HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-28 - Agendas - Final AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday,January 28,2002
at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,Room 219,
Fayetteville,Arkansas.
The following items will be considered:
Approval of minutes from the January 14,2002 meeting.
Old Business:
1. LSD 01-19.10: Large Scale Development(Hometown Developments,pp 524)was submitted
by Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located on the southwest corner of
Fletcher Avenue& Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2,Medium Density Residential and
contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed.
2. ADM 01-28.00: Administrative Item(Hometown Development,pp 524)was submitted by
Robert Schmitt on behalf of Hometown Development for property located south and west of the
intersection of Fletcher&Rodgers Avenue. The request is for a waiver of the City of
Fayetteville minimum street standards.
New Business:.
3. CUP 02-7.00: Conditional Use(Wilson,pp 406)was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins
Surveying,Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg
Avenue. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.37
acres. The request is for a tandem lot.
4. LSP 02-8.00: Lot Split(Wilson,pp 406)was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins
Surveying,Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg
Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.66
acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.37 acres and 0.29 acres.
5. PPL 02-3.00:Preliminary Plat(Sage Meadows,pp 398)was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen&Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy 16 and east
of 5l"Street. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains approximately
31 acres with 89 lots proposed.
6. LSP02-3.00& 4.00: Lot Splits(Lot 2 CMN Business Park H Phase I,pp 134)were submitted
by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates,Inc. on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property
located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to split the
property into three lots of 3.7703 acres, 0.8131 acres, and 0.9878 acres.
7. LSD 02-3.00: Large Scale Development(Party City,pp 134)was submitted by Chris Rogers
of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hydco,Inc. for property located at the
northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres with 33,250 sq.ft. of retail space proposed.
8. ADM 01-15.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Lighting) was submitted by the Planning
Commission Subcommittee on Outdoor Lighting to adopt an ordinance that minimizes the impact.
of outdoor lighting on adjacent properties and improves nighttime visibility.
9. ADM 01-36: Administrative Item (Fee in Lieu of Construction of Sidewalk)was submitted
by Kit Williams, City Attorney to revise the calculation method for determining the fee in lieu of
construction of sidewalks for a single-family lot, duplex lot or lot split. The amendment also adds
a list of factors for the Sidewalk Administrator to review when considering waivers for the
construction of sidewalks.
10. Informational item: Review of 2002 Work Program
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed
amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning
(575-8264), City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville,Arkansas. All
interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are
available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an
interpreter,please call Hugh Earnest at 575-8330.
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item - Chairman
B. Presentation of request-Applicant
C. Public Comment
D. Response by Applicant/Questions &Answer with Commission
E. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion and vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item, raise your hand when the
Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission
members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be
permitted during this part of the hearing for each item.
Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your
name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman,who is the presiding officer. He
will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please
keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that
everyone has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the
Planning Commission.
2002 Planning Commissioners:
Bob Estes - Chairman
Lorel Hoffman -Vice Chairman
Lee Ward- Secretary
Nancy Allen
Don Bunch
Sharon Hoover
Don Marr
Loren Shackelford
Alice Church
LSD 01-19.10
Page I
PC Meeting of Jan. 28.2002
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS _ Hometown,LSD
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
FROM: Sara Edwards,Ron Petrie P.E.
DATE: January 24,2002
Project: LSD 01-19.10: Large Scale Development(Hometown,pp 524)was submitted by
Glenn Carter of Carter&Associates on behalf of Hometown Development for property located on
the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue & Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium
Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed.
Findings: This property was before the Planning Commission on April 23,2001 with a request
to not provide the required street frontage for lots in an R-2 zone. Right-of-way for Center Street
exists directly in front of this property and runs parallel with Fletcher Street. This waiver was
approved subj ect to the project being processed as a large scale development and limited to six units.
The applicant is proposing to provide twelve units, ten with two bedrooms and two with one
bedroom.Thus,the total number ofbedrooms is 22.The applicant is proposing to provide 22 parking
spaces. There is property zoned R-2 to the east, west and south of this project. On November 13,
2001, the Planning Commission approved a request (ADM 01-11.10) not to require the required
street frontage and to allow 10 two bedroom units and 2 one bedroom units per half acre site. If this
project is not approved,the applicant is requesting to build Center Street. Several waivers are being
requested as part of that construction(AND 01-28).
Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission consideration ofthe traffic study prepared by Peters&Associates.(See
the attached Traffic Study by Peters &Associates and the memo from Staff Engineer Paul a
Libertine).
2. Trees along the right-of-way east of the proposed drive must be trimmed to provide adequate
site distance prior to final Certificate of Occupancy. See memo from the Traffic
Superintendent, Perry Franklin, regarding the site distance.
3. Planning Commission determination of offsite improvements to Fletcher Avenue. The
applicant is proposing to widen the street 14 feet from centerline adjacent to the Center Street
frontage to meet Local Street Standards. A recent traffic count has determined that 834
vehicles per day presently use Fletcher Avenue. This development is projected to add 94
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSD01-19.10
Page 1.1
LSD 01-19.10
Page 2
vehicles per day.
4. No public sewer lift station shall be used for this development. See memo from the
Engineering Division regarding the sewer line capacity on Mount Sequoyah.
5. All replacement trees shall be a minimum of 2" caliper. See Kim Hesse's memo regarding
the tree preservation for this development.
