HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-10 - Agendas - FinalFAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
125Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
• AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday May 10, 2004 at 5:30 p.m.
in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Roll Call
The following items will be considered:
Consent Agenda:
Approval of minutes from the April 26, 2004 meeting.
New Business:
1. VAC 04-11.00: Vacation (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by
Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Houses Development Company,
LLC for property located at Olive Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is
zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to
vacate existing utility easements located within the property to satisfy conditions
of approval for LSD 02-29.10 (Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development.)
Planner: Suzanne Morgan
2. R-PZD 04-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439)
was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John
Nock of Nock Investments, LLC for property located on Rupple Road, south of
Wedington Drive. The property is currently zoned RT -12, Residential Two and
Three-family, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains
approximately 41.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a
Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential
subdivision with 182 single family and 39 two-family lots (260 dwelling units)
proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate
3. ADM 04-1066: Administrative Item (Town Creek Properties, pp 523) was
submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of Town Creek Properties for property
located at 545 W. Center. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and
contains approximately 0.67 acres. The requirement is for a 24' driveway. The
request is for a 16' driveway. Planner: Dawn Warrick
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 (575-8267), 125 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 575-8330.
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item — Chairman
B. Presentation of Staff Report
C. Presentation of request — Applicant
D. Public Comment
E. Response by Applicant/Questions & Answer with Commission
F. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion & Vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item raise your hand when
the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning
Commission members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public
comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item.
Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give
your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding
officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others
for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda
item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions
of the Planning Commission.
2004 Planning Commissioners
Nancy Allen
Jill Anthes
Candy Clark
James Graves
Christine Myres
Alan Ostner
Loren Shackelford
Sean Trumbo
Christian Vaught
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
PC Meeting of May 10, 2004
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-575-8264
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: May 05, 2004
VAC 04-11.00: Vacation (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB
Landworks on behalf of Houses Development Company, LLC for property located at Olive Avenue,
south of Spring Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre.
The request is to vacate existing utility easements located within the property to satisfy conditions of
approval for LSD 02-29.10 (Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development.) Planner: Suzanne
Morgan
Findings: See the attached maps and legal descriptions for the exact locations of the requested
utility easement vacation.
Background: A 30' utility easement was dedicated with the platting of Harrison's Addition.
The applicant currently has approval for a large scale development on this property for the
construction of apartments. The existing utility easement bisects the proposed development.
The Planning Commission approved the Sequoyah Commons large scale development on May
27, 2003 with a condition that the utility easement be vacated. On October 21, 2003, the City
Council considered an appeal from the developer of the Planning Commission's decision to
require that Center Street be extended. The City Council passed a resolution to modify the
conditions of the large scale development at this meeting, thereby making three modifications to
the approved large scale development (see attached resolution). The easement will need to be
vacated in order to comply with the conditions of approval for the large scale development.
Should the vacation of the utility easements not be approved, the large scale development could
not be permitted as approved by City Council.
Request: The applicant requests to vacate a portion of the existing utility easement as described
and depicted in the attached documents. The vacation request covers approximately 15 feet on
the east side of Lots 6-9 of Block 3 and 15' on the west side of Lots 7-9 of Block 4 of the
Harrison's Addition.
Of the notified adjacent property owners, one voiced concern regarding the request. Staff has
contacted the owner to gain more thorough understanding of these concerns.
The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the
City. The results are as follows:
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.1
UTILITIES RESPONSE
Ozarks Electric No Objections
AEP/SWEPCO No Objections
Arkansas Western Gas No Objections
SW Bell No Objections
Cox Communications No Objections
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: RESPONSE
Water/Sewer See Conditions of Approval
Transportation No Objections
Solid Waste No Objections
Engineering No Objections
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed easement vacation 04-11.00
subjecttothe following condition:
Condition of Approval:
1. An easement shall be dedicated a minimum of 15' on each side of the existing 36" water
line that parallels Center Street prior to City Council consideration of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date: May 10, 2004
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
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date:
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.2
PETITION TO VACATE UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED IN LOTS SIX (6), SEVEN(7), EIGHT (8)
AND NINE (9) IN BLOCK NUMBERED THREE (3) AND LOTS SEVEN (7), EIGHT (8) AND NINE (9) OF
BLOCK FOUR(4) ALL IN HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS.
TO: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and The Fayetteville City Council
We, the undersigned, being all owners of the real estate abutting the utility easements
hereinafter sought to be abandoned and vacated, lying in Lots Six (6), Seven(7), Eight (8) and
Nine (9) in Block Numbered Three (3) and Lots Seven(7), Eight (8) and Nine (9) of Block Four (4)
all in Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, petition
to vacate utility easements which are described as follows:
Easement Description #1:
A Fifteen (15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the eastern property line
of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Block 3 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Easement Description #2:
A Fifteen (15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the western property line
of Lots 7, 8, and 9 of Block 4 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of the Utility Easements are Lots 5,
6, 7, 8, and 9 of Block 3 and Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Block 4 all in Harrison's Addition to the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 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 above
described easements.
The petitioners pray that the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above
described real estate, subject to the dedication of appropriate easements as required and that
the above described real estate be used for their respective benefit and purpose as now
approved by law.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned petitioners respectfully pray that the governing body of the City
of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above described real estate, subject to the
dedication of appropriate easements as required, and that the above described real estate be
used for their respective benefit and purpose as now approved by law, and as to that particular
land the owner be free from the easements of the public for the use of said drainage
easements.
Dated this First (1st) day of April. 2004.
