN,THENCE N44 48'49"W 202.40'TO A FOUND IRON PIN,THENCE N56007'04"W 271.85'TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,THENCE N56a07'04"W 26.54;TIMNCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N0711'51"W 196.98,THENCE'.S87-1 0'49"E 20:31',THENCE.807a1 i'59"F.3 210.85'TO THE- POINT HEPOINT OF BEGINNING,CONTAINING 0.0t ACRES,MORE OR LESS. That the abutting real estate affected by said abaedonmont of the easements are Parcel#765-13775-001, 765-13776-000 and 765-13753-000 within the City of Fayetteville used by the public for a period of many years, and that the public interest and welfare would not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the portion of the above described easements. The petitioners pray that the Cityof Fayetteville,Arkansas,abandon and vacate the above described real estate, and that the above described real estate be used for their respective benefit and propose as now approved by law. The petitioners further pray that the above described real estate be vested in the abutting property owners as provided by law. Dated this rLday of 20 l� . J �co� �ter��nic�i Printed Name r,M, Q- r4-0,— SiVnature Planning Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 3 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 4 of 15 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: 1212/2015 UTILITY COMPANY: Cox Communications APPLICANT NAME: Blew&Associates APPLICANT PHONE: 443-4506 REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check all that apply): x Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right-of-way, Alley Street right-of-way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley,easement,right-of-way),described as follows: General location/Address ❑ (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated-SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: -' No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no comments. - No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following described easements are retained. (State the location,dimensions,and purpose below.) x No objections provided the following conditions are met: Any damage to or relocation of existing facilities will be at the ownersidevelopers_expense to relocate. /Signature of Utility Company Representative Construction and Planning Manager Title December 2014 Page 5 Planning Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 3 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 5 of 15 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: 12/1/2015 UTILITYCOMPANY: AEP/SWEPCO APPLICANTNAME: Haven Campus Communities APPLICANT PHONE: REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check all that apply): Ix Utility Easement D Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right-of-way. 1] Alley 0 Street right-of-way I.have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley,easement,right-of-way),described as follows: General location/Address James St. @ Mount Comfort Rd. k (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated-SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: - No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no comments. No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following described easements are retained. (State the location,dimensions,and propose below.) C! No objections provided the following conditions are met: Siinaatture okOtility Company Representative Yls TeiReTraJ L�GrNEtR /1�1`l�� Title December 2014 page 5 Planning Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 3 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 6 of 15 UTILITY APPROVA L FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,A LLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT Vj CATIONS DATE: 12/1/2015 UTMITYCOMPANY: SourceGas APPLICANT NAME: PLICANT PHONE: REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check all that apply) CK Utility Easement ❑ Rightof way for alley or streets and all utility easements Dcated within the vacated right-of-way. 7 Alley ❑ Street right-of-way I bave been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley, a rsernrni,right-of-way),described as follows: General location/Address James St @ Mnt. Com ort ❑ (ATTACIT legal description gd graphic representation f what is being vacated-SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: ❑ No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no omments. _FJ No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provides I following described easements argfairted. (State the location,dimensions axi_d�_tupose beloN.� k o f �� � �t g{,,`C1 /l �51ri s Y`3"`1 ,5 r\o On parcel 765-13756-000 an easement to be retained 10' in width with the existing gas main being the center of said UE. ❑ No objections provided the following conditions are met•. Signature of Utility Company�Repres ntative �r/2 .J.L/I.O�✓ Z2N�5vf Title December 2014 Page 5 Planning Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 3 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 7 of 15 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: 12/1/2015 UTILITY COMPANY: AT&T APPLICANT NAME: Haven Campus Communities APPLICANT PHONE: REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check all iltat apply): IX Utility Easement ❑ Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right-of-way. ❑ Alley ❑ Street right-of-way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley, easement,right-of-way),described as follows: General location/Address James St. (@ Mount Comfort Rd. ❑ (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated-SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: "I No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no comments. No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following described easements are retained. (State the location,dimensions,and purpose below.) 'X No objections provided the following conditions are met If any AT&T facilities are required to be relocated due to this vacation will be the responsi Ity of the property owner/developer 'z Signa or ' lity Company Representative MGR nsp_piNc. R ENL(-,B(- r)FSl(-�N Title Page 5 Planning Commission January 11,2016 Agenda Item 3 15-5281 Haven Communities Page 8 of 15