6. All dumpsters and utility equipment shall be screened.
7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments(to include written staff comments provided to the
applicant or his representative,and all comments from utility representatives-AR Western
Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations(where applicable)for
grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s)and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process
was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional
review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements.
9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot
sidewalk with a minimum six foot greenspace.
10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year.
11. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time
of construction.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City(letter
of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed
Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements
necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed,not just guaranteed,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Background:
An Administrative Item(AND 01-11)was approved by the Planning Commission on April 23,2001 to allow
this project to proceed without the proper street frontage. This approval was conditioned upon approval of
a Large Scale Development and limited to six units per lot. The proposed Large Scale Development was
reviewed at the May 29, 2001 Technical Plat review and was tabled at the June 14, 2001 Subdivision
Committee meeting due to several corrections that were requested to be added to the plan. This project was
presented to the Subdivision Committee again on June 28, 2001. At this time, the applicant changed the
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSDOI-19.10
Page 1.2
LSD 01-19.10
Page 3
number of apartment units to 12 which required the project to be resubmitted to the August 31, 2001
Technical Plat Review. This item was forwarded to the August 16, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting
where it was tabled due to insufficient information. The project was resubmitted to the November 1,2001
Subdivision Committee.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included the administrative item(AND O1-11), sanitary
sewer capacities on Mount Sequoyah,the lack of tree preservation,and general background for this project.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission
subject to all staff comments. The item was then heard at the November 13, 2001 Planning Commission
meeting along with AD O1-11.00. The administrative item was requested to be reheard in order to change
the number of units allowed from six to twelve andwas approved. The large scale development was tabled
pending the applicant providing a traffic study.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
a) Water. Existing.
b) Sanitary sewer will be extended to this property. This will be a gravity sewer line with a private
sewer lift station to pump to the public sewer system.
C) Streets. See Conditions of Approval.
d) Grading and Drainage. A preliminary grading plan and drainage report has been submitted. A final
plan and report will be required prior to beginning construction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: -yes---Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments:
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSD01-19.10
Page 1.3
LSD 01-19.10
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required Page 4
Approved Denied
Date:
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL",beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
by
title
date
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSDOI-19.10
Page 1.4
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St. -
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:501-575-8264
ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Paul Libertini P.E., Staff Engineer
THRU: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner
Tim Conklin,Planning Director
DATE: January 23,2002 (for January 28, 2002 P.C. Meeting)
SUBJECT: Hometown Development(LSD 01-19.10)
Traffic Study for Schmitt Apartment Complex
Conclusion: The proposed development will have a minimal traffic impact on the existing local road
system concerning level of service,maintenance and safety, if the existing speed limit and traffic control
devices are obeyed by all who utilize the roads in this area.
Background: I have reviewed the traffic study dated December 19, 2001 submitted by Peters &
Associates and have the following comments:
➢ The 24-hour traffic counts were taken on Thursday&Friday,December 13s'& 14`h and recorded
a maximum of 459 vehicles per day. The City recorded a 24-hour traffic count of 834 vehicles
on Thursday,April 26a'. The small amount of neighborhood traffic could easily fluctuate this
much(+81%) depending on the day and time of year, school and university classes,weather
conditions, etc. A small local road is much more susceptible to variation of traffic volumes
compared to a collector road which would generally have much larger and steady traffic volume.
➢ The ITE Trip Generation Manual shows 6.63 trips per unit for an apartment complex which
would generate a total increase of 160 vehicle trips for a 24 unit apartment complex. This
projected traffic increase agrees with the numbers stated in the Peter's traffic report.
➢ This development would increase the overall traffic volumes by 35%using the Peter's counts or
19%using the City's counts. The average increase would be 27%more vehicles per day.
However,we must keep in mind that an increase of 27%is a VERY small amount because we
are discussing very small traffic volumes on local roads.
➢ The report identified existing road widths, road cross sections and traffic control in the area,but
did not make any comments regarding the existing road safety, geometrics, site distance, or
off-street parking for visitors to the residents of the apartments.
➢ The Peter's report combined the projected volume of 160 vpd with the existing volume of 459
vpd for a total of 619 vpd, and compared this future traffic volume to the City's allowable service
volume of 1000 vpd for a residential street. The consultant"concluded that the existing street
system surrounding the site has adequate reserved"service volume"to satisfactorily serve the
additional traffic projected to be generated by the site without discernable impact."
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSDOI-19.10
Page 1.5
➢ I agree with the consultants conclusion that the increase in traffic generated from this small
development is minimal and the existing roads should easily handle the increased volume.
However, it should be noted that the existing Fletcher Avenue is a substandard local road based
on today's criteria of a minimum of two 10' lanes with curb & gutter,but on the contrary the
design service volume should be 4,000 vpd,not 1,000 vpd as stated in the consultant's report.
Therefore, though the road is narrower in some areas, it can easily cavy the projected traffic
volumes. The additional vehicles per day should not present a safety issue, if drivers follow the
basic traffic laws and rules.
Notes from my field trip of January 23,2002:
➢ Many of the local streets in the general area are substandard,narrow with no shoulders, steep
grades, and ditches close to the edge of pavement.
➢ The site distance from the proposed site driveway is blocked when looking towards the east
(uphill towards Rodgers Drive),but this can be remedied by the development by clearing the
vegetation and trees in this area during construction.