Ageactrai
Printed Name' Signa 'e
RECEIVED
APR 0 1 2004
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
PLANNING DIVISION
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.3
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FORM FOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALLEY, AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
Date: 4/1 /04 Address of vacation Eastern 1 5' of Lots 6: 7. 8. & 9 of Block 3 and Western 1 5'
of Block 4 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville
Adjacent Property Address: End of Olive Street South of Spring Street
Lots: 6. 7. 8 & 9 Block: 1 Subdivision: Harrison's Addition
Lots: 7 8 & 9 Block: 4_ Subdivision: Harrison's Addition
REQUESTED VACATION:
1 have been notified of the petition to vacate the following: Utility Easements
described as follows:
Property Description:
NUMBERED SIX (6), SEVEN (7), EIGHT (8), AND NINE (9) OF BLOCK NUMBERED THREE (3) AND
LOTS NUMBERED SEVEN (7), EIGHT (8), AND NINE (9) OF BLOCK NUMBERED FOUR (4), ALL IN
HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS PER PLAT OF SAID
ADDITION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK AND EX -OFFICIO RECORDER OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY
OF RECORD.
Easement Descriptions:
Easement Description #1:
A Fifteen (15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the eastern property line
of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Block 3 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Easement Description #2:
A Fifteen (15) foot wide permanent utility easement described as running along the western property line
of Lots 7, 8, and 9 of Block 4 of Harrison's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS:
I do not object to the vacation described above.
✓ 1 do object to the requested vacation because:
J h /DM EXo_a S.i Cowl C -€Jun S-, C.L utau t J /
LOe:2:eLA to &e1iS-
S MFAik) a Oeme s
477 '/ZZ -/S/S
/FL ,_
Signature of Property Owner(s)
RECEIVED
APR
PLA;'
1
r
v,
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.4
FAYE TTEVILLE
Tim CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Matt Casey, Engineering
From: David Iurgens, Water/Sewer 94
Date: May 31, 2003
Subject: Easement Vacation Request, Sequoyah Commons
I have no objection to vacating the north -south easement/right of way north of Center Street
between Fletcher and Olive, on the following conditions:
1. The easements for the existing water lines be expanded to meet all current easement
objectives (a copy of the current easement policy is attached)_
2. Water for the proposed subdivision be installed so that all customers have adequate
water pressure, that is not to be less than 45 psi at the meter for any address. This will require
the development get its water from the Mt. Sequoyah pressure plane.
3. Adequate space is required for a sewer main to nun downhill on the Center Street right
of way. This sewer line is in the future plans as a significantly better routing from up hill in the
vicinity of Fletcher, Summit, Texas Way and Lighton Trail. It may be we need to require this
line be constructed as part of this subdivision, if the sewer mains downstream are too small or
inappropriately located to receive more flow_ If the mains downstream run under or very near to
houses, it would be inappropriate to add more flow to them.
These issues must be met via the large scale/development process for the easement vacation to
be valid.
Attachments: Easement Vacation Request
DMWATERWaen tVzcatRgxscgcmm a.d«
I'd CSGL-bbb-6L17
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.5
e8T:OT FO SO Reim!
s)Iuoflpuel H3
FAYETTEVILLE
TUE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
LSD 02-29.10
Page 1
PC Meeting of May 27, 2003
113 W. Mountain St
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: May 27, 2003
LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons) was submitted by Mandy
Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located
between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units
proposed (48 bedrooms).
Findings:
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct seven (7) buildings containing thirty-nine (39)
units consisting of one -bedroom apartments and two-bedroom townhouses for a total of forty-
eight (48) bedrooms. Included in the development are the proposed improvements to Olive
Avenue, construction of a connection to Walnut via Center Street, and the construction of fifty-
six (56) parking spaces.
Parking:
.35 parking stalls per bedroom
Existing Development: Vacant
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Direction
Total Spaces
Standard Spaces
ADA Spaces
Bike Racks
Required
48
48
3
2
Proposed
56 (on-site)
52
4
4
Proposed
9 (on -street)
9
-
-
.35 parking stalls per bedroom
Existing Development: Vacant
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single family homes
R-2, Medium Density Residential
South
Vacant
R-2, Medium Density Residential
East
Duplex, Single family homes
R-1, Low Density Residential
West
Vacant
I-2, General Industrial
KIReparts120031PCREPORTS105-2711SD 02-29.10 (SEQUOYAHCOMMONS).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.6
LSD 02-29.10
Page 2
Water & Sewer: Available along Olive Avenue
Right-of-way being dedicated: No additional right-of-way dedication is required. There is
currently 60 feet of right-of-way for Olive, 30 feet of right-of-way for Center, and 60 feet of
right-of-way for Fletcher existing.
Street Improvements Proposed: Olive Avenue will be extended to Center Street. Center Street
will be extended within existing right of way west to Walnut. (See attached letter from applicant,
May 6, 2003.) The applicant will also widen portions of Olive Street which are currently
narrower than 20'.
Access: Access is proposed by means of Olive Avenue which is currently substandard both in
width (18'-20') and in surfacing (gravel adjacent to development). With the extension of Center
Street, a second means of access is being provided.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: None
Tree Preservation: Existing: 100.00%
Preserved: 21.25%
Required: 20%
Mitigation: None Required
Solid Waste & Recycling Division: Support the applicant's request, with one recommendation:
Place one dumpster container at proposed site and the other in a more convenient location
between buildings 1,2 and 6,7.
Background:
The original proposal by the applicant in the LSD review process requested that street
improvements would be made only to that area located directly adjacent to the subject property.
Staff is recommending in the Conditions of Approval that the applicant include in the proposed
development the extension of Olive Avenue and connection to Center Street west to Walnut to
fulfill the goal of the City's adopted policy of Connectivity in the General Plan 2020.
At the April 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a concept plat
for this project in order to give the applicant some direction regarding required street connections
and improvements (Minutes are attached). The Planning Commission voted to require the
extension of Center Street west to Olive and the construction of Olive Avenue along the entire
western boundary of this project.
The applicant is requesting that the City participate in the construction of the Center Street
extension.
