Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-06-13 - Agendas - Final
CITY OF Fay -y� l'I'l� AGENDA ARKNSAS Final Agenda Planning Commission Meeting June 13, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner Agenda Session Presentation Re-formatted Unified Development Code Book to be presented at Agenda Session on June 9. Call to Order Roll Call Consent 1. Approval of the minutes from the May 23, 2016 meeting. 2. VAC 16-5440: Vacation (2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PLACE/THE NEW SCHOOL, 290): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PLACE. The properties are zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contain 19.49 acres. The request is to vacate portions of a utility easement. Planner: Andrew Garner Old Business NONE New Business 3. ADM 16-5457: Administrative Item (E. END OF VAN ASCHE DR./VAN ASCHE MSP, 174): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, LLC. for property located at the E. END OF VAN ASCHE DR. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 4.44 acres. The request is to remove the connection over Mud Creek from E. Van Asche to S. Shiloh Dr. on the Master Street Plan. Planner: Jonathan Curth 4. ADM 16-5432: Administrative Item (MISSION BLVD. & MERIDIAN DR./MISSION HEIGHTS S/D, 371): Submitted by LAWRENCE FINN for property located at MISSION BLVD. & MERIDIAN DR. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 11.58 acres. The request is to eliminate a portion of sidewalk approved with the Preliminary Plat (PPL 14-4698). Planner: Andrew Garner THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL 06-27-16. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav Fayetteville, AR 72701 5. PPL 16-5415: Preliminary Plat (NW OF RUPPLE RD. & WEDINGTON DR./RUPPLE MEADOWS SD, 400): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL, INC. for properties located NW OF RUPPLE RD. & WEDINGTON DR. The properties are ZONED RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE AND RMF-12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 12 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 15.80 acres. The request is for 68 single-and multi-family lots. Planner: Quin Thompson 6. CUP 16-5444: Conditional Use (35 STONEBRIDGE RD./ALEXY, 527): Submitted by ALAN REID & ASSOCIATES for property located at 35 STONEBRIDGE RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 4.00 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Planner: Jonathan Curth 7. CUP 16-5453: Conditional Use (1721 N. WOODLAND AVE./PURSLEY CONSTRUCTION, 367): Submitted by BROCK POSEY for property located at 1721 N. WOODLAND AVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a duplex in a single family zoned district. Planner: Harry Davis 8. RZN 16-5438: Rezone (1094 DRAKE ST./PENDERGRAFT, 249): Submitted by LEADERSHIP PROPERTIES, INC. for properties surrounding 1094 E. DRAKE ST. The properties are zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and C- 2, COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE and contain approximately 185 acres. The request is to rezone the property to UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE. Planner: Jonathan Curth 9. RZN 16-5448: Rezone (2050 S. SCHOOL AVE./HARMON, 601): Submitted by HAROLD HARMON for properties at 2050 S. SCHOOL AVE. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY and C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contain approximately 8.08 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Planner: Jonathan Curth 10. RZN 16-5441: Rezone (NW CORNER OF MT. COMFORT & SALEM RD./GHAN-COOPER, 323): Submitted by GHAN & COOPER PROPERTIES, INC. for property at the NW CORNER OF MT. COMFORT & SALEM RD. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 2.71 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Planner: Quin Thompson 11. RZN 16-5442: Rezone (2575 DEANE SOLOMON RD./RAZORBACK GOLF COURSE, 285): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at 2575 DEANE SOLOMON RD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 1 UNIT PER ACRE, and R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 99.10 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Planner: Harry Davis 2 The following items have been approved administratively by staff: LSP/PLA 16-5363: Lot Split-Property Line Adjustment (981 N. STARR DR./GFB INVESTMENTS, 445): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 981 N. STARR DR. The properties are zoned RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 1 UNIT PER ACRE and R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 7.71 and 2.14 acres. The request is to split and adjust 2 parcels into 4 lots containing approximately 2.64, 1.56, 1.53 and 4.06 acres. Planner: Quin Thompson ❑ FPL 16-5389: Final Plat (3700 BLOCK GULLEY RD./REINDL WOODS SID, 181): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located in the 3700 BLOCK OF GULLEY RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 44.09 acres. The request is for final plat approval of a residential subdivision with 12 single family lots. Planner: Andrew Garner ❑ LSP 16-5409: Lot Split (1035 S. OAK RD./WALLACE, 558): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1035 S. OAK RD. The property is zoned RSF- 4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.42 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 0.21 acres each. Planner: Harry Davis ❑ LSP 16-5437: Lot Split (876 N. MISSION BLVD./RANKIN, 446): Submitted by JAMES LAYOUT SERVICES, LLC. for property located at 876 N. MISSION BLVD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.18 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 0.78 and 0.40 acres. Planner: Jonathan Curth Announcements Adjourn NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address.Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official, staff, or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers. A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. 3 CITY OF Fa Y i'I'l� MINUTES ARKANSAS Planning Commission May 23, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Quinlan. City Staff: Andrew Garner City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth Senior Planner, Quin Thompson ❑Planner, Harry Davis []Planner, Cory Granderson []Staff Engineer, Blake Pennington C Asst. City Attorney, and Kit Williams I (City Attorney Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: Kyle Cook (Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Quinlan. Absent: Ron Autry, Ryan Noble Staff: Andrew Garner []City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth CSenior Planner, Quin Thompson Planner, Harry Davis ❑Planner, and Kit Williams ❑City Attorney 1. Consent Agenda: Approval of the minutes from the May 9, 2016 meeting. VAC 16-5424: Vacation (NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST./THURMOND-QUINLAN, 524): Submitted by ALLISON THURMOND QUINLAN for property along the NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.05 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a street right-of-way. No discussion on vacation. Motion: Commissioner Selby made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Belden seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1. Commissioner Quinlan abstained. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav Fayetteville, AR 72701 2. Old Business: ADM 16-5430: Administrative Item (UDC CHAPTER 164.22 COTTAGE HOUSING AMENDMENTS): Submitted by ALDERMAN MATTHEW PETTY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY for an ordinance to amend UDC Chapter 164.22 to change multiple code requirements for cottage housing developments. Alderman Matthew Petty gave the staff report, discussing the proposal and changes since the previous meeting. The commissioners generally discussed that they were in favor of all of the changes. Commissioner Belden recommended a change to Section G.4.a to use gender neutral language 0Af DG RI I T K rl Alderman Petty LFFRP P Ha HEZFU3EAVE6t❑V0-I1ARmGQ1MM &RP P 11MRCHU °/d- TRC FHl_W- Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward ADM 16-5430 recommending approval with modification to Section 6.4.aEFIDQJ0 V9H7 OCommissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. RZN 16-5366: Rezone (NORTHEAST CORNER OF GREGG AVE. & VAN ASCHE DR./LOTS 20 & 21-CMN BUSINESS PARK, 172): Submitted by McCLELLAND ENGINEERS, INC. for properties at the NE CORNER OF GREGG AVE. & VAN ASCHE DR. The properties are zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 19.34 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. RZN 16-5366 has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 3. New Business: VAR 16-5436: Variance (15 S. LOCUST AVE/HICKERSON, 523): Submitted by FRANK JACOBUS for property located at 15 S. LOCUST AVE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.07 acres. The request is for a variance of the Downtown Design Overlay District building requirements and Single-Family Infill Standards. Quin Thompson, Planner, said that the applicant had requested that the item be tabled in order to work with staff. Commissioner Hoffman: I am glad that the applicant has requested that the item be tabled. I hope staff and the applicant can work together on this; I don't think there is a single variance here that I can support. Motion: 2 Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table VAC 16-5436 indefinitely. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. VAR 16-5443: Variance (2292 N. MARKS MILL LN./BAUMANN, 329): Submitted by MIKE BAUMANN for property located at 2292 N. MARKS MILL LN. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is for a variance of the building design requirements. Harry Davis, Planner I reads report Mike Baumann, Representative I I Any questions? 3rd developer in line to get community together. Many hardships and problems in trying to develop the neighborhood. Client and applicant are happy with the program. Kit Williams, City Attorney []Why a three car garage? Baumann ❑3 car garage is mandatory for a better price point. House sells better and has more appeal as 3 car garage. No public comment Commissioner Belden Staff supports 1st two variances. 3rd would require full attention. Understand dilemma with 3 car garage. Drawing seems to look like it could work. Commissioner Brown I Have you calculated as just one opening? Davis ❑ 11HVIZHXDYH:1,1MDW1Q+DSS(FDCN SOLCE Baumann ❑[further explains] Commissioner Hoffman ❑have you considered a ribbon driveway for the single garage?Would the client like that? Andrew Hensen, Applicant/Client ❑ Hesitant on having a ribbon drive as lawn could be destroyed over time by cars missing the ribbon drive. Would be hesitant on saying yes. Hoffman ❑Would still like to see the ribbon drive. Very appropriate. Commissioner Hoskins I Is this a spec house or custom? Hensen ❑No, this is a spec house as a show home to show off and allow people to customize it. Hoskins ❑So you chose this plan? Hensen ❑Yes Hoskins ❑OK. In my firm we have ribbon strips as our main choice. Easy to do in the middle with our materials. Very difficult to digest 1st two variances as this is a spec home and the builder chose this. Not sure why you need these variances, as this project is chosen by you and not a 3 hardship as result of the site. Entry could be on the ground floor and the garage plane could be farther back. Hensen - For door on ground level, only certain ways you can build a house. Would be difficult to have all houseV1 HLVDP HLZD LJ IERI10RGI� RCS DQAWO-P DOR ORN Hj DFZ ViHACP H❑ Hoskins []We just moved the stairs inside for our plans. Hoffman []So you could comply with this for other lots? Baumann -Yes, have worked with staff on this for a while and designed for 8 months prior and before code change. Commissioner Quinlan []Agree with Hoskins. The combination of them all together, except one by one, could be dealt with together. Hensen ❑We would be willing to do the ribbon driveway as a result of this meeting. Williams ❑Commission needs to decide on the first two and officially deny the third. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve VAR 16-5443 with approval of variance 1 and 2, and denial of variance 3. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. CUP 16-5406: Conditional Use (2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PL./THE NEW SCHOOL, 290): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PL. The property is zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 19.40 acres. The request is for an expansion to the New School, Use Unit 4 in R-O and C-2 zoned districts. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve CUP 16-5406 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. VAR 16-5410: Lot Split (981 N. STARR DR./GFB INVESTMENTS, 451): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 981 N. STARR DR. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA contains approximately 9.85 acres. The request is for a variance of the minimum street frontage requirement and City water service. 4 Quin Thompson, Planner, read the staff report. Heath Myers: Staff summed up the issues, I am here to answer any questions you may have. Janet Selby, Commissioner: This seems like a straight forward request, it has staff support. I'd like to ask the applicant if they support the conditions as proposed by staff. Myers: yes we do. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve VAR 16-5410 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. CUP 16-5411: Conditional Use (1335 W. DEANE ST./BLEW HOLDINGS, 365): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1335 W. DEANE ST. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 1.67 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Read the staff report. Buckley Blew, Applicant: Clarifies that he is proposing a lot split to create four single family dwellings which will have less impact than the previous cottage development proposal at this address. Counters the staff comment regarding the unbuilt right-of-way to the west by stating that if the applicant were to build as proposed on Deane, all four lots will have frontage to all public services. The applicant does not feel that building the street will help the surrounding area and will actually burden the City with maintenance. Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Queries why the property could not be built as the previously proposed cottage development. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: The current proposal is easier to develop as there are not orientation requirements for the proposed lots like there are for cottage developments. Commissioner Leslie Belden: Requests clarification as to why did the cottage development not work. Blew: It was cost prohibitive with regards to the parking requirements and but particularly so considering the detention requirements. Commissioner Allison Thurmond-Quinlan: Seeks to ensure that the applicant knows that there have been changes to the cottage ordinance that may facilitate trying again. Hoskins: Requests that staff shift the aerial view of the site to adjacent properties that are tandem lots. Questions if there not a precedent IRIAWDSS(FDCV[SU;SRvD© Garner: Yes and no. It depends on the lot in question. 5 Hoskins: Comments on how a nearby tandem lot was developed, and is impressed with how it turned out. Posits that a tandem lot is certainly one way to get infill and revitalization, which is what is being seen in the area. Commissioner Tom Brown: Agrees with staff that tandem lots are not the best approach, but has a feeling that there would be less impact on the neighborhood to split the lots than to build a road to connect Deane to Stephens along the existing, but undeveloped right-of-way. Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: Notes that he is very familiar with the area, and feels it is underutilized due to the lack of street connectivity. Understands that it would make development more expensive to develop the existing, but unimproved right-of-way, but thinks the neighborhood needs connections. As such, he cannot support the proposal. Quinlan: After viewing the adjacent tandem lots along Deane Street, she is further convinced that this is an undesirable means to achieving the City Plan 2030 goals. As such, she cannot support. Belden: Notes that is important that this area needs more affordable housing, but is uncertain if this is the way to do it. Prefers to see a cottage development, which she thinks is now more viable given the amendments to the ordinance. Hoffman: Expresses doubts that the proposed tandem lot will create affordable housing. Quinlan: Queries whether the City has plans to improve the undeveloped right-of-way. Garner: Nothing is planned, no. Quinlan: Expresses conflicting opinions about desire for good infill and the cost burden of improving a right-of-way. Motion #1: Commissioner Selby made a motion to deny CUP 16-5411. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Then motion was withdrawn. (Prior to withdrawal of Motion #1) Kit William, City Attorney: Cautions that requiring the development of the unimproved right-of- way does not likely meet the rough proportionality test, and the City saying they must build it is risky. Hoffman: Feels the tandem lots are not the solution. Hoskins: Requests the applicants opinion about tabling the issue. Blew: Is willing to table and discuss again after vacating the aforementioned right-of-way. Then will resubmit as tandem lots again. Does not feel that a cottage development is viable, regardless of the changes to the ordinance, and feels that the City's survey is inaccurate and that the right-of-way does not actually adjoin the subject property. Williams: Recommends tabling indefinitely. Blew: Agrees with the proposal. 6 Hoffman: To William's comment, the roads existence does not change his negative feelings towards tandem lots. Motion #2: Commissioner Selby made a motion to table CUP 16-5411 indefinitely. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. &RP P L&U< C IL RI I P DQE (Following Motion #2, but before a vote was taken) Hoffman: To Kit William's comment, the roads existence does not change his negative feelings towards tandem lots. RZN 16-5425: Rezone (NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST./THURMOND-QUINLAN, 524): Submitted by ALLISON THURMOND QUINLAN for property along the NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST. The property is zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.84 acres. The request is to rezone the property to DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL. Harry Davis, Planner I reads report Brian Teague, Representative [I DG would allow applicant to make a development that would work better with the property and neighborhood. To speak to concerns from the neighbors, applicant is changing the zoning to not develop a large, multi-family building. Applicant also believes that residents in the proposed change would walk or bike more instead of use cars. History of site has been historically mixed-use and vibrant. Staff has already talked about the context of the area around the site, including the downtown and walker park plans. Applicant believes DG would be a better fit fOUPPQ EDLFD DOG LQDFFRIDGFH ZI]WAN EFBNV JFK' DM aspirations. We hope you can forward this request to the City Council. Ed Kubal, Citizen []Alley is not adequate to handle traffic. Commissioner Cook []Just looking at a rezone, would be looked at closer in development stage. Commissioner Hoskins -]What is the smallest lot available, narrowest, sq ft, etc. allowed in a multi-family district. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director []Not sure, not codified yet. Teague Maybe 3,000 or so in a single-family. 2,000 or so for townhomes. Garner- Reduced it by half Hoskins []When does it take effect, the new code? Kit Williams, City Attorney ❑A month after it passes Garner -]We haYl�®DCHG1 S❑FNV 7 Williams ❑UVLQJ DCORdAkC]-i[FRP SDC DCDJ H WVKC/VQVEHHQI Z LLWoK)ESEIFNV Hoskins []And what are the minimums in DG? Garner 118 ft width, no minimum area. Hoskins ❑New development nearby. Height for DG is maxed at 56 feet. Mr. Teek, did you look at any other form-based codes for what you want to do? Teague ❑Differences in CS and DG is a front setback. Too much to deal with that, trees, parking, etc. Build-to zone is much better for us. Hoskins ❑Not convinced yet on rezoning. Commissioner Hoffman Completely fine with this. Borders two great plans. Ready to vote. Williams ❑ One person nearby had sued the city on a similar situation nearby where council denied them. We should let that person know since we are considering approving an upzoning nearby where they wanted to upzone, but were actually downzoned by council. Hoffman ❑ Have discussed in other places about transition zones. Believes that rezone is appropriate. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5425 with recommendation of approval. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1. Commissioner Quinlan recused. RZN 16-5386: Rezone (NORTH OF 1110 N. FRONTAGE RD./LINDSEY PROPERTIES, 135): Submitted by HUGH JARRETT for property NORTH OF 1110 N. FRONTAGE RD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 6.40 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Hugh Jarratt, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoffman discussed that he was in favor of the request and was excited that a large company like this was proposing this zoning district. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5386 with recommendation of approval. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. 8 C-PZD 16-5408: Commercial Planned Zoning District (WEDINGTON & MARINONI DR/CROSS CHURCH, 441): Submitted by ESI ENGINEERING, INC. for properties located at WEDINGTON & MARINONI DR. The properties are zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE and contains approximately 24.60 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Read the staff report. . HQ DQD SS(WDC,VW5HSU+A- 9AYH: Wants to provide context UBSSDU)BOADI VLk]SRLTVCross Church has a location on West Wedington which is marred by congestion. There are two major challenges to the current site. Firstly, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) proposal. Cross Church has acquired nine of the ten lots at McMillan Estates. The tenth lot is zoned C-2 and was intended for a hotel. AHTD has steadily moved its ROW needs eastward to the point where lot 10 is almost unbuildable. The applicant is still awaiting final AHTD plans as they move from the design to the construction phase. The church feels it is best to create a design that could accommodate further encroachment by AHTD right-of-way needs. The owner of the tenth lot exchanged his property with the church for lots on the interior with the condition that the hotel have access to a C-2 or similar zoning. The second challenge is that the church building was designed to accommodate the highway's realignment. Suggested staff layout alternatives are unfeasible due to the likely proximity to the proposed realignment. In discussing with City Planning staff the applicant realizes there are significant issues with the proposal. The end users are on board with moving many of the structures to the street. Acknowledges that a change will likely need to be made for the proposal to move forward. Commission Chair Kyle Cook: Requests clarification as to what is the applicant is requesting. Hall: Feedback Brian Moore, Applicant Representative I Q1LCH+-=[6HL FHs, Inc.): Feels that the applicant may have made something unpalatable. Wants the Planning Commission to know that all the lots are under contract. The lots at McMillan Estates are wider than they are deep and may struggle to meet the current UT zoning code requirements. With the new layout proposed with at this meeting, there will be 35-50% street fronting of buildings. Commissioner Leslie Belden: Appreciates the staff's submitted alternate designs, but does not feel that the late submission by the applicant of a new layout meets the intent of a C-PZD. Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: Agrees with Commissioner Belden. Notes that he is a very big fan of form-based zoning and thinks it is appropriate for this site. Feels The UT is still Jorm- based lite, because it only requires 50% street frontage. Contends that the City has given a lot of ground already in that sense. Recognizes the need for C-2-like zoning for the hotel, but feels UT is already too close to C-2. Appreciates that the applicant is willing to be flexible and change, but feels that more can be done. Would like to draw attention to the Staff Alternate Site Plan III. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Clarifies how flexible the street frontage needs are, and all the options available to meet the minimums for UT. 9 Hoffman: Appears that all the building footprints look viable in Staff Alternate Layout III, and that a church can benefit from a major highway frontage, and should not shy away from it. Does not feel that the proposed C-PZD will meet the intent and cannot support said proposal. Commissioner Allison Thurmond-Quinlan: Echos the comments of commissioners Belden and Hoffman. This site is ideal but the proposal is effectively walling off the development from adjacent areas. Thinks there are huge opportunities for shared parking. Cannot support with this much paving being at Fayetteville's front door. Commissioner Tom Brown: Agrees with staffs assessment and efforts to implement a form- based approach. The existing zoning complies with City Plan 2030 and if staff supports denial, he agrees. Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Outlines that contracts exist for the properties, and that that is an important consideration. Questions whether these signees agreed to the C-PZD layout, and how strong is the hotel owner's desire for comparable commercial zoning. Hall: The hotel owner does not prefer the street-side layout, but understands that it is necessary and needs the C-PZD to make it work. Hoskins: Notes that the Roger's Cross Church placed its parking behind, rather than on three size as shown in the proposed C-PZD. Unnamed Cross Church Representative: Parking at the Rogers Cross Church is spread throughout the site. Hoskins: Questions where the entrances at the Rogers Cross Church are, and why a similar configuration cannot be achieved in Fayetteville. Hall: The terrain and the property prevent a similar layout. Hoskins: Feels that the layout in Rogers is viable. Brown: The church's elevation appears more like a storefront . Feels it would look better closer to a street. Hoffman: To Commissioner Brown's point, this is a building with one entry as opposed to Roger's with multiple entries. If Cross Church would consider another layout it could fit within the current zoning. Cook: Queries how the applicant wants to proceed. Hall: Would like to speak to the client prior to committing to a direction. Expresses doubts that if the church was pushed to McMillan, it could not contend with the multi-use trail and the AHTD right-of-way changes. The way he sees it is that the church would have to front along Pam Angus. His concern is that the church may be stuck in an awkward position with not knowing where to build considering the encroaching AHTD right-of-way. Hoffman: Expresses a lack of understanding as to why the church cannot fit under the current zoning. Does not feel like the McMillan Drive is being reduced too much. 10 Moore: AHTD is going to talk McMillan and re-route it to the northwest, rather than just shorten it. Applicants request a moment and leave the chambers. Garner: Concurs with the applicant regarding the realignment of McMillan Drive but also identifies that orienting towards Pam Angus would create an almost 100% street frontage. Cook: Seeks clarification of AHTD status on 1-49/Wedington. Curth: Provides the latest update and layout. Hoffman: Does not agree with the proposed layout of McMillan Drive as it angles towards Futrall. Cook: Calls for a 5 minute recess. Cook: Calls the Commission back to order Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to deny C-PZD 16-5408. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. 4. Reports: None 5. Announcements: None 6. Adjournment Time: 9:29 PM 7. Submitted by: City Planning Division 11 CITY OF 7ayLpp —Ile Y l e PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director MEETING DATE: June 13, 2016 SUBJECT: VAC 16-5440: Vacation (2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PLACEITHE NEW SCHOOL, 290): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 2514 N. NEVA SCHOOL. PLACE. The properties are zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contain 19.49 acres. The request is to vacate portions of a utility easement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding VAC 16-5440 with conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The subject property is the New School campus on the south side of Sunbridge Drive. The New School is a private school for preschool students through 711 grade that has been in operation since 1971 according to their website (www.thenewschooi.org). The overall site contains approximately 19.23 acres and is zoned R-0, Residential Office and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zonin Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North and West Office R-O, Residential Office South Mixed commercial uses on Township Street C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial East Undeveloped C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Proposal. The applicant proposes vacation of portions of various utility easements that traverse across the property to make room for planned expansions to the New School. DISCUSSION: Vacation Approval: The applicant has submitted the required vacation forms to the City utility departments and applicable utility companies, with the following responses: Lit_ i& Response Cox Communications No objections AEPISWEPCO No objections with conditions Black Hills Energy No objections Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteviIle-a r. 13,2016 Fayetteville, AR 72741 Agenda Item 2 y 16-5440 The New School Page 1 of 14 AT&T No objections Ozarks Electric No Objections City of Fayetteville Response WaterlSewer No objections Public Comment: No public comment has been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding VAC 16-5440 with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Any relocation or damage to utilities and associated new easement dedication shall be at the ownerldevelope r's expense. 