The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About108-92 RESOLUTION• RESOLUTION NO. 108-92 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WITH AN INCREASED PRIORITY AND COMMITMENT FROM CITY STAFF TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THE GILES ADDITION AREA. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the Board of Directors hereby approves the large scale development with an increased priority and commitment from City staff to do everything possible to alleviate the traffic problems in Giles Addition area. PASSED AND APPROVED this 21st day of July , 1992. ATTEST: By: <12;.M.14 %`, �-flc City Cyerk APPROVED: l By Mayor FAYETTES1 LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS • DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE • TO: City of Fayetteville Board of Directors 7 THRU: Scott C. Linebaugh, City Manager FROM: Alett S. Little, Planning Management Director DATE: June 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Item to be added to Agenda - Request of Director Spivey Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission Large Scale Development Newsome Apartments, Owner - Don Newsome Shiloh Drive and Dorothy Jeane Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission action to approve a Large Scale Development to construct six buildings with 72 apartment units on 5.0 acres Planning Commission Action: 3 The Planning Commission voted 4-2-0 to approve the large scale development. By letter dated June 26, 1992, Mr. Don Hornsby, an adjacent property owner, requested through Director Shell Spivey an appeal to the City Board of the Planning Commission action of approval of the large scale development. The appeal procedure is set out at section 159.54(F) of the Subdivision Regulations and states that the developer, or the owners of any adjacent property may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Board of Directors. Attached for consideration by the Board of Directors are maps showing the location of this project; the City Engineer's memo of June 17, 1992, which references the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee meetings; minutes of the Plat Review meeting. and the Subdivision Committee meetings; a letter from the Northwest Engineers, Inc. explaining drainage and addressing traffic; a memo from the traffic division superintendent giving the status of the city's requests for traffic signal requests at Salem Road and a copy of a traffic generation report; and a copy of a petition signed by 46 residents of Giles Addition, the subdivision to the north of the project. The developer, Bo Newsome, has an option to purchase the five acre tract of land from Kemmons Wilson for development of an apartment complex. At the time that Mr. Wilson sought zoning approval for the construction of the motel, the entire tract was zoned R-2; and his request was for the entire tract to be rezoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Opponents of that rezoning appealed to the Planning Commission for a buffer between their neighborhood and the parcel to be developed for the hotel. The Planning Commission recommended that a parcel of land 250' in width remain as an R-2 zone as a buffer between the intended commercial rezoning and the neighborhood to the north. The City Board approved the rezoning request of the commercial zone for the motel and imposed the buffer requested by the residents by allowing a 250' strip of land to remain as an R-2 medium density residential zone. A copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 1989 with discussion about that rezoning is included. Residents reported traffic concerns, specifically that there was only one exit to Highway 16 and indicated that if Dorothy Jeane was extended over to Walnut Grove, a subdivision to the west, that would give them another option for exiting their subdivision. The Walnut Grove Subdivision passed from the original developer to the Resolution Trust Corporation and more recently, to several separate developers who have platted and subdivided that land essentially as intended when the entire tract was platted as Walnut Grove Subdivision. Recently, Woodfield Subdivision was approved and included the extension of Anne Street from Giles Addition into Woodfield Subdivision. With the extension of Anne Street, residents of Giles Addition have an alternative route to exit their subdivision by Salem Road. The City has made several attempts and continues to work with the Highway Department to place a traffic signal at the intersection of Salem Road and Wedington Road. A traffic signal at the intersection of Shiloh Drive and Wedington Road is less desirable because there is limited line of sight distance (about 100 yards) between the crest of Wedington at the bridge over the by-pass and Shiloh Drive. Mr. Newsome has proposed a large scale development of an apartment complex in an R-2, Medium Density Residential zone which allows up to 24 units per acre (120 apartments) to be developed. Density for the planned development is 14.4 units per acre (72 apartments). Mr. Newsome has completed the plat review, subdivision