➢ Going downhill from the proposed development near Summit Street is a relatively sharp curve
and the pavement appears to be narrow. A small amount of pavement widening around this
curve could improve the safety of all vehicles using this existing road. The speed limit is 25
mph, so theoritically,it should be easy to safely negotiate this curve and the narrow roads.
Concerns:
➢ Other than the required parking spaces,no off-street parking is available for this apartment
complex for visitors or guests.
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSD01-19.10
Page 1.6
Z0'd "Ri.LO.L
FAYETTEWLLE
MI Ott OF FAYmIVaU,, M"M1
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner
FROM: Perry Franklin,Traffic Division Superintendent
4
DATE: April 23,2001
SUBJECT: Sight distance for new development(Mr.Brian Dandy) at the SW corner
of Rodgers Dr. and Lighton Trail
I have checked the above location for adequate sight distance. I exited the property from the existing
gravel drive to check the sight distance. The gravel drive and the ZV drive shown west of it would both
have adequate sight distance if the vegetation to the east is trimmed back a couple of feet. Both Rodgers
Dr.and Lighton Trail have a stop sign for west bound traffic coming down the hill towards this proposed
drive. Sight distance to the west is unobscured. The drive should be located as far to the west as is
practical to serve the property. If I can help you any further,please let me know.
PLF/plf
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSDOl-1910
Page 1.7
Z0/Z0'd 0617£ 171717 TOS f to 133mis —
Hometown Developments
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
For 28 Persons of Apartments
June 27, 2001
24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two-Way
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 94 1 7 8 4
24 hour Peak Hour
Two-Way
Volume Enter Exit
Saturday 91 0 0
Sunday 86 0 0
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSDOl-19.10
Page 1.8 .
ZD'd �e1o1
CITY OF PAYRTRVILLB
TRAFFIC DIVISION 575-8228
04.30.2001 Volume by Lane Report - D0426001.PRN 08:01 Pg 1
..... ... ---•................................ __ _
Std: 342100000001 Id, 043001000001 CId: 01 Fmt: 000 • Imperial Int: 60 Nin. '
Start: Thu - Apr 26, 2001 at 00:00
City/Tova; FAYBTTRVILLR End: Fri - Apr 27County: WASHINGTON
, 2001 at 24:00
Location: RODGBRS BAST OF LIGNTON BIDIRECTIONAL
Lal-NorthFile: D0416001.PRN
.........................."-•------'.....................---...--•.......:............._
Thu • Apr 26, 2001
Leo. Total
01:00 9 9 ..__-9
02:00
03:00 0 2
04:00 0
05:00 7 7
06:00 3 2
07:00 4 4
it 11
08:00 58 SB
09:00 52
10:00 52
38
11:00 38
39 39
11:00 56 56
13:00 60 60
14:00
63 63
15:00 67 67
60 60
62 62
66 66
51 51
43 43
38 38
21 21
19 19
6 S
Is 834 834
Percentages 100.00
Planning Commission
January;28, 2002
LSD0119.10
Page 1.9
Z0/Z0'd 0602 POP TOS '()IC 133&S; ;
CHAPTER 6
FIRE PROTECTION
SECTION 601 barricades or other obstructions across any street.alley,place
GENERAL or private property in the vicinity of such operation so as to
prevent accident or interference with the lawful efforts of the
601.1 Power and Authority fire department to manage and control the situation and to
Authorized representatives of the fire official in charge at the handle fire apparatus.
scene of a fire or other emergency involving the protection of
life or property or any part thereof,shall have the power and 602.4 Tampering with Barriers,Etc.
authority to direct such operation as may be necessary to No person,unless authorized ora public officer acting within the
extinguish or control any tire, perform any rescue operation, scope of his public duties,shall remove,unlock,destroy,tamper
investigate the existence of suspected or reported fires, gas with,or otherwise molest in any manner any lock, gate, door,
leaks,or other hazardous conditions or situations,or take any barricade,chain,enclosure,sign,tag or seal which has been law-
other action necessary in the reasonable performance of their fully installed by the fire official or by his order or under his con-
duty. In the exercise of such power,the fire official may pro- trol.
hibit any person, vehicle, vessel or object from approaching 602.5 Obstructing Fire Hydrants
the scene and may remove or cause to be removed or keep 602.5.1 No person shall place or keep any fence, growth.
away from the scene any vehicle,vessel.or object which may trash .1 other material near any fire hydrant that wouldgrowth,
impede or interfere with the operations of the fire official, vent such hydrant from being immediately discernible would
or pre-
and any person not.actually and usefully employed in the anv other manner hinder the fire department from gaining
in
extinguishing of such fire, or in the preservation of property immediate access to a fire hydrant.
in the vicinity thereof.
601.2 Obstruction:A Misdemeanor 602.5.2 No person shall use or operate any hydrant or other
valve installed on any water system intended for use of the
Any person who obstructs the operations of the edepartfire department for lire suppression purposes and which is
meet in connection with extinguishing any fire,, or otherr accessible to any public highway, alley or private way open
emergency,or disobeys any lawful command the Fire offs- to or generally used by the public unless such person first
sial or officer of the tare department who may b be in charge at secures a permit for such use.
such a scene,or any part thereof,or any police officer assist-
ing the fire department,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
6025.3 Wherever the fire official determines that a hydrant
SECTION 602 is not readily visible to arriving fire companies because of
FIRE CONTROLS curbside parking, features of terrain,construction, plantings
or other obstructions.the pavement shall be marked to indi-
cate the location.The marking shall consist of the tiaffrclane
602.1 Tampering with Fire Equipment
nearest the hydrant.On unpaved streets,a blue reflector shall
No person shall molest, tamper with, damage or otherwise be affixed to a post as close as practicable to the edge of the
disturb any apparatus,equipment or appurtenance belonging roadway,so as to be visible.
to or under the supervision and control of the fire department.