City Council Resolution 94-96, Minimum Street Standards, August 06, 1996
Section 1-2 City Participation in Street Extension Costs:
KIRepor(s120031PCREPORTS105-271LSD 02-29.10 (SEQUOYAHCOMMONS).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.7
LSD 02-29.10
Page 3
The City may participate in the construction of streets either adjacent to a
Development or on a street leading to a development if the need for such improvement is not
totally caused by the Development in question. The appropriateness of any such cost sharing
between the Owner/Developer and the City shall be determined by the Planning Commission
based on City Ordinances governing the cost sharing of streets.
In no case shall the City participate in Local or Residential streets within
Developments.
Where streets classified as Collector or higher are required to be constructed as
part ofa Development, the Owner/Developer shall be financially responsible for their share of
the cost of the higher classified street. The developer's share shall be that cost which bears a
rational nexus to the needs created by the development. In no case shall the developer be
responsible for less than the cost ofa standard 31 foot local street. In all cases, regardless of
the developer's cost share, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the granting of all
street right of way required by the higher street classification.
City participation in any cost sharing project shall be dependent upon the
availability offunds.
The attached letter from the applicant and a memo from Staff dated April 18, 2003 address these
cost-sharing alternatives.
On May 15, 2003, the Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the
full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments. Public comment and Subdivision
Committee discussion included density, traffic, parking, shared costs for street improvements,
and sidewalks.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the large scale development with the following conditions:
Conditions to Address / Discuss:
1. Applicant shall improve Olive Street its full width adjacent to the proposed project with
curb and gutter on each side. Sidewalks are to be constructed on the east side only in
accordance with City standards.
2. Applicant shall provide a connection within existing street ROW for Center Street
between Olive and Walnut Streets to include a 20' paved section.
3. Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which
runs north/ south through the property.
4. A utility easement shall be granted a minimum of 10 feet on each side of all water and
sewer lines to provide for maintenance of the line.
KiReports120031PCREPOR7S105-271LSD 02-29.10 (SEQUOYAHCOMMONS).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.8
LSD 02-29.10
Page 4
5. All buildings will be required to meet setbacks based on height.
6. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, away from adjacent residential
properties.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
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 City's current
requirements.
9. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $15 327 (39 units @ $393).
10. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
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
e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date: May 27, 2003
Comments:
K:lRepor&s120031PCREPOR7S10S-2711SD 02-29.10 (SEQUOYAHCOMMONS).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.9
LSD 02-29.10
Page 5
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page three of this report, are accepted in
total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
KlReports120031PCREPOR7S105-27VSD 02-29.10 (SEQUOYAHCOMMONS).dac
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.10
RESOLUTION NO. 160-03
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF GREG
HOUSE FOR HIS LSD 02-29 SEQUOYAH COMMONS
AS MODIFIED 13Y THE CITY COUNCIL
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby grants the appeal of Greg House in LSD 02-29 (Sequoyah Commons)
under all the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission with the following
exceptions or changes:
A. The developer will not be required to build or participate in the
cost of building Center Street from Olive to Walnut.
B. The developer shall be required to improve Olive from Center to
Spring up to the residential street standards which can be modified or altered by
the discretion of the Director of Planning, Engineering and Code Compliance to
avoid drainage problems and adverse impact to established homes along Olive
Street.
C. The Preliminary Plat is modified pursuant to the offer by Greg
House (developer) to reduce the density from 39 dwelling units with 48
bedrooms to 26 units with 42 bedrooms (including the elimination of one
building and the possible slight movement of another to provide more buffer to a
neighbor's single family home).
ipYErl,�
PASSED and APPROVED this the 21st day of October, 2003.
APPROVED:
By: ' Qtr A i
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 2003
PLANNING DIV. ?004
Plannin fission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah C mons)
Page 1.11
City Council Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page of 15
NEW BUSINESS:
Houses Development Company, LLC: An appeal of Large Scale Development proposal
LSD02.29.10.
Tim Conklin, Planning: Mr. House is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to require
that Center Street be extended. His appeal is about whether or not he has to construct Center
Street from Olive to Walnut. We originally thought there was 30 feet of right of way but it is our
opinion that only 15 feet of right of way exists between Olive and Walnut Street. This is a
change that the city staff and the developer were unaware of. Mr. House would have to acquire
additional right of way to allow the street connection to occur. If the City Council does not
approve a cost share for this street improvement the developer would be required to construct the
street. The property owners would have to sell right of way to allow the street connection to
occur if that doesn't happen then the City Council would have to go forward and make a decision
whether or not to condemn property to provide additional access in this area and make the street
connection. The city could also participate in a cost share to help build that street. The
preliminary estimates were around $100,000 for the project cost.
Tim Conklin explained the easements, right of ways, and the current ownership of property in
the area of the proposed project. There was also discussion on how this would affect current
property owners. Mr. Conklin said allowing this development without requiring additional street
construction and connections would limit future development within this area.
Alderman Thiel: Was there a reduction on the improvements that were originally required on
Olive?
Tim Conklin: Yes, staff did recommend a trade off with Mr. House, instead of developing
Olive Street to a residential street standard; we recommended that it be improved to at least 20
feet and in exchange to building the street connecting Olive to Walnut, building a 20 foot street
in that section and not a standard city street. The standard city street would only occur in front of
his development which would allow some on street parking.
Alderman Thiel: If we approve this appeal is there any way to go back and acquire the things
that were required before this trade off was made?
Tim Conklin: Yes.
Alderman Marr: We are asking a property owner to acquire right of way for off site
improvements that do not adjoin his property, can we legally do that?
Kit Williams: There is some question about whether we legally can require that,
constitutionality we can if we can prove the rational nexus in rough portionally of our demands.
There is some question as to whether we can require him to go beyond his property limits to
build infrastructure for the city.
Alderman Rhoads: The $100,000, did that include the purchase of right of way?
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.12
City Council Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page of 15
Tim Conklin: That did not include the purchase of right of way. A ball park figure for right of
way would be around $2.30 per foot. The $100,000 is what the developer came up with; I have
not had a chance to verify that.