review, and Planning Commission approval process, making numerous changes to his plans to accommodate suggestions and requirements of the staff, utilities and the adjoining neighborhood. Changes to his plans include things such as relocating the buildings and parking lot to give mare space between the apartments and the neighborhood; relocating the exit from the apartment complex to avoid coming out directly across from a driveway; and addition of landscaping, although not required by city, to provide additional buffering to the neighborhood. The City has requested the Highway Department review this section of Wedington Drive again with regard to installation of traffic signals. The Highway Dept. has agreed to allow the city to collect a portion of the data they require in order to speed the analysis of whether a traffic signal can be supported and can be installed in a safe manner. The City has also added to the CIP a potential 1993 project to extend Shiloh Drive to the north to intersect with Mt. Comfort Road. • • • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the large scale development plan as proposed. As the City does not have the authority to install a traffic signal without state approval, as the State requires a certain level of traffic before any signal may be installed, and as the City has taken appropriate steps to address the installation of a traffic signal at the earliest justifiable time, the issue of traffic generation is duly noted and the city has taken all measures available to it to address the requested traffic signal. The property is zoned R-2 and the large scale development plan proposes a development density of less than that allowed by the zoning code. Additionally, the developer has been amenable to the many suggestions and requirements included in the three step approval process passed to date. The city has the responsibility for establishing the zones appropriate for development and has done so by carrying a zoning classification of R-2 on this property for numerous years. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the large scale development plan as proposed. As the City does not have the authority to install a traffic signal without State approval, as the State requires a certain level of traffic before any signal may be installed, and as the City has taken appropriate steps to address the installation of a traffic signal at the earliest justifiable time, the issue of traffic generation is duly noted and the City has taken all measures available to it to address the requested traffic signal. The property is zoned R-2 and the large scale development plan proposes a development density of less than that allowed by the zoning code. Additionally, the developer has been amenable to the many suggestions and requirements included in the three step approval process passed to date. The City has the responsibility for establishing the zones appropriate for development and has done so by carrying a zoning classification of R-2 on this property for numerous years. • • • • I • • Mr. Shell Spivey P.O. Box 1407 Fayetteville, AR 72702 June 26,1992 Dear Mr. Spivey: This is to request a place on the agenda for the next scheduled City Board meeting in order for the residents of the Silts Addition to appeal the Planning Commission's approval on June 22, 1992 of the Newsome Apartment Complex to be located at Shiloh and Dorthy Jean streets. Any and all consideration would be appreciated. B Don Hornsby 104 Florone Fayetteville, AR 72701 Le\-- Dm ars. 6611 " J .Y ••LYI Oa WINN CM • • •Y• • II OW 0 J W1 MMMMMM • W..•LL O• rt.•w M1•• •CC WPC ur wou D • Sec. 7-1E-30 LSD ...••.Newsore Apartne?ts "SW corner of Shiloh s Dorothy Zoned R-2 Jeanne 1 1'"k 72 nits 5.C. Acres PC. E-22-92 it G •••.b • r Sec. 7-16-30 LSD Newsome Apartments SW corner of Shiloh & Dorothy Zoned R-2 Jeanne 72 Units 5.01 Acres PC. 6-22-92 • 1NE CITY OF FAYETTElMLLE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TOs Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM. City Engineer SUBJECT: Large Scale Development Newsome Apartments, Owner - Don Newsome Shiloh Drive and Dorothy Jeanne Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential DATE: June 17, 1992 This is a Large Scale Development submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of the owner, Don Newsome. The development consists of 6 apartment buildings (72 units) on 5.0 acres. There were no significant comments from any of the utilities at the Plat Review Meeting. There was some concerns raised about the increase in traffic that would be caused by this development, particularly at the intersection of Wedington and Shiloh Drive. It was noted by Northwest Engineers that there probably be a connection from Dorothy Jeanne to the west by the end of the summer. The discussion at the Subdivision Committee centered around the issue of increased traffic due to the proposed development. There were a number of area residents in attendance and they expressed their concern about the development in general and the traffic situation in particular. The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the LSD