602.2 Removal of Fire Equipment 602.6 Access to Buildings by Fire Apparatus
No person shall remove, tamper with, or otherwise disturb 602.6.1 Every building hereafter constructed shall be accgs-
any fire hydrant or fire appliance required to be installed or sibie to fire department apparatus by waw of access roadways
with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 ft(6.1 m)
maintained under the provisions of this code except for the of unobstructed width,with adequate roadway fuming radius
purpose of extinguishing fire, training purposes, recharging, capable unobstructed
cted width,
the imposed loads of Fire aQpara[us and
or making necessary repairs, or when permitted by the fire having a minimum vertical clearanceds fir 6 inch(4,t and
official.Whenever a fire appliance is removed as herein per- During construction. when combustibles are brought on (o
mitred, it shall be replaced or reinstalled as soon as the pur-
ine site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire
pose for which it was removed has been accomplished.
official, access roads and a suitable temporary supply of
602.3 Fire Barrier water acceptable to the fire department shall be provided and
Personnel of the fire department in charge at the scene of an maintained.
Planning Commission
emergency shall have the authority to place ropes, guards, January 28, 2002
LSDOI-19.10
STANDARD FIRE PREVENTION CODE®1997 Page LI 0 45-
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:501-575-8264
ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Ron Petrie P.E., Staff Engineer
DATE: July 5, 2001
SUBJECT: Hometown Development (LSD 01-19.00)
Sanitary Sewer Capacity on Mount Sequoyah
When this project was presented to the Subdivision Committee on June 28, 2001, a nearby
property owner voiced concerns about the existing sanitary sewer system on Mount Sequoyah.
The Subdivision Committee requested that the Engineering Division provide additional
information regarding the sewer system in this area and determine the effects of this proposed
development on this portion of the system.
A map is attached that shows the existing sanitary sewer system on Mount Seqouyah with the
proposed development site shown. Also shown on the map are two different sewer main
branches that are labeled Lateral No. 1 and Lateral No. 2. The proposed development would
have to extend a sewer main from Lateral No. 2 due to the topography. This connection would
either be from the existing sewer main shown on Fletcher Avenue or from Olive Avenue. The
sewer lines that comprise Lateral No. 2 are a minimum of eight inches(8")in diameter.
According to the Water/Sewer Superintendent,there have been no complaints of overflows on
this lateral. This existing line would easily have the capacity to serve this development.
The portion of the sewer system labeled Lateral No. I is comprised of six inch(6")diameter
sewer pipes in which several complaints have been received by the Water/Sewer Superintendent
of overflows primarily due to stormwater infiltration during heavy rainfalls. As stated
previously,this development could not connect to this portion of the system due to the
topography. According to the Capital Improvements Program,this portion of the system is
scheduled for replacement and/or improvements in the year 2002. Currently there is
$405,000.00 budgeted this year and$1,995,000.00 budgeted next year for this project.
If actual flow data and capacity studies are needed by the Planning Commission,additional time
would have to be provided in order to provide the calculations. It is the Engineering Division's
and Water/Sewer Superintendent's opinion that Lateral No. 2 has sufficient capacity for this
development.
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSD01-19.10
Page LI I
e
'I
i
• tE
1
��i111111 �i�
r
V j
0
I ••
h•
1 _
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Subdivision Committee
COPY: Sara Edwards, Planning
FROM: Kim J. Hesse, Landscape Administrator
DATE: June 14, 2001
This memo addresses the tree preservation plan for Hometown Developments. After
consultation with the City Attorney's'office, it is apparent that either the applicant can be
fined for violating the tree preservation ordinance by removing existing trees prior to
development review or the clause pertaining to prior tree removal may apply. Public
sentiment has appeared to favor requiring additional replacement versus minimal fines.
In this event I recommend that additional replacement be required. This property is
zoned R-2 and will require a 30% canopy replacement required by the"prior tree
removal" clause. This will equate to 8 large replacement trees which will:require a total
of 3200 square feet of planting space (open land not in utility easements, rights-of-way,
or the like) to ensure proper growing space.
I
j
-Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
LSD01-19.10
Page 1.13
City of Fayetteville
-
-Tree-Preservation Application &.Plan Re' rement*'4'
,
APplicant�iattre atg � rt/ tirPril�s
Project Name: Plat Page#: 4 2Y
Location: 3 20 Zoning —k--2ZONING: % MIN.CANOPY
❑ RE Residential Estate 25%
% Tree Canopy r�y ❑ RA Residential Acre 25%.
Required to be Preserved 20/v ❑ RL Residential Large lot 20`X,
❑ RS Residential Small Lot 20%
❑ R-1- Low'Densily Residential 25%
Total.Area of Site: __... s v ❑ R-1.5 Moderate Density Residential ' 20%
Acres: 0- R_2 MediumDensityResidential 20
Square Feet: 2�7�0 ❑ R-3 High Density Residential 20%
_ ❑. R-0 -OI five and.PrafessionalL__ - —20%.:.-
Total Area of Exinquare"Feet,
ee Canopy: ❑ C=1 Neighborhood Commercial 20%
_ �eS: ❑ C-2 Thoroughfare Commerbial 15%%
1008 ❑ Genital Business 10%
p C-4 Downtown Commercial
h of Total Site Area- ❑ 1-1 Light Industrial/Heavy Commercial 15%
(0— --- ❑—i=2 eavy a nsf ai--- 25%
❑ P-1 Institutional
Existing
Acres: ( tloS --
Square Feet.
% of Total Site Area:
Replacement Tree Canopy: Must have previous approval by Landscape Administrator
Acres:
Square Feet: _
% of Total Site Area:
i
Total Canopy: (Preserved.Tree Canopy + Replacement Canopy as approved)
Acres:
Square Feet:
% of Total Site Area:
3 eV Y04MdrR- ;uws7�
W r 11 6e f�2esprr/�ed
The fee for Tree Preservation is$120.00 and can be paid at the Planning Office in the City
Administration. for further clarification, seethe attached step by step°processfor tree
preseryation plans, or contact the Landscape Administrator at 575-8308."
Planning Commission
Revised 6-26-00`tree.ap January 2s, 2ooz
LSDOl 19 I rl
Page l l4
0
LsooI-1910 HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT
One Mile View
` P-£ C-Z R-1'R-7 aR-Y
R Y
,__R_
f
7 R-PR/:•j::.r�,•HfR NNY
C --------- fY ls.:♦N•v♦R:•-1f
•H„�N•NR•
rJR-A
RT C2 RY Ri
R-0 C2, Rf R1R3R3 R-2
2 R6
99 RS-U Nt:R-. N1 R£,::�/.�R♦.R�♦Y,.f.
..Y(..
i.
,
�.
R 2
R 1 R-i R S R T t ,:- :R-T R 7 R Y�• :4 f, �;
aLLFY - • 01• RY
fN♦j R-3 R-3 '.R1 RY R-Z C-2 ,yT jR-1 !
�•r• r•f•f •N�.w.s•raH.�rr a -
R-1 1
R-T • R 1
♦ R-3 RJ R3 RJ Ri �P-i C'2 C-2 RY RZ R-i
R-3 } N!•alrri R ZN: �•.•• R 1 • R.2
► R? R...4;RG_RF—R9 RS RY R-i YR.£ , R2 R, �♦
• / a CJ I i. R.O C2 C2 r- R7 : ..✓ !�
♦�si7rsNrs•♦ I C3 R4 j RT s R-Y
• • ••N•rG" Tf• rfrM•fiHriffrHr•� •• RT \
C3 P-f r i • • Cl RU NY
Rl :ra••+ yN
�4:3.0-T fC.S YC-.i G96 !R-A Cd c_, R2 �RY lI
R-2 i _ • VA
%3 i • ♦ y `* G3 H , PT
1-1 t ✓ , C3C3
♦ 1
•`♦afN.1 R,0'R-0+RR Rz .R-2 R2
. - C-41 G4
^ 4••r
r+fr fM1M�♦srNrN..lirrr r- ••♦• ' PADDOCK ftD...:
IR-07C.? C I
•
:,,. R 2 :C J(a•R.0 G3 4 C 4 2
% R`2
C4 f e.
R-3 U• Y __.: iiR-
r•"-, RO('K ST \ pI
_. R U ♦ �
R-4 RU R.0 Rdf R2 R2 ;\
__ Y ` �,4 � � •! ,r•'' Subject Property
R-3 �� I �RU,R-U RZ Rd 7{.l • R2laR2;r -
•�• R2 - x�
f1 • CZ G2 R2 RZ %2 I Sf 1..4TH AY
C-2 :Y f-1 R-2 .._''' • R2
Y
♦r•rfN !• f�Nf ..,,:._STH ST �
0 PY ♦••• R2
1 Rr W
%2 �..�—TrH ST
•"i g.2 13 'R-2 �R2 i R.2
j
K • o : g I
R-2 IR-2 3 R.2 %2 %2 - R 4
,. f-2 %Y
R2 ! • - A-i
2 R2 : 0-2 C.2 � "' ` R2 � 2 t °
-Z R'S
STIR-2: R2 r .i R- 0-2 %1�
V.2
R2 °R-2 %R2, G2 R2 !
• __ RZ 6-2j C4
R-2 - "a.1 P.Y t Z f Z
—C.2A-Y
C-2
' - R,2 )-Y R-2 1 R-9
A-T
Overview -- Legend ,
r ( Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan �^
f n4,r LS1301-19.10 1- y FreawaY/FXPrasswa
00%Planning Area Y
- �- <poo°�OvedaY District Principal Arterial
Streets d
Existing
.Jp� Minor Arterial
^� e., I Ci Limits
L---� L Planned Outside City % Collector pjRnning mm1ss10Y[a
i - - • ••• Historic Collector January 28,"GQ02''.
L- LSD0,1 19:10
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 I
--- Maes �Page115: J
LSD01-19.10 HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT
Close Up View
:
Wink
0
t
0.