Greg House: Mr. Conklin told us that improving Center Street to Walnut would be necessary
for his support of our large scale development. We informed him that the project would not be
economically feasible if we were required to do that so we would consider a smaller project that
was less than an acre so that we would not have to go through large scale development. Mr.
Conklin after some thought said if we would bring our project to large scale development he
would back off of his request to improve Center Street and we would work to fmd an alternative
m- gins of ingress and regress by improving Olive. We went to large scale and then Mr. Conklin
changed his mind; we objected but agreed we would go along provided that our company would
not be forced to cavy the whole burden of paying for these off site improvements. We would be
improving traffic flow for developable property that is unimproved in the surrounding area that
had nothing to do with our project. Mr. Conklin proposed that the city might be responsible for a
certain portion of these improvements because they didn't completely benefit our property. We
submitted our rational nexus cost sharing proposal as a means of trying to move this project
forward. Our concern was provided the Planning Commission agreed and we were approved and
we came before the City Council, we might not be approved for the cost share or if we were
approved the city might not have funds immediately and then our project would be stalled until
the city had funds. We felt the Planning Commission should look at this either or, if we get the
cost share approved we go down Center Street, if not let usgoout Olive and improve Olive to
residential street standards. We submitted an alternative as to connecting with Center Street and
that is by going out Olive, by improving Olive as a residential street. This is supported by an
independent traffic engineer study that shows there is more than enough capacity on Olive to
meet the demand that our development and existing homes will place on Olive. Should there be
future development there may be a problem, but that is the time that we need to deal with
someone buying right of way or putting in an extra street. Our development does not over
burden the traffic on Olive, if it is improved to residential street standards. Now that it has been
determined that there is not enough right of way to improve what use to, be Center Street,
Planning staff has suggested that we buy the right of way. That is economically unfeasible and
from timing prospective, it is not feasible:
A discussion continued on the project.
Mayor Coody: What is the difference between the existing streets that is there now on Olive:.
versus a residential street what is the difference between the two?
Greg House: Most of the street is already 20 feet wide in pavement there are a few areas that
are 18 feet wide which we could bring up to the 20 foot wide pavement portion. A residential
street takes 24 feet back to back of curb. By us adding curb and gutter system it will bring it up
to residential street standard as far as the street is concerned. We presented an independent study
from a traffic engineer supporting. the traffic loads. The city has yet to come up with why the
engineer is wrong or some alternative study to show that our traffic is too much.
Tim Conklin: When we started this process there was a lot of unknowns as we progressed
through the process and understood the issues that faced these neighborhoods, staff thought it
was more important to try to provide additional access into these areas.
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.13
City Council Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 5 of 15
A discussion followed on this project.
Alderman Marr: I think the Planning Commission was very reasonable when looking at this
request. The road should handle the number of units proposed.
Alderman Marr moved to approve the request for appeal. Alderman Rhoads seconded.
Mayor Coody: How do we deal with the storm water run off onto other property?
Tim Conklin: They would be required to meet our storm water ordinance and our city street
standard ordinance.
Alderman Davis: I hate to see Olive Street extended to where it would connect with Center at a
future date in this point in time. The land to the south of the area we do not know what is going
to happen there, I would hate for someone else to latch onto your extension. I think we have to
be careful of the length of the extension.
There was a discussion on future development in the area and the length of the extension of
Olive Street. There was also a. discussion on the drainage issue.
Kit Williams: Was your motion simply to eliminate the need for the Center Street right of way
construction, but all other conditions as required by the Planning Commission would stand as
approved?
Alderman Marr: It was that but also to get Olive Street built to the original residential street
standard requirements.
Kit Williams: I thought there was some discussion at Planning Commission that with the
driveways coming down into Olive that if they built a sidewalk, that might affect some of the.
property owners?
Tim Conklin: That is correct; there would be some transitional issues with driveways in order
to get that sidewalk in, with regard to the sidewalk you would have to redo driveways also in
most likely in those areas I think the motion needs to state what the recommendation was by
Planning:Commissiou for Olive Street if Center Street wasn't constructed.
Alderman Thiel: If Center Street moves within a few feet of Mr. Bryant's home, are we
obligated then to buy the entire property, we can't just destroy the property for the street and not
go ahead and buy the whole property.
Kit Williams: If we acquire right of way on the Bryant side, certainly the impact on their
property would be part of what we would have to pay. If we are acquiring right of way on the
other side so thatwe are using existing right of way and then buying right of way farther away
from their house I am not sure since we don't adjoin their property they would be entitled to the
diminution in value to their home because of having a street right next to it.
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.14
CityCouncil Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page of 15
Alderman Marr: Is the primary concern the property owners on Center, or is it the drainage to
the west side of Olive.
Alderman Thiel: I am not concerned about the drainage so much. My concern is for the
Bryant's and the Center Street condemnation possibly and the people that live on Olive.
Kit Williams: If this appeal is turned down we can not put on a developer an impossible
condition, only the City Council has the power to condemn property. We can only require a
developer to pay that amount off site work, his cost share, we can't require anything more.
Alderman Marr: My motion was to grant the appeal not requiring Center Street and
requiring Olive built to residential street standard and all other conditions of the Planning
Commission.
Alderman Rhoads: Is this the type of infill that we would be looking for?
Tim Conklin: You could develop multi -family within these areas, it would probably be built a
little differently, maybe a little less dense in order to meet some of the standards they are looking
at right now. This type of parking design does meet our current regulations.
Alderman Jordan: Mr. House would you consider Less density on your property?
Greg House: I would consider that if we could make an agreement this evening and not have to
start the process over. I have offered to reduce the bedrooms to 42 and change the configurations
from mostly one bedrooms to two bedrooms and have 26. units instead of 39 and keep the
parking the same as we have it now. I think we are going to aggravate the problem on Olive if
we have to curb and gutter it on the down hill side.
Tim Conklin: I do not approve development the Planning Commission does. What he is
suggesting does not change what the Planning Commission looked at to the point that it would
have to go back to the Planning Commission.
Kit Williams: Do you have enough from what Mr. House has described, that would be the final
approval in this process.
Tim Conklin: Yes.
Alderman Marr: Do you still support curb and gutter on Olive?
Tim Conklin: Residential street standard does require curb and gutter. It would require
additional work with regards to the driveways.
Alderman Lucas: Would it also include storm water control and drainage?
Tim Conklin: We would have to address that. It would have to meet our residential street
standards because anything less without looking at it in detail, I am not prepared to make that
recommendation.
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.15
City Council Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 7of15
Alderman Marr: I would like to change my motion to reduce the density to 26 units, 42
bedrooms, eliminate the requirement for Center Street to be built and to have Olive Street
evaluated by our City Engineering and Planning staff for the appropriate design that
addresses traffic flow and drainage for this development. Alderman Davis seconded. Upon
roll call the motion passed 7-1. Alderman Lucas,Jordan, Thiel, Cook, Marr, Rhoads and
Davis voting yes. Alderman Reynolds voting no.
Resolution 160-03 As Recorded In The Office Of The City Cleric
Use Of Skateboards And Skates Upon Sidewalks: An ordinance to repeal § 74.08 of the
Fayetteville Code and enact a replacement § 74.08 to clarify and expand the prohibition of using
skateboards and skates upon sidewalks next to commercial, religious, governmental and
industrial buildings and most City streets.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Larry Olsen, a Fayetteville resident asked the council to reconsider the part of the ordinance
that would not allow the skater to skate on the sidewalk or along the side of the road. He also
asked the council to consider installing lights at the skate park to allow skating at night.
Rob Sharp a Fayetteville resident: It is already illegal for people to vandalize other people's
property with a skate board or anything else. We just need more common courtesy between the
skater, property owners and city officials. Skate boarding and roller skating should not be
discouraged. I am concemed that if we pass this law people are not going to stop skating, they
are going to go somewhere where they are not supervised. Streets belong to everyone. I really
appreciate the new skate park. The skate park is great but it is not a substitute for skating on the
streets it is just an extension of that.
Brian Casino a resident: Spoke against the ordinance.
Alderman Reynolds: We are not trying to discourage skateboarding. I am willing to drop
section A from the ordinance and leave B, C and D.
Kit Williams: The current ordinance says no person upon roller skates or riding in or by means
of any coaster, toy vehicle or similar devise shall do upon any roadway. That was passed in
1965. If you repeal this section and repeal Section A of the proposed ordinance you willbe
making a significant change in the law.
There was a discussion on Play Streets.
Tim Conklin: Our traffic superintendent said his authority to designate play streets was
removed from his duties several years ago, because there are no play streets in Fayetteville.
Kit Williams: I would recommend that play street be deleted then.
Alderman Marr: I understood that it would be a significant policy change if we struck section
A. I would support elimating Section A from this.
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
VAC 04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.16
1O• -IluKo
301W
Lto
.BED'•
ING 2
ROOM
SE UNITS
50 5F
VELMA T. BLOC •-�••,••••.••�
112 N. PIAZADRIVE
VIRE ROCK. AR 72205
N
4 4 PAR A06197-002 - ZONED:R2
VELMA T. CLOCK
112 N. PLAZA [RIVE
LITTLE ROCK. AR 72205
CIN OF PAYER
G.1.5. MONUMI
BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: CITY OF FAYE
0.1.5. MONUA
PLAT PAGE 485
TR
5 (5/89
u
MIRY
8733'55"E
26' OAK
—1487 32' OAK
5.28
75.08
142 LF 0 8' SDR- 35
PVC @ 4.77%
RETAINING W
PROPOSED 30
1 1y
E1ACM�
26' OAK
15' UTILITY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
BUILDING 3IN� ce
TWO LEVELS OF ' MULTI
ONE -BEDROOM UNRS
1 ,9005F SETS
SANRARY
SEWER
SERVICE
15' ERIC
20 tnIuTY
EASEMENT compact
compact
961�OF8'5DR-35
c@25%�-GLJ
BUILD,
3
T
:�\v
iP1J1 . .
8)(0' TEE 4-.11LE SERVICe
1PDR4w
MULT14r1En
SEP' (5/89
UROPYSED`E)
UTILITY
ENIRANLE--
ONE -BEDROOM 'UNITS
AND 2 ONE -BEDROOM
1 UNITS BELOW WEST ENO
3.3575F
1 I
DUMPSTERS --_.I
"-APPROXIMATE - LOCATION
30" WATERLINE
w
E
PROPOSED 15'
UTILITY
EASEMENT
15' UTIUTY EASEMENT TO 55 VACATED
DROP AT: TO
PROVIDE -
N8728'58"W
1
L _
342.50' (P) 350.00'
E
1
APPREWMATE LOCATION
CENTFR SIREFTT— o.W in Commission 20 WATERLINE Wiping Commission
(NOT CONSTRUCTED) Vic.
04-11.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
11 111
3745- 20NED:22
5A20
NY 329
N. Aft 71832
DAJA'HLE octant
BRIAN LEARO
1896 f 329
DEOUEEN.N. AR 71832
PAR.103743-001- ZONED:112 PAR 103744 -ZONE :
15551E BRYANT VERDA WATSON. ARCHIE 1 MANUELBUCNANAI-
417 E. CENTER 1758 N. LEVERET
VAC04-11.00
Close Up View
SEQUOYAH COMMONS
RMF -24
t -I
z
Overview
I
Legend
aco80000 Overlay District
®
Master Street Plan
Master Street Plan
MEER Freavay/Expressway
0 75 150
anassan Principal Arterial
ammo Minor Arterial
Collector
•••• Historic Collector
t _1 City Mmib
' ", Outside City
300
— FLOODWAY
100 YEAR
500 YEAR
res_ LIMIT OF STUDY
— — - Baseline Profile
VAC04-11.00
450
6YccAC 044]
Feet
RSF-4
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
.00 (Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.18
VAC04-11.00
One Mile View
SEQUOYAH COMMONS
RMF -40
Overview
Legend
Subject Property
Effl VAC04-11.00
Streets
Existing
Planned
0 0.1 0.2
Boundary
t\_• Planning Area
8000
o Overlay District
00
L o I City Limits
Outside City
0.4 0.6
Master Street Plan
Freeway/Expressway
Principal Merial
asa Minor Arterial
11.% ♦ Collector
4%. Historic Collector
0.8 VAC 04
Miles
11.00
RAI
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
(Sequoyah Commons)
Page 1.19
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
PC Meeting of May 10, 2004
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-575-8264
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.LC.P., Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: May 05, 2004
R-PZD 04-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439) was submitted
by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John Nock of Nock Investments, LLC
for property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The property is currently
zoned RT -12, Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units
per acre, and contains approximately 41.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property
to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential subdivision
with 182 single family and 39 two-family lots (260 dwelling units) proposed. Planner: Jeremy
Pate
Findings:
Existing Development: The vacant site is located in west Fayetteville across from the Boys and
Girls Club on Rupple Road. With the exception of the Boys and Girls Club and Meadowlands
S/D, the surrounding property is currently undeveloped, though various development plans have
been approved. A recently approved Fire Station is to be constructed on the lot immediately
north of the subject property. Meadowlands Subdivision Phases I & II lie to the northwest, and
Cross Keys Planned Zoning District is immediately to the west.
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Meadowlands S/D (duplex, SF) ,
Fire Station #7 site
RSF-4, Single Family Res. 4 DU/Acre
RT -12, Res. 2 & 3 Family, 12 DU/Acre
R -A, Residential Agricultural
South
Vacant
Washington County — no zoning
East
Boys & Girls Club, vacant property
RMF -24, Res. Multi -family, 24
DU/Acre, R -A, Residential Agricultural
West
Cross Keys Subdivision PZD
R-PZD
Water & Sewer: A 12" water line is being extended along Rupple Road with ongoing
development. Staff is recommending a cost share to upsize the proposed development's water
line from 8 inches to 12 inches to complete a public water line loop. Sewer is to be extended to
serve the development.
KV2eports120041PC Reports105-10-0418-PZD 04-0600 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.1
Proposal: The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential
subdivision within a unique R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of the site is for a "neo-
traditional" development consisting of 182 single-family residential dwelling units and 78 two-
family residential units, for a total of 260 dwelling units. The proposed density for the R-PZD is
6.24 DU/acre.
Proposed Uses: R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District
The project site is currently zoned RSF-4 and RT -12, allowing for single, two and three family
dwelling units, in their respective districts. The developer proposes an unconventional residential
subdivision, with all access and services to be from rear alleys, and dwelling units to be sited
close to the street (a 5 -foot front building setback is proposed). Lot sizes and setbacks are
proposed to be much smaller than those allowed in typical zoning districts, thus the need for
processing a Planned Zoning District. The typical lot size for single family use ranges from
approximately 40-45 feet wide x 115-120 feet deep. The designated two/three family lots are
proposed to be approximately 75 feet wide by 101 feet deep.
Access: Access is proposed in all four cardinal directions:
North: Two (2) connections to existing stub -outs from Meadowlands S/D
South: Two (2) new access points from Persimmon Street, to be constructed
East: One (1) connection onto Rupple Road
West: One (1) connection into the approved Cross Keys PZD subdivision
Rupple Road is a newly constructed street south of Wedington Drive. A new traffic signal was
recently installed at the intersection of Rupple Road and Wedington, the primary means of
access to the subject property. The developer of the Rupple Row PZD is also required to
construct Persimmon Street east of the Cross Keys development, coordinating with the adjacent
developer of Cross Keys to eventually complete an improved, through connection from 46th
Avenue east to Rupple Road.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Rupple Road, Minor Arterial; Persimmon Street, Collector
Street Improvements Proposed: Six-foot sidewalks are required to be constructed along Rupple
Road and Persimmon Street, at the right-of-way line. Persimmon Street is to be constructed to
city standards, with a 28 -foot width including curb/gutter and storm drains. The developer is
proposing to construct parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road, interspersed with tree
plantings. Interior streets are proposed to be 28 feet wide, with sidewalks located at the right-of-
way on both sides of the street. Additionally, alleys provide the only vehicular access to each lot,
K:IReports120041PC Reports105-10-04R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.2
Proposed Land Use
Lots 1-144
Single Family Residential
Use Unit 8
Lots 145-183
Multi -family
Use Unit 9, 10
Lots 184-221
Single Family Residential
Use Unit 8
Lots 222-226
Common Areas
Maintained by POA
The project site is currently zoned RSF-4 and RT -12, allowing for single, two and three family
dwelling units, in their respective districts. The developer proposes an unconventional residential
subdivision, with all access and services to be from rear alleys, and dwelling units to be sited
close to the street (a 5 -foot front building setback is proposed). Lot sizes and setbacks are
proposed to be much smaller than those allowed in typical zoning districts, thus the need for
processing a Planned Zoning District. The typical lot size for single family use ranges from
approximately 40-45 feet wide x 115-120 feet deep. The designated two/three family lots are
proposed to be approximately 75 feet wide by 101 feet deep.
Access: Access is proposed in all four cardinal directions:
North: Two (2) connections to existing stub -outs from Meadowlands S/D
South: Two (2) new access points from Persimmon Street, to be constructed
East: One (1) connection onto Rupple Road
West: One (1) connection into the approved Cross Keys PZD subdivision
Rupple Road is a newly constructed street south of Wedington Drive. A new traffic signal was
recently installed at the intersection of Rupple Road and Wedington, the primary means of
access to the subject property. The developer of the Rupple Row PZD is also required to
construct Persimmon Street east of the Cross Keys development, coordinating with the adjacent
developer of Cross Keys to eventually complete an improved, through connection from 46th
Avenue east to Rupple Road.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Rupple Road, Minor Arterial; Persimmon Street, Collector
Street Improvements Proposed: Six-foot sidewalks are required to be constructed along Rupple
Road and Persimmon Street, at the right-of-way line. Persimmon Street is to be constructed to
city standards, with a 28 -foot width including curb/gutter and storm drains. The developer is
proposing to construct parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road, interspersed with tree
plantings. Interior streets are proposed to be 28 feet wide, with sidewalks located at the right-of-
way on both sides of the street. Additionally, alleys provide the only vehicular access to each lot,
K:IReports120041PC Reports105-10-04R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.2
as well as service access, within a 20 -foot wide right-of-way. A street tree planting plan is to be
submitted as part of the tree mitigation and landscaping requirements, prior to final plat.
The tract of land proposed for development is Lot 7 of the WHM Investments Final Plat (FPL
01-07.00), approved and recorded in 2001. Impact Fees for the construction of Rupple Road are
due based on contractual agreements (see attached), applicable to development of the subject lot.
These fees are based on the actual number of dwelling units proposed by the Rupple Row PZD
development, as compared to the projected number of dwelling units for the subject property at
the time of Final Plat.
Rupple Row PZD: Rupple Road Impact Fees
See attached Contractual Agreement, in conjunction with the Final Plat 01-07.00, in which the current proposal is Lot 7
** The Cash and Letter of Credit amounts are due prior to Final Plat approval.
Tree Preservation:
Existing canopy:
Preserved canopy:
Required canopy:
Mitigation:
0.61 %
0.13 %
25 %
33 on-site mitigation trees (see condition of
approval)
Parks: The subject proposal appeared before the Parks and Recreation Board on Monday, May
03, 2004. With the WHM Investments Final Plat 01-07.00, 5.37 acres of park land was banked in
2001 to meet future park land dedication requirements by the developer in the Southwest
quadrant. The parkland dedication required for the proposed number of dwelling units for Rupple
Row PZD exceeds the amount of dedication land banked, therefore park land dedication or
money -in -lieu is due, prior to final plat. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends money -in -
lieu be paid in the amount of $7,482.75 to satisfy park dedication requirements prior to final plat.
A draft of protective covenants, as well as the applicant's response to the Planned Zoning
District requirements and description of the project have been submitted and are included in the
staff report.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends R-PZD 04-06.00 be forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning.
Planning Commission approval of the proposed preliminary plat in association with R-
PZD 04-056.00 subject to the following conditions:
K: IReports120041PC Reports105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.3
Proposed
*Contracted
Difference
Cost
Letter of Credit
Cash Due
LOC Due
No.of Units
Total Units
Per Unit
Per Unit
Single Family
182
81
101
$231.30
$154.20
$23,361.30
$15,574.20
Duplex/
78
28
50
$141.64
$94.43
$7,082.00
$4,721.50
Townhouse
$30,443.30
$20,295.70
See attached Contractual Agreement, in conjunction with the Final Plat 01-07.00, in which the current proposal is Lot 7
** The Cash and Letter of Credit amounts are due prior to Final Plat approval.
Tree Preservation:
Existing canopy:
Preserved canopy:
Required canopy:
Mitigation:
0.61 %
0.13 %
25 %
33 on-site mitigation trees (see condition of
approval)
Parks: The subject proposal appeared before the Parks and Recreation Board on Monday, May
03, 2004. With the WHM Investments Final Plat 01-07.00, 5.37 acres of park land was banked in
2001 to meet future park land dedication requirements by the developer in the Southwest
quadrant. The parkland dedication required for the proposed number of dwelling units for Rupple
Row PZD exceeds the amount of dedication land banked, therefore park land dedication or
money -in -lieu is due, prior to final plat. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends money -in -
lieu be paid in the amount of $7,482.75 to satisfy park dedication requirements prior to final plat.
A draft of protective covenants, as well as the applicant's response to the Planned Zoning
District requirements and description of the project have been submitted and are included in the
staff report.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends R-PZD 04-06.00 be forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning.
Planning Commission approval of the proposed preliminary plat in association with R-
PZD 04-056.00 subject to the following conditions:
K: IReports120041PC Reports105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.3
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of the appropriateness of the proposed parallel
parking spaces along Rupple Road, a Minor Arterial street. Stafffinds the parking spaces
to be adequately located, however their position should be carefully evaluated to ensure
the continued safety of traveling and parking motorists. Rupple Road is a north -south
Minor Arterial street, planned to continue south to Hwy 62 on the Master Street Plan.
2. Allowed uses in this R-PZD shall be restricted to the following Use Units:
• Use Unit 1, City-wide uses by right
• Use Unit 2, City-wide uses by conditional use permit
• Use Unit 8, Single family dwellings
• Use Unit 9, Two-family dwellings
• Use Unit 10, Three-family dwellings
• Use Unit 24, Home occupations
3. The applicant shall submit a letter from WHM Investments or the current owners of
record of the subdivision acknowledging that all parkland banked with FPL 01-07.00
(WHM Investments) for future parkland dedication use in the Southwest quadrant is
being utilized with the current proposal. All future residential development within said
subdivision will require park land dedication and/or money -in -lieu, based on park land
dedication ordinances in place at the time of development.
4. Payment for Rupple Road impact fees in the amount of $30,443.30 and a letter of credit
in the amount of $20,295.70, based on the number of dwelling units proposed, shall be
submitted to the City of Fayetteville prior to Final Plat approval.
5. Parks fees in the amount of $7,482.75 are due prior to Final Plat approval. Fees in lieu of
park land dedication shall be reviewed and approved by City Council, to comply with
City ordinances.
6. Individual lot access shall be prohibited from Persimmon Street and Rupple Road.
7 A note shall be included on the plat stating that the Common Area lots, maintained by the
POA, are non -buildable lots.
8. A street tree planting plan shall be submitted before final plat as part of the requirements
to meet tree mitigation and landscaping goals for the PZD.
9. No less than 33 trees shall be planted on-site to meet tree mitigation requirements.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
10. 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)
K.: IReports12004IPC Reports105-10-0418-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.4
11. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private),
sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat
review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are
subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's
current requirements.
12. Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with current standards to include six foot
sidewalks along Rupple Road and Persimmon Street, at the right-of-way line. Four -foot
sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of all interior streets, at the right-of-way line.
13. Street lights shall be provided along all adjacent and proposed streets at a spacing of no
more than 300 feet, pursuant to city ordinances.
14. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed
utilities shall be located underground.
15. Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one calendar year.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date: May 10, 2004
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.
13y
Title
Date
K..IReports120041PC Reporls105-10-0418-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.5
Findings associated with R-PZD 04-06.00
From §166 Development:
Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD).
(B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines
(1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the
purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development
standards and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon
achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as
to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration
of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the
protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall
determine that specific development features, including project density, building
locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas,
screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to
further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all
applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the
same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications.
FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to property zoned RT -12, R -A, RSF-4 and R-
PZD, with varying densities of residential development. A Fire Station has been approved
for construction directly north of this site, and the existing Boys and Girls Club is across
Rupple Road to the east. The subject property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential single
family, 4 units per acre and RT -12, Res. Two & Three family, 12 units per acre. The total
number of units allowed by the current zoning on this property is 301; the proposed
number of units is 260, a net of 41 less units than that allowed currently. The proposed
density of 6.24 units per acre for residential land use is compatible with surrounding
developed areas, thereby preserving and enhancing the neighborhood.
There are few trees that exist on the site, and for those being removed, on-site mitigation
will be required. There are no known watercourses on the subject property; the 100 -year
floodplain affects lot 226, in the southeast corner, a lot which has been designated for
common open space for the neighborhood. Open space areas have been located all along
Persimmon Street, providing a natural buffer. The developer proposes to require rear
vehicular access for all of the dwelling units, eliminating curb cuts along the interior streets
and facing the front of the homes onto the public street. Connectivity is being provided in
all cardinal directions, allowing for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular movement between
neighborhoods. Staff finds the rezoning request with the associated development proposal
furthers the health, safety and welfare of the community.
(2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the
development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning
Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and
1C.IReports120041PCReports105-10-04IR-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.6
landscaping shall be provided as set forth in. § 166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part
of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and
quality (size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of
fences, berms and plant material to be used.
FINDING: A street treeplanting plan for the proposed neighborhood is required to be
submitted for city approval, prior to final plat of the proposed development. The site has
0.61% canopy coverage with 0.13% preserved canopy proposed. No fewer than 33
mitigation trees shall be planted on-site, to meet the tree preservation requirements.
Landscaping shall be approved pursuant to all ordinance requirements.
(3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply:
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in
light of the projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local
collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in
appropriate relationship with one another.
(c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such
considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different
land uses.
(d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system,
providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning
development.
(e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the
planned zoning development and to adjacent areas.
(f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and
interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code.
FINDING: Rupple Road, a Minor Arterial, is a newly constructed 28 -foot wide street
adjacent to the property on the east. Currently the only property served by this street is the
Boys and Girls Club. Persimmon Street, a Collector, is to be constructed along the
property's south boundary, to provide access to the west. The surrounding Minor Arterial
and Collector streets can accommodate the projected traffic volumes of 2,266 average
weekday 2 -way vehicle trips for the proposed development. Internal streets are proposed to
be 28 feet in width, with 4 -foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. Connectivity is
achieved in all four cardinal directions with a layout that allows for internal access to but
discourages through traffic within the adjacent neighborhoods. Vehicular access to
dwelling units is prohibited from the external streets, as well as ..the internal streets. All
K:IReports120041PC Reports105-10-0418-PZD 04-0600 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.7
vehicular access to individual lots is to be rear -loaded, from alleys located within 20 -feet of
right-of-way. Streets are to be constructed to meet all city codes.
(4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172
Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the
respective use areas.
FINDING: On -street parking is allowed within the 28 -foot street cross-section of local,
interior streets. Due to future potential of high traffic volumes on Rupple Road, a Minor
Arterial, parallel parking is not allowed on the street; however, the developer proposes to
construct pull-outs to allow for guest/visitor parking along Rupple Road in appropriate
locations. Staff recommends that the organization of these spaces, with regard to potential
conflicts with existing intersections and the number of 2 -space pull-outs be evaluated
carefully to prevent the creation of a dangerous traffic situation.
(5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district,
all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of
this chapter of this code.
FINDING: The residential land use proposed does not require specific buffers from
adjacent development. The applicant proposes common greenspace along Persimmon
Street as a natural buffer to this future Collector Street. A street tree planting plan is to be
submitted for approval by the Landscape Administrator prior to final plat of the
subdivision.
(6) Sidewalks. As required by §166.03.
FINDING: Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with current standards to include
a six foot sidewalk located at the right-of-way along Rupple Road and Persimmon Street.
Four -foot sidewalks are to be constructed on both sides of all proposed interior streets.
(7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Street lights shall be provided along all streets adjacent to and within the
proposed development, with spacing not to exceed 300 feet.
(8) Water. As required by §166.03.
FINDING: Water shall be extended to serve the subject property. Staff will be
recommending a cost share to increase the water line size from 8" to 12", in order to
complete a 12" water line loop in this area.
(9) Sewer. As required by §166.03.
FINDING: Sewer shall be extended to serve the subject property.
K:IReports120041PC Reports105-10-0418-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
May 10, 2004
Planning Commission
R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row)
Page 2.8