to the full Planning Commission noting the existing zoning which allowed the development. It was also noted that the City has asked the Highway Department to look at the intersection of Shiloh Drive and Wedington Drive again to determine if a traffic signal was warranted under existing traffic conditions. It is the recommendation of the Staff that the Large Scale Development be approved subject to: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments, 2. Approval of a grading plan, and detailed plans for water, sewer, and drainage, 3. Payment of Parks Fees, and 4. Construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances. • • Plat Review June 4, 1992 Page 3 CONNIE EDMONSTON - PARKS DEPARTMENT Ms. Edmonton stated the greenspace requirement would be .43 acres or for money in lieu of land would be $3, 825. She explained the matter would be brought before the June 15 Parks Board meeting. MICKEY JACKSON - FIRE DEPARTMENT Mr. Jackson stated the 6 -inch water line needed to be extended closer to the cul-de- sac. He also asked if there was a problem with the north -south street being a dead end street. RANDY ALLEN - STREET DEPARTMENT Mr. Allen stated he did not have any concerns except possible drainage problems. DON BUNN - CITY ENGINEER Mr. Bunn explained that probably the Planning Commission would not require improvements to Old Missouri Road but because of the drainage problems, they would require drainage improvements along Old Missouri Road. He further explained it would have to go to the south to Stearns Street and discharge into the large culvert on Old Missouri Road, south of Stearns He noted they could not allow run-off to cross Old Missouri Road. GE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NEWSOME APARTMENTS DON NEWSOME - SW CORNER OF SHILOH & DOROTHY JEANNE The next item for review was a Large Scale Development for the Newsome Apartments, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Don Newsome, for property located at the southwest corner of Shiloh and Dorothy Jeanne. The property consists of 5.01 acres with 72 units proposed and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. RICK EVANS - ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS Mr. Evans stated there was an existing line on Shiloh Drive and in order to serve the property they would need a 25 -foot easement along the south property line. He also noted he would need some easements between the buildings once the developer knew where he wanted the meters located. They agreed to discuss the matter later. DALE CHEATHAM - SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE Mr. Cheatham requested the same 25 -foot easement requested by Rick Evans. He stated there was a cable along Shiloh. • L. O. FERGUSON - WARNER CABLE Mr. Ferguson stated they had cable in the area. He noted they would need a crossing for the driveway. Plat Review June 4, 1992 Page 4 JUDY WILLIAMS - SWEPCO Ms. Williams stated they had an existing overhead line on Dorothy Jeanne Street. She stated they would need an easement between Buildings A and B. She also noted she would need 4 -inch conduit. RANDY ALLEN - STREET DEPARTMENT Mr. Allen stated he had no comments regarding this plat. MICKEY JACKSON - FIRE DEPARTMENT Mr. Jackson stated everything looked good except the hydrants needed to be moved from behind the parking places. Mr. Gray noted they would probably also relocate the dumpster pads. CONNIE EDMONSTON - PARKS DEPARTMENT Ms. Edmonston stated the greenspace required would be 1.44 acres or the money in lieu of land would be $12,950. •PERRY FRANKLIN - TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT Mr. Franklin asked if there was not a link from Dorothy Jean to Woodridge Subdivision to the west. Mr. Gray stated Anne Street would tie through probably by the end of summer. Mr. Franklin explained he was concerned about the added traffic to an intersection on which he was already getting complaints. He stated he was hopeful there would be a traffic signal at Shiloh and Highway 16 in the near future. He noted the intersection was on a list of things he was asking the Highway Department to look at for possible traffic signals. Mr. Gray stated it would be nice of Mr. Sterling (a property owner to the north) would develop his property and Salem could run north to Mt. Comfort. ALT LITTLE - PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ms Little stated sidewalks were required along Shiloh Drive. She asked they contact the sign department on the location of the signage. She also asked if they had any landscaping plans. She noted the City Horticulturist would be happy to work with the applicant. JUDY WILLIAMS - SWEPCO Ms. Williams stated she had forgotten to ask far an easement at the end of Dorothy Jean. • • • • • Plat Review June 4, 1992 Page 5 PERRY FRANKLIN - TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT • Mr. Franklin stated if they planned on doing landscaping they needed to allow for sight distance. DON BUNN - CITY ENGINEER Mr Bunn noted they did have excess parking spaces but it was the applicant's choice. He stated they needed to be sure the parking, curbs, ramps, sidewalks, etc