I
£j
R.1 0
?--2 O lie
R 1
I R2 w of
ES
a
9
� ..... O NR? TEXAS WAY,
CENTERZti .__ - •.RbD .__
Op
LI
ON TRL
\\
- Y-"' ROOGERGnR-
92
R-1
ROCK ST
J,
ROCK Sf
�z _
Overview Legend
Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan
.c'rhY LSD01-19.10 --N, Planning Area �Freeway/Expressway
o Overlay Distrix Principal Arterial
—1, o Streets =°=° Minor Arterial
`N �L `ti "\,_, EAsgng L.—
I City Limits ;.
optaiaa city %,Collector Planning Commusron -�
L Planned
00%. Historic Collector ,✓anwry 28,'Z002
0 100 zoo ago eoo LSLSo149:1 o-
Feet Page 1.16 i
a
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
COPY: Planning Department, City Attorney' a �'
FROM: Kim J. Hesse, Landscape Administr2
DATE: January 25, 2002
As mentioned in the June 14, 2001 memo, I require that eight large hardwood species
trees be planted on the site to meet replacement requirements as stated in the city's
previous Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance which was in effect at the time
this project was submitted. Per our previous ordinance, 20% of the entire site was to be
preserved in existing canopy. Since the applicant removed most of the tree canopy
immediately prior to submitting development plans on the site, 30% of the site is
required to be covered in replacement canopy. Thirty percent of the site will equal
6,534 square foot of space. The previous ordinance was specific as to the canopy area
that should be factored for replacement trees. In 167.11 E, 800 square feet is factored
as the ultimate replacement canopy for a large shade tree therefore equaling eight
large shade trees.
It is my recommendation that no less than 400 square feet be set aside for the growth
of each large shade tree required for replacement. In reality, the canopy of these
hardwood trees will likely spread beyond the 800 square foot specified in the ordinance
and the required root area will expand beyond that. By not allowing for enough space
for these roots to grow, we are ultimately restricting the full canopy spread that is
natural for large species trees. Therefore 3200 square foot of growing space for these
eight replacement trees is the absolute minimum. The 3200 square foot of growing
space must be in open land and not within utility easements, rights-of-way, or other
encumbered areas where the trees are not assured protection.
Currently, I find that just less than 2000 square foot is left in open land for tree
replacements. That 2000 sf is shown as hatched on the attached drawing. I would not
recommend planting trees in the 3:1 slope designed in the detention pond nor can they
be planted in the bottom of the pond due to the proposed concrete channel. The
proposed plan shows trees in the right of way and in utility easements which, as
mentioned earlier, is not acceptable.
\<fJORFR
9.66' BETWEEN E D OF 24• RQ,p S/"Lr
AND PR 0 D 8� 6SI
I -
1 \\ y\3 I 'a Q�` � \\ - `Ilse, W 6
-------- STREET dGHT
MIN. 11,000 LUM NS.\
DUMP TSRI\ 1
EXISTINGI B' Cl
.0 1 I R.w 1 �\
STATE PLANE COORDINATES: 1\ 1 \� Gv ls� �fTCNfR \\
N-636,329.88 I { I \ 1sp \ Al . \
E-876.998.16 S ,T W
wdFD 12'•WATEINE J•
s < s s tF H
�\15-I
sJr\\ I I Ils I COM�ACT 2 �;-�--- Sm 10 \ \ I \\ 1\ \I
I I I
8' SIDE SETBACK \ 1 I I I \ 3 \\ \ I I \\ I
I 1 \ FFE-1549'
'OOG
4 1 � II�41
K \ \
.R 1 1 1 \PA 5
AR 72701 i I\\ 6 \? 1545'
O \ \ \ 1
DiR-CJs
N I \\ J 40-COMPA 8
_ ls40 N \ 1 \
9 \\FFFE-1542'
000
J \
-R I FFE153
� 9'\
AR 72701 Sao., Ise \\ 0 PA 11
1528, �1
II \
�e A \y `\ 765-0373
Isar \ Ils34 sAP
— — I \\ I\ ` BRIAN D
RETAINING WALL----,.-\\ �'\ T14 \�€`1536 \\ I �\ I \` \` 2770 RAIN
WITH GUARDRAIL 1 \\ \ \\ \ FAYETTEVII
AND HANDRAIL. 1 \7 \ I \\ h \\ ZONED: R-
ALr) C 7 FFE- 'k33'
O \ cfl � \♦ Js\ \\
4-000 1 53p fl a Q \\ s \
aYETTEVILLE O II II
'2 (n1 \\ 33. 0' \\ O \ \ \\
Z \ 1\ \I \\
\pc ACT 2 \ I V I 1\ 1\ \\
\ \ 21
DRY \ 2• \ f\ ^' \ \ _
DETENTION POND
(SODDED) \ \ \ \ \
\ \
co
100 YEAR
W.S.E.=1524.61' \ \\
\
\ `\
60
"
EAS 7
AD 01-28.00
Page 1
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:501-575-8264
ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Ron Petrie P.E., Staff Engineer
THRU: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner
Tim Conklin,Planning Director
DATE: January 24, 2002 (for January 28, 2002 P.C.Meeting)
SUBJECT: Hometown Development(LSD 01-19.10)
Center Street Construction Waiver Requests
Project: AD 01-28.00: Administrative Item (Hometown Development.,pp 524)was submitted by
Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located at the southwest comer of Fletcher Avenue
&Rodgers Drive. The requests are for five(5)waivers from Section 3 of the City's Minimum Street
Standards to allow the construction of Center Street adjacent to this development.
Findings: The developer has requested that this item be placed before the Planning Commission in the
event that LSD 01-19.10 is denied. The construction of Center Street adjacent to this development would
create the street frontage required to meet the UDO requirements. If Center Street was to be constructed by
this developer, the proposed project would not require the approval of the Planning Commission to proceed
with the project since the site is under one acre.
Staff Recommendation: Denial of the waiver requests listed below.
Because of the number of waivers being requested for this one intersection, a public safety hazard would be
created if these waivers are granted by the Planning Commission. See the attached letter and plan from the
applicant. Also, included are copies of the pertinent sections of the Minimum Street Standards.
1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from Section 3-2 of the Minimum Street
Standards to allow a Vertical Curve Coefficient(K) equal to zero for the proposed sag and crest
vertical curves. The minimum allowable Coefficients are 20 for crest vertical curves and 30 for sag
verticalcurves. This coefficient is designed to prevent abrupt changes in street grades.
2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from Section 3-3 of the Minimum Street
Standards which requires that a maximum grade of 4%be provided within 100 feet of an intersection.
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
ADM 01-28 Hometown
Page 2.1
AD 01-28.00
Page 2
is requesting a grade of 9.91%lie approved for this intersection.
3. Planning Commission determination ofa waiverrequest from Section 3-3 ofthe Minimum Street Standards .
which requires that the minimum angle of street centerline intersection be 75 degrees. The applicant is
requesting an angle of intersection between Fletcher Avenue and Center Street of approximately 15
degrees.
4. Planning Commission determination ofa waiver request from Section 3-3oftheMinimumStreet Standards
which requires a minimum distance of 150 feet between intersections for Local Streets.The applicant is
requesting to allow a distance of 50 between the intersections of Center Street and Oklahoma Way onto
Fletcher Avenue.
5. Planning Commissiondetermination ofawaiverrequest from Section3-6 ofthe Minimum Street Standards
which states,"The maximum allowable grade for local streets shall be 10 percent with aprovision fora 15
percent grade fora maximum distance of 300 feet in the case ofhilly terrain" The applicant is requesting
to allow a grade of 32.26% for a portion of Center Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date: 01 /28/02
Comments:
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
ADM 01-28 Hometown
Page 2.2
CARTER & ASSOCIATES, PA
2863 Old Missouri Rd.,Suite 107-C
Fayetteville,AR 72703
(501)444-7892
Fax 442-5480
March 28, 2001
Ms. Sarah Edwards
City Planning Department
113 West Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Sarah,
Please find attached to this letter 37 copies of the revised LSD Plan, 15 copies of the revised Grading&
Drainage and Tree Preservation plan, and 37 copies of the Proposed Center Street Design for Hometown
Developments,Mr.Robert Schmitt.Please distribute the revised Grading&Drainage and Tree
Preservation plans to Kim Hesse and Ron Petrie.
If the Proposed Center Street is built, Hometown Developments will be requesting the following waivers
from the City of Fayetteville Minimum Street Standards.
1. Section 3-2:minimum K values for vertical curves shall be 20 for crest vertical curves and 30 for
sag vertical curves.The proposed K value is 0 because the street cannot be physically constructed
to the property line without affecting the neighbor's property.
2. Section 3-3:maximum grade within 100 feet of an intersection is 4%. Existing terrain only allows
9.91%.
3. Section 3-3:minimum angle of street centerline intersection shall be 75 degrees.The proposed'
angle is 15 degrees due existing conditions.
4. Section 3-3:distance between intersections not less than 150 feet. The proposed intersection is 50
feet from Oklahoma Way.Existing conditions allow no other option.
5. Section 3-6:maximum allowable grade is 10%with a provision for 15%.The proposed grade is
9.91%. The portion which cannot be constructed at this time is 32.26%on a grassed surface.No
vehicular traffic will be allowed on this street.
The only other waiver requested at this time is from the City Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 5.4.2:
"... limits of maximum ponding elevation be closer than 20'horizontally from any building.....". The
proposed detention pond maximum elevation is 3.39'below the floor of the nearest building which is 4.1
feet horizontally from the pond. The water in the pond cannot reach the floor of the building in any case no
matter how intense any storm may be. The stormwater will overflow the pond bank and flow downstream
down the mountain if a storm of a greater magnitude than 100 year occurs.
Please call if there any questions.
Sincere
l /
Pern Carter,P.E. P L,P.L.S.
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
ADM 01-28 Hometown
Page 2.3
MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS
/ SECTION 3 STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES
3-1 General•
The principles governing the design of streets shall conform
to the requirements of these standards, to the standards that may
be referenced herein, and to appropriate City ordinances.
General criteria with regard to street classification and
other characteristics shall be as stated in other sections of these
standards.
Parking, parking lots, driveways, stormwater drainage, and
erosion control requirements are specified in separate ordinances
and are not included in these standards.
3-2 Alignment:
Horizontal curves shall be circular curves with a minimum
centerline radii of not less than 150 feet for residential streets
and 200 feet for collector streets. Curves on streets with higher
classifications shall be designed on an individual basis. A tangent
of at least 100 feet shall separate reverse curves.
All vertical curves shall be parabolic type curves. Minimum
vertical curve lengths (L) shall depend on the design speed and
shall be equal to K times A where K equals the coefficient as shown
in the table below, and A_equals the algebraic difference in grades
when the grades are expressed as a percentage. s
Vertical Curve Coefficient (K)
Speed K Values
(mnh) Crest Saa
25 20 30
30 30 40
35 40-50 50
3-3 Intersections:
Intersections shall be planned and designed to provide a safe
system for present and prospective traffic. Intersections shall be
graded to provide positive drainage and shall conform to the
alignment and grading requirements of these standards.
/
Planning CommissAi 1
January 28, 2002
ADM 01-28 Hometown
Page 2.4
The following standards shall apply to intersection design:
Design Consideration Ordinary Hilly
Approach speed 25 mph 20 mph
Sight Distance (Minimum) 90 feet 70 feet
Grade Within 100 feet 0 % 4
Minimum Angle 750 75°
Minimum Curb Radius
Local Streets 30 feet 30 feet
Collector Streets 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum Jogs
Local Streets 150 feet 150 feet
Collector Streets 200 feet 200 feet
It is understood that the sight distances listed above are a
minimum and that longer sight distances may be required where
topography will allow and/or when streets with a classification of
collector or higher are involved.
3-4 Cross Sections and Right of Wav Widths:
Pavement cross sections shall conform to the details included
in these standards and are included in Appendix "D" . Skewed street
sections will not be allowed without specific approval of the City
Engineer.
Pavement cross slopes for all streets shall be a minimum of 2 ,
percent with a minimum crown height of 6 inches. Gutters shall be
sloped to match the street. **CEvt rod �@�i1C•r���9vsT4stS5
On the elevated side of a uniform cross slope or superelevated t
street, the gutter may slope. toward the street centerline provided
the gutter cross slope does not exceed the cross slope of the
adjacent lane. Transitions from normal crowns to uniform cross
slope or superelevated sections shall provide for minimum
longitudinal grades. Superelevated sections shall conform to the
AHTD Standard Drawings.
The minimum right of way shall be as called for in Section I-
3 . Greater widths may be required if needed to accommodate a
particular street design.
3-5 Railroad Crossings:
Grade crossings at railroads shall provide for the same
minimum sight distances as street intersections. The ENGINEER OF
RECORD shall be responsible for all coordination with the railroad
company connected with approval of the crossing and shall work with
` the City in obtaining a Joint Use Agreement with the railroad.
/ Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
ADM 01-28 Hometown
Page 2.5
3-6 Minimum and Maximum Grades:
The minimum grades shall be that grade required to provide
positive drainage for the street. The maximum allowable grade for
local streets shall be 10 percent with a provision for a 15 percent
grade for a maximum distance of 300 feet in the case of hilly
terrain. For collector streets the maximum grade shall be 8 percent
with a provision for 12 percent maximum grade for no more than 300
feet.
3-7 Sight Distance Requirements and Design Speeds:
.
Minimum sight distance for local and residential streets shall
be 250 feet under ordinary conditions and 200 feet for hilly
conditions. Collector streets shall have a minimum sight distance
of 150-350 feet, depending on the topography. The Arkansas Highway
and Transportation Department definition of site distance shall
apply. The design speed shall be 20 to 30 mph for local streets and
25 to 35 mph for collector streets.
z
Planning Commission 3.
January 28, 2002
ADM 01-28 Hometown
Page 2.6
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:(479)575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin,A.I.C.P., City Planner
DATE: January 22, 2002
CUP 02-7.00: Conditional Use(Wilson, pp 406)was submitted by William Jenkins of
Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N.
Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 0.37 acres. The request is for a tandem lot.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all conditions of the accompanying lot split request.
2. No vehicles shall be parked at any time on that portion of a tandem lot utilized as a
private drive.
3. Each household shall bring trash to the curb at Gregg Ave. only for designated pick up
days.
4. The tandem lot shall only be occupied by one single family home.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: January 28,2002
Comments:
The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL"listed in this report are accepted in total without exception by the
entity requesting approval of this conditional use.
H:IUSERSICOMMOMDA WNIIREPORTStPC12002 REPORTSIWLSON CUP02-7DOC
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
CUP02-7 Wilson
Page 3.1
Name: Date-
BACKGROUND:
Lot split and conditional use requests have been submitted by the applicant in order to seek
approval of a tandem lot for the subject property. Currently one tract consisting of
approximately 0.66 acres, there are two dwellings existing on the property. The applicant
proposes to divide the parent tract for financing purposes and to keep the structures, two
single family dwellings, as they are. There is an existing access drive serving the structure
at the rear of the property. Each of the structures complies with setback requirements for
the tandem lot arrangement within this R-1 zoning district.
Modifications to the applicant's proposed lot configuration will be necessary in order to
comply with requirements of the accompanying lot split. This is mainly to provide access
to public utilities without crossing private property which is a state requirement.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North: Multi-family dwellings, R-1
South: Single family dwellings, R-1
East: Single family dwellings, R-1
West: Multi-family dwellings, R-3
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential
§ 163.02. AUTHORITY; CONDITIONS; PROCEDURES.
B. Authority; Conditions. The Planning Commission shall:
1. Hear and decide only such special exemptions as it is specifically
authorized to pass on by the terms of this chapter.
2. Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a
conditional use should be granted; and,
3. Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are
appropriate under this chapter; or
H:IUSERSICOMMOMDAWN7IREPORTSIPC12001 REPORTSIWLSON CUP02-7DOC
Planning Commission
January 28, 2002
CUP02-7 Wilson
Page 3.2