2. After AEPISWEPCO has located their underground utilities in the areas indicated, these areas shall be surveyed by the applicant. An easement shall be provided by the applicant for AEPISWEPCO facilities that are not within easements. Planning Commission Action: O Approved ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied Meeting Date: June 13, 2016 Motion: Second: Vote: BUDGETISTAFF IMPACT: None. Attachments: ■ Request Letter ■ Petition to Vacate • Utility Approvals ■ Easement Vacation Exhibit ■ One Mile Map • Close Up Map Planning Commission G\ETCl0evela ment Services Re�iew120160evelo meet Review116-5440 VAC 2514 N. New School Pl. June 13,em 2 p P Agenda Item 2 (The New School)290101 Planning Commission106-13-20161Comments and Redlines 16-5440 The New School Page 2 of 14 e. Sunbridge Suite 5JORGENSEN Fayetteville,AIR 72703 +ASSOCIATES Office.479.442.9127 Fax 479.582.4807 Cry n Civil Eng:neer, g Survey www.0 _s ',nra,5oC Corr April 14, 2016 City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville,AR 72701 Attn: Planning Department Re:The New School VAC To Whom it May Concern: Please find the attached Vacation request for the New School.The main objective of this application is to vacate existing easements located on the New School's campus to make room for an anticipated expansion. An overview of this expansion has been included with this submittal.To the best of our knowledge,there are no known utilities lying within these easements.Any public utilities found within the site that are in conflict with the proposed development will be relocated and new easements will be dedicated. Please contact us with any questions or comments.We look forward to your assistance. Sincerely; ake E orgensen, P.E. Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 3 of 14 PETITION TO VACATE EASEMENTS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS TO: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and The Fayetteville City Council On behalf of the owners of the real estate found on the attached Easement Vacation Plat (Parcels 765-16026-000,765-21473-000,765-19416-000, 765-19417-000),we are requesting that the existing easements as called on the aforementioned plat, be abandoned and vacated; lying in the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas,a municipal corporation,petition to vacate said Easements which are shown on the attached Easement Vacation Plat. The petitioners kindly ask that the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas,abandon and vacate the described real estate as called out on the Easement Vacation Plat,subject, however,to the existing utility easements as required,and that the described real estate be used for their respective benefit and purpose as now approved by law. The petitioners further ask that the described real estate be vested in the abutting property owners as provided by law. WHEREFORE,the petitioners respectfully request that the governing body of the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas,abandon and vacate the described real estate,subject to said utility easements,and that title to said real estate sought to be abandoned be vested in the abutting property owners as provided by law,and as to that particular land the owners be free from the easements of the public for the use of said alley. Dated this 2* day of &As!1 12016 r _ 1 _ Dennis Chapman, President and Head of School Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 4 of 14 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: f x -1 UTILITY COMPANY: ��,P L'WC "o APPLICANT NAME: APPLICANT PHONE: REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check all that apply): Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right-of-way. A l ley Street right-0f--way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley,easement.right-of-way).described as follows: General location 1 Address B' (a 7 T.40i legal description and graphic representation of whar is being vacated-SURVE" UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no comments. No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following described easements are retained. lState the location,dimensions,and purpose below.) No objections provided the Following conditions are met: QA'a wE &&L OUR UG L007&r I/y ThLc A1l.CAr _IMdreAiE1�_ We' wou.LA Nos _t l Ke IT, 5 0auiyou , Wt Wowb do c-►fsorc )T Fdiz _ 111-no !dAT �Rt` W;T0I0 THE fA5fftKT3 $fflWld 0 1 T015 pt_AT, Signature o tility Company Representative _ JJrS1(tr/.3r��oa1 GN&rMEEIz Title pe'rend wr?D14 Paw 3 Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 5 of 14 N =it 0 -JA ------- ------- -- -------- MKIM iff-I J� CIA Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 6 of 14 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTiLT"EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: 04/1512016 UTIL.ITYCO-NPANY: Black Hills Energy APPLICANT NAME: APPLICANT PHONE- REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check ail than apply): Ex Utility Easement U Right-af-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right-of way. fl Alley u Street right-0f--way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley,easement,right-of-way),described as follows: General location/Address New School ❑ (AT'TACII legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated-SUR VE l) UT ]TY COMPANY COXEYM-HiTS: z No objections to the vacations)described above,and no comments. U No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following desenbed easements are retained. (State the location,dimensionsy and purpose below.) ❑ No objections provided the following conditions are met Signature of Utility Company Representative Sr.�Yr c•f Sc J` - (�;4$ ��:•�� rte - Title December 2011 Page 5 Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 7 of 14 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILI'T'Y EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: 4 Z z-G I,6 U1 i LITY COMPANY: d 1 ry 4f If.rFWrIe, APPLICANT NAME: JF4 ,9F 4444 �APPLICANT PFIONE: �"'�� � �/Z.7 REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check all that apply): oo"' Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right-of-way. Alley Street right-of-way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley, easement. right-of-way],described as follows: / General location 1 Address W rY/'w (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated-SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: r No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no comments. No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following described easements are retained. {State the location,dimensions,and purpose below.} No objections provided the following conditions are met: SWIliltUlf of Utility t'o any Representative �'✓�� 4 Ylon�1" Title rkco„ber 2014 Page S Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 8 of 14 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: 05/02/2016 UTILITY COMPANY: APPLICANT NArML: APPLICANT PHONE: REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check all that apply): x Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley Or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right-o way. Alley Street right-of-way I have been notified oi'the petition to vacate the ful€awing(alley, easement.right-of--way),described as rollo►vs: General location 1 Address i ❑ (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated-SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: x No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no comments. No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following described easements are retained. (State the location,dimensions,and purpose below.) 1 No objections provided the following conditions are met: Dgi[ally sigma by JEFF HAMILTON JEFF HAMILTON �ma InJh54F3o�an cTwn c=UST&T,ou9N5TnUCT ON1 ENG NEEftlNG, Aare!2015.05.02 15:39:30-05'00' Signature of I161itc Company Representative MGR OSP Ping & Engrg Design retic Decenrber 014 Page 5 Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 9 of 14 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIG IIT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: 4/14/2016 UTILITY COMPANY: Cox Communications APPLICANT NAME: rorensen&Associates APPLICANT PHONE: 479-442-9127 REQUESTED VACATION(opplicaal smstchevk all Thal apply): x Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility casements located within the vacated right-of-way. Alley Street right-of-say have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(r►llet.v asesnent.right-of-tray).described as follows: General location/Address 2514 New School Place (A TTACH legal tlescription uLnd graphic represerstadon of whin is being nucared-SL+RVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: No objections to the vacation(s)described above.and no comments. No objections to the vacation{sy described above,provided following described easements are retained. (State the location,dimensions,and purpose below.) x No objections provided the following conditions are met: Any damage to or relocation of existing facilitites will be at the owners/developers expense. >ignature of Utility Company Representalive Construction and Planning Mana er Title fk ember:01l Page 3 Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 10 of 14 UT[LITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY,ALLEY,AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS DATE: (�_—l `" /Co UTILITY COMPANY: (was L E �-T 1{� APPLICANT NAME: APPLICANT PHONE: REQUESTED VACATION(applicant must check g({that apply): Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all util ity=moments located within the vacated right-of-way. Alley Street right-of►vay I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following(alley;easemelu,righl-of-wa),),described as follows. General location/Address C (ATTACH legal descrlprion gad graphic representation of what is being vacated-SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS. No objections to the vacation(s)described above,and no comments. No objections to the vacation(s)described above,provided following described easements are retained. (State the location,dimensions,and purpose below.) No objections provided the following conditions are met �4 1 Signature of Utility Company Fectfresenintive s 7,ems, srAA'i ti TeG Title anurkhrr 2011 Page S Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 11 of 14 ar 1A3JJ3Ard A 01 173roai k cn I 531VOOSStI+l" I�� I N�51V 9iioI 100033 M3H 3KL :!i LJ 33 Lu 173roud Him 15 U1,11 ,_ • fill, 'i Hit�311. `. =------- w - Ir i~ I r � �•: ---------------- +� 11 r � •:';•. - rte, -- -- �: -------------- Plan ingCommission = June 13,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 12 of 14 VAC 16-5440 THE NEW SCHOOL One Mile view NORTH ��fCE O +�ID1R pb b�R GG755 i- 0 0.225 Q.45 0-9 Miles x I < M6LE NSyy�,;:, 2 r H y L Ft �p f ! 9ER4TNA Si .. HAROLD 5• g+l ERIARCL IFF 5TIu C F CORTLANO S j fti Ate, u ■Ny■Fi LTO'OST O R_D OAKCLIFF ST - ■ +2 MONT S F } A oY�K3 M = w c x `� ey N ❑E$T pa m ,r•� �i 4 sr Q f S I C ST '�� Q a w U CASSANT Su4�jeci Property Mgg L E7+ 9R0ONZ LN MEADOWCLIFF R °4 • �iRiVlJ7g r! R-A WESiyIELY LTR ❑ R CORPOJCT W �• a • -- ��a�I r '�OMMON DR rtNTtIRY nR i °EEL 51 ❑ Oy m Mti•Ii/L TEWART r y a ¢ u ST 3 �. a '`- WINDY OLL� 'Y 2 C&DJNAL N 7 V i SIPIOa m U StJOQAM. GARRE2 o m OVF44egT5 O 71F-2•iK z x p o 0 A STC w c a FLM ST T AR W w WIN$A JGI+LJ.2 VR7E+927 � i AMIIEr,D" HACKB-P L ST r r. Y .y' SS DE9RA$R _ r DAMS a ` � k LLF:V 5T rn ;AS-!3T C = A ' J Uh[ LN- w ST � -1R7AES�ryAY, � !C SRC 5E �r '1'k7•lS4F e n n y5 9A[vlra:,c Pv z z C N 'WA � L� ..LAWS R�6w i,1 Si Q 3AB $_.'TDA 0 x Z...., E%TRACnON Legend - REBICENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY =E, M f'd•"w'A, COMMERCIAL — wye.n�w.one. E Planning Area asF.I -- ❑ Rare 09 C-2 ` �t Fayetteville City Limits R�, T" i =c' _ FORM 8A3E0 OfSTRICTS Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District Ru'n RESIN EN TIAL MU Ln-FAMILY sM.n st�wan.• •• •• Shared Use Paved Trail R*-+�...�.s.+,-"•� n•.m•r or.. cm.•. 11111 Trail(PropoSed) �:RMF•+6 H"p+eomooetmxxrwnn I-�•' r �R4F�Za �_- Design overlay District "" - _ "--- PLANNED IONINrs DISTRICTS Planning Area -- lRSTR w moo•, °�TMo'R.,"^., _____ INOIlSTRIAL INSTI TIITIO NAL Building Footprint ��+�^^•rcw °�°�^" Planning Co mission Fayetteville City Limits _ � ewl.:�.»�.���.�� June 3,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 13 of 14 VAC 16-5446 THE NEW SCHOOL Close Up View NORTH w a LU Q a VILLAGE LAKE QR Q Q 0" r w o RPZI'g w V Q Ix< Q as MADRID ST C-1 5ubect Property SUNBRI J 4 N J CL a a X m z a R-O � z rr ` - TOWNSHIP.sT N W n LU 70 a a N w a n � � m rr 4r � Gplt SaU�R�O� U n RSF-4 Legend RMF-24 - I-7 Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial Planning Area Feet Residential-Office --!Fayetteville Clty Limits c-t 1�C-2 Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 Neighborhood Conservation Commercial.industrial.Residential Trail(Proposed) 1 inch = 300 feet Building Footprint Planning Co mission 3,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5440 The New School Page 14 of 14 CITY OF • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: June 13, 2016 SUBJECT: ADM 16-5457: Administrative Item (E. END OF VAN ASCHE DR./VAN ASCHE MASTER STREET PLAN, 174): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, LLC. for property located at the E. END OF VAN ASCHE DR. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 4.44 acres. The request is to remove the connection over Mud Creek from E. Van Asche to S. Shiloh Dr. on the Master Street Plan and re-classify the remaining street segments as Local Streets. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding ADM 16-5457 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. BACKGROUND: Property: The planned street is identified in the Fayetteville City Plan 2030 Master Street Plan (MSP) as a connection between the east end of Van Asche Drive northward to the south end of Shiloh Drive. This connection would involve bridge construction over the Mud Creek Trail and Mud Creek itself, which is a waterway subject to the Streamside Protection Zones ordinance (§168.12). The properties adjacent to the planned street are zoned C-2 and have been developed to include restaurants, medical offices, and a hotel. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted on Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Home Depot; Restaurants C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare South Medical Office; Restaurants C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare East Fulbright Expy./College Ave. n/a West Hotel C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare; Master Street Plan:The City Plan 2030 MSP includes two significant proposed streets in the area of College and Joyce Avenues. Terrain, particularly with regard to Mud Creek, has led to a development pattern of limited connectivity between Van Asche Drive and Joyce Boulevard. In an effort to alleviate congestion and facilitate the area's development as a regional commercial center it was determined as part of the MSP adopted in August of 2011 that two additional crossings of Mud Creek would be beneficial. The first, to the east of College Avenue, is proposed to connect the Collector Streets of Sain Street in the south to Vantage Drive to the north. The Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville,AR 72701 Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 3 16-5457 Van Asche MSP Page 1 of 11 second crossing, and the subject of this proposed MSP amendment, is to connect the east end of Van Asche Drive, which currently terminates in a cul de sac, with the southern end of Shiloh Drive, both of which are also classified as Collector Streets. This second connection, between Van Asche and Shiloh, has been on, and off, and back on the City's MSP over the last several updates, as the benefits, costs, and challenges associated with it are reevaluated. Proposal:The applicant requests the removal of the proposed Connector Street link between the east end of Van Asche Drive and the southern end of Shiloh Drive.As established in the City Plan 2030 MSP, the planned street would represent a north-south connection to compliment those at Gregg, Avenue, Steele Boulevard, and Mall Avenue to the west, and College Avenue and Front Street to the east. If the connection over the creek is removed the remaining segments of Shiloh and Van Asche Drives should be reclassified as Local Streets. DISCUSSION: The City's Master Street Plan was updated in 2011 to include among other things, the addition of the Collector Street link between the east end of Van Asche Drive and the south end of Shiloh Drive. This followed the removal of that link in the preceding MSP due to the uncertain benefits stemming from the well-defined costs. Staff now recommends amending the City's MSP to remove the aforementioned proposed connection between Van Asche and Shiloh for four principle reasons. First,the cost of connecting Van Asche to Shiloh is considerable.Although the precise figures are unavailable, the link between the two Collector Streets will not only involve an extension of the both rights-of-way and streets, but also the construction of a bridge, and possible realignment of the Mud Creek Trail. Secondly, the existing number of Mud Creek crossings coupled with the proposed Sain Street-Vantage Drive crossing are generally considered to be sufficient to provide for existing and projected transportation needs. A third reason to amend the Fayetteville MSP to remove the Van Asche to Shiloh connection is the environmentally sensitive nature of Mud Creek. Any construction over Mud Creek will encroach upon both the Waterside and Management Zones of the waterway, possibly damaging or otherwise negatively affecting the stream bank, existing vegetation and water quality. Lastly, the construction of a Van Asche to Shiloh connection will be of limited benefit. The intensity of uses on both Collector Streets leading up to their respective termini is relatively low, with the amount of traffic not dictating the need for crossing less than a 1/4 mile from Mall Avenue to the west and both College Avenue and Front Street less than an 1/8 of a mile to the east. Evaluating these considerations, staff contends that is appropriate to amend the MSP to remove the proposed connection between the east end of Van Asche Drive and the southern end of Shiloh Drive. Recommendation: Staff recommends forwarding ADM 16-5457 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval to amend the Master Street Plan as proposed, removing the connection over Mud Creek and re-classifying Shiloh Drive and Van Asche Drive from Collector to Local Streets. G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5457 ADM MSP Amendment E.end of Van Asche Dr. (Fayetteville Lodging) 174\03 Planning Commission\06-13-2016 Planning Commission June 13,2016 Agenda Item 3 16-5457 Van Asche MSP Page 2 of 11