conformed to ADA. Mr. Bunn also reminded the developer that general utility easements needed to be executed on a separate document and dedicated to the city for all public utilities and the cable company. PRELIMINARY PLAT - WALNUT VIEW ESTATES R -CON, INC. - SALEM RD., N OF WEDINGTON The last item to be reviewed was a Preliminary Plat for Walnut View Estates, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of R -Con, Inc. , for property located on both the east and west side of Salem Road, north of Wedington Road. The property contains 30 acres with 81 lots proposed, in R-1, Low Density Residential. It was noted there was no one present from R -Con, Inc. Harry Gray agreed to represent the applicant since the preliminary plat of this subdivision had originally been drawn by his company. RICK EVANS - ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS Mr. Evans noted he would need 4 -inch crossings between lots 1 and 2 to lot 47 and 80 and also between lots 20 and 21 going to 65 and 66. He stated there was an off- site easement on the north. DALE CHEATHAM - SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE Mr. Cheatham asked for the same crossings requested by Mr. Evans. L. O. FERGUSON - WARNER CABLE Mr. Ferguson stated he also would need the same crossings. FLOYD CANTRELL - OZARK ELECTRIC Mr. Cantrell stated he also would need the same crossings requested by the other utilities plus one between lots 31 and 32. CONNIE EDMONSTON - PARKS DEPARTMENT • Ms. Edmonston explained Mr. Davis had dedicated 9 acres for a public park and she was not certain whether all 81 lots would be covered by that dedication; that she MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 11, 1992 at 10:30 a.m., in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: JIM Jana Lynn Britton, Jerry Allred, and Tom Suchecki Syd Norbash, Harry Gray, and Sharon Langley ARY PLAT - RIDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION & RICK ROBLEE - E OF OLD MISSOURI S OF ZION Mr. Allred noted irst item was a preliminary plat for Ridgewood Subdivision requested by Jim Phillip, • d Rick Roblee for property located east of Old Missouri Road, south of Zion Road. He •.lained the plat had been temporarily tabled upon the request of the developers. In response to a question from a member of the a .. - • ce, plat had been tabled because the subdivision wou approval of the subdivision. She stated the plat would come Committee at their next meeting. Ms. Langley explained the uire rezoning prior to re the Subdivision LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NEWSOME APARTMENTS DON NEWSOME - SW CORNER OF SHILOH & DOROTHY JEANNE The next item was a request for a large scale development for Newsome Apartments, located on the southwest corner of Shiloh and Dorothy Jeanne, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Don Newsome. The property consists of 5.01 acres with 72 units proposed and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. A number of people in the audience noted they were present due to concerns regarding this large scale development. They pointed out there was a traffic problem in the area already. Mr. Allred explained the city had attempted to get permission from the State to install signals in the area but to date had not received such authorization. The residents pointed out there was only one entrance/exit from the area and they believed an apartment complex would greatly add to their problem. They stated there were often wrecks at the intersection. Ms. Langley stated the City Engineer had requested traffic counts for the subject intersection. She explained the City had to receive permission from the State of Arkansas prior to installing traffic lights on highways. She further stated the State of Arkansas had determined the traffic count was not high enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. The residents suggested another entrance/exit to the area • • Subdivision Committee • June 11, 1992 Page 2 Mr. Allred and Mr. Gray noted that, once the subdivision developed to the west, Anne Street would be open to this area Mr. Gray stated he believed Anne Street would be open by the end of the summer. Mr. Allred also pointed out that Salem Road would, at some point in time, be open to Mt. Comfort. He agreed with the residents that traffic was a problem in their area. He noted that area was experiencing the most rapid growth in the city. Another resident stated they had been assured by the Planning Commission that the area between the motel and their homes would be developed as single family homes. She stated they did not want an apartment building there. Mr. Gray explained the R-2 zoning was a buffer between Wilson Inn and Giles Addition. He stated Giles Addition was also zoned R-2. • • Ms. Britton noted that the Wilson Inn wet zoned Commercial and R-2 zoning was considered a buffer between commercial and residential. Another resident pointed out that one of the exits to the apartment complex was directly across from a driveway which would be hazardous. The subcommittee discussed the location of the driveway with Mr. Gray and it was determined it would be better to move the driveway. One of the residents stated she had not received notification of the meeting. Ms. Langley stated only those owning property adjacent to the proposed apartment. At the request of members of the audience, Ms. Langley noted the people receiving notification were: BMP Development, Wilson Inn, Dennis Edsin, Faye M. Smith, Charles R. Smith, Ruth K. Hollowell, and James R. George. She noted the receipts from the post office showed notification was mailed on Monday, June 8. Ms. Britton asked if there would be any type of buffer between the apartment and the residences to the north. Mr. Newsome stated he had a landscape plan designed and was planning on extensive landscaping. He further stated he wanted to keep the apartments back from Dorothy Jean and further away from the single family homes and closer to the motel. He pointed out he bad the parking lot and garages as a further buffer. He also stated he would do any other landscaping the committee recommended. The residents again expressed concern regarding an apartment complex in their neighborhood. Ms. Britton and Mr. Allred explained the property was zoned R-2, proper zoning for an apartment complex. Mr. Gray also pointed out that Mr. Newsome was willing to pay his fair share of the cost of a traffic signal once the State had authorized the installation. Subdivision Committee June 11, 1992 Page 3 Ms. Britton noted that, with the additional residents, it should increase the traffic count enough to have the State authorize a traffic signal. The residents complained the property values of their homes would go down with the construction of an apartment complex. They further stated they were fearful someone would be killed at the intersection due to heavy traffic. Mr. Allred again explained the property was already zoned R-2 which allowed an apartment complex. He also noted that most of Giles Addition was also zoned R-2. Ms. Langley stated staff was looking for the rezoning file. She explained the property had been rezoned to R-2 probably in 1979 or 1980. The Commission temporarily tabled the large scale development for Newsome Apartments to allow staff time to review the file. ELIMINARY PLAT - WALNUT VIEW ESTATES INC. - SALEM RD. N OF WEDINGTON The next 1 Gray on be Wedtngton. The is zoned R-1. was a preliminary plat for Walnut View Estates presented by Harry of R'Con, Inc. for property located on Salem Road north of erty consists of 30 acres with 80 proposed lots. The property In response to a question • .. Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray stated Salem Road would be extended thru the subject d=--lapment. He stated the area marked "Future Development" had the same owner t there were no plans at the present time for development. Mr. Gray noted that at plat review it had b- : • requested they provide a right-of- way access to the west which had been done. ' - urther stated they had made all changes requested at the plat review meeting. Ms. Britton stated it was becoming imperative that there b road to the north for this area to alleviate some of the traffic problems. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NEWSOME APARTMENTS Mr. Allred stated they would once again open discussion an the Large Scale Development for Newsome Apartments. Ms. Langley, after reviewing files, stated Mr. Wimberly, the owner of Wilson Inn, had mentioned a 250 foot buffer strip from the north of the motel property to remain R-2 zoning. • • • • • • • Subdivision Committee June 11, 1992 Page 4 One of the area residents stated apartments housing college students was not a buffer zone. She stated she considered single family homes as a buffer zone. Mr. Allred again informed the residents that the area was zoned R-2 which allowed apartment complexes. He explained the density of R-2 zoning (24 units per acre) and the density allowed in R-1 zoning. Mr. Gray noted the density was approximately 14 to 15 units per acre. Mr. Allred stated the permitted density for this apartment would be 120 apartments instead of the 72 proposed. Mr. Suchecki noted it appeared Mr. Newsome was sympathetic to the area residents since he was providing the landscaping and attempting to keep the apartments away from the single family homes. He further noted there was nothing the City could do regarding the traffic until the State allowed the City to install a traffic signal. The residents asked what their rights were. Ms. Langley suggested the residents contact the State regarding a traffic signal. The residents stated they had contacted the State. Ms. Britton suggested contacting their representative on the State Highway Commission and their senators and representatives. Mr. Norbash stated the City Traffic Superintendent did have the subject intersection listed as a critical intersection for signaling He further noted that with the additional traffic count after the apartment was constructed would help in getting a traffic light. Mr. Allred requested that Mr. Perry Franklin write a report to the Planning Commission projecting a time -frame on signalization of the area. He informed those present that this item would come before the Planning Commission on June 22. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to recommend approve the large scale development subject to staff comments and recommendations and movement of the driveway. Ms. Britton stated she was concerned about the traffic generated by this development but would second the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. NORTHWEST ENGINEERS . INC. 524 41 SYCAMORE 57 • P0. BCX ,173 • PAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • 150.) 443-4535 June Sr 1992 City Planning Commission City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Large Scale Development Plan Bo Newsom Apartments Dear Commissioners: Submitted herewith is the LSD for a 72 unit apartment project to be constructed on a 5.0 acre tract located South of Dorothy Jean Street and West of Shiloh Drive. The prop- erty is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential. Storm water from the project will be carried an site ar.d d ischarge into the existing ditch on the West side of Shiloh D rive. A detailed grading and drainage plan is being pre- pared and will be submitted to the City Engineering Depart- ment for review and approval. We anticipate that the major concern of the Commission and possibly area residents will be traffic and the impact of this development on traffic. Many feel that there is a current need for traffic sig- nalizaticn at the Shiloh Drive - Wedington Drive intersec- tion. The State Highway Department disagrees; the traffic count is not high enough to allow a traffic signal. Perhaps this development will increase the traffic to a paint where the State will allow sigr.alization. The City Traffic Depart- ment is actively pursuing this issue with the State and has budgeted for the installation of 10 traffic signals within the City as part of the 5 -year Capital Improvement Program. Construction will begin soon on the third phase of Woodfield Addition la.k.a. Wedington Heights Addition). With construction of the third phase Anne Street will be construc- t ed in to the Giles Addition. Traffic can then flow from Shiloh Drive to Salerr. Road thru these subdivisions. This may not relieve any traffic congestion as many believe that the Salem Road - Wedington Drive intersection also needs sigr.al- ization. This connection is extremely desirable for access o f emergency vehicles. • • • • • Planning consultants predicted that the City would experience increased growth on the West side of the City along the by-pass and this prediction has proven to be correct. We expect to see this growth continue. We need some means of pressuring the State Highway Department for highway and signalization improvements. Thank you for consideration of this plan. Sincerely, HGG/kmd YETTE\1 LLE q CITY OF FAYlrIvkII ARKANSAS )EPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Alett Little, Planning Management Director FROM: Perry Franklin, Traffic Division Superintendent DATE: June 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Traffic signal request at Shiloh Drive & Hwy 16 West I have requested the Arkansas Highway Department to evaluate several intersections for new traffic signal installations or modifications to existing signals. These studies require several months of traffic count data and a research of accident history to determine if the requested intersections meet MUTCD (Manual Or. Uniform Traffic Control Devices) warrants (copy attached). I spoke with the AHTD last week concerning the Shiloh Dr. and Hwy 16 west intersection. They agreed to let my Division help them gather some of the data. However, this particular intersection has some unique geometrics and will require more than a traffic signal to improve efficiency and safety. The 71 By-pass off ramp will be blocked by Hwy 16 traffic when a signal is installed. The off ramp will probably need to be re-routed to Shiloh Dr. north of the Holiday Express. These are issues which will take some time to resolve. We wall have a better chance to get relief to this area by pursuing the installation of a traffic signal at Salem Rd and Hwy 16 West first. We are going to make some counts and accident studies before we make our request to the AHTD. I want to be sure warrants are met before we request a permit. We are also considering adding the extension of Shiloh Dr. to the north to the 1993 CIP Potential Projects list. This link would give better access to the north for this area and some relief to the Shiloh Dr. & Hwy 16 West intersection. I would be happy to visit with someone representing that neighborhood about what we are planning for the future and the problems we are facing trying to accomplish our goals in a timely manner. PLF\plf attachment • • • • NEWSOME APARTMENTS SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 72 OCCUPIED UNITS OF LOW-RISE APARTMENT DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 6-22-92 • 24 HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER 7-9 AM PK HOUR 4-6 PM PK HOUR EXIT ENTER EXIT AVERAGE WEEKDAY 607 8 33 33 17 24 HOUR. TWO-WAY VOLUME PEAK HOUR ENTER EXIT SATURDAY SUNDAY 563 27 476 27 23 24 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. City of Fayetteville 1 1 3 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 June 1992 The Giles Neighborhood is hereby protesting the addition of a 2 Lbit Aprtmen%Buildingcomplex in our subdivision. The most important problem with the proposed plan is that the traffic which would ensue will be too congested for our area. There are some of us who are concerned about the new element of people who will be introduced to our neighborhood as well. For example, should this housing plan be a development targetting university students, we are concerned about the speed of the traffic engendered by the complex in addition to the excessive noise and litter associated with a group like this. In any event, there will be such an influx of people, that we are also concerned about our property; we want to protect the safety of having our young children playing out in the yards/crossing streets: we want to maintain a secure area for our homes and yards as well. At the very least, we demand that a new traffic light be erected at the intersection of our access road and Wedington Drive, We would appreciate further consider- ation for planning the traffic patterns and ensuring safety of our families too. NAME ADDRESS 2d lAl Y 1��e� •I �— /"t4) 1 1� ^�- i V• \C' fir V%r , . r ... f I /'LC lye . • f x "r read Ji5 c 4s rtLAa. r I. 5 0 Manning Commission February 13, 1989 Page 5 MOTION — - _ ..._.. - Commissioner Ozment moved to recommend approval of^the rezoning petition as submitted, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 9-0-0. pg1ZTI(N f89-5 PUBLIC ' g9onlS WILSON - ALONG V SIDS 01 SHILOH DR.S OF DOHU1'gY JEMINK The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition 889-5 submitted by Kemmons Wilson and repLesented by Ery Wimberly of Northwest Engineers for property located along the west side of Shiloh Drive, south of Dorothy Jeanne Street containing 6.3 acres. The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that the proposal here was to construct a major new hotel on the property together with a proposed new shopping center. He added that the commissioners that were on board last year might back in • recall that a similar request of this nature was came approved throughby he Commission with September as a Large Scale have newhich different proposal primarily with the a 7-1 vote. However, they major change. He advised that it is the staff's shopping center being the hotel with 236 rooms understanding is that theproposalis to construct a 5 story P in center total. Re added that they aren't sure however,the it wouldnature be a retail facility feel e such as the amount of square footage, ear in their report that they added that his staff tried to make it and that construction of thet w hotelalnd that this is basically ilcommercial aral property tax base of the Cicularly related to shopping center will be a but tal boost fohaveesome concernspCity provide new employment, they they.would like traffic and although staff supports the concept of the rezoning, of the a little more time to meet with Mr. Wimberly and representatives (parthe the Wilson rly Company to discuss some of their concerns related to traffic it 8 postponed to allow time for intersection of Shiloh and Highway 16 west). He advised that it is the staff's Commission has the option to recommendation that the decision on this rezoning e P P that, but they do recognize that the planning recommend the rezoning of the property. Commissioner Springborn stated that in his opinion this represents something of a major decision that they are looking at here. He asked Mr. Merrell if there eais ve any prospect for getting the new Land Use Plan to look at before they to make a decision on this. Mr. Merrell stated that the consaltaehichhas is preliminary draft of this document that they expect to receive any day want to not the final draft to go to public hearings, but a working copy and they • propose to the Planning Commission that they have a workshop of the Planning Commission to review it sometime in the month of March for their comments as well rearming Commission bruary 13, 1989 • Page 6 as the staff's comments. He added that he has had some discussions with Mr. Raby related to various interchanges along the Highway 71 Bypass and one thing that he is concerned about is that the City make an effort to reserve land at the four quadrants of these interchanges for major commercial development such as this. He noted that he feels this development conceptually is in line with what the consultants are telling them about the interchange. Commissioner Springborn asked if this proposed development doesn't take place, a C-2 zoning would cover other kinds of commercial enterprise. Mr. Merrell answered, yes. Chairman Jacks stated that there was an article in the newspaper Sunday about the hotel/motel market in this area being so terribly overbuilt at this stage of the game. He added that he isn't sure how that relates to this request except there is something of a question mark about that kind of thing. Commissioner Seiff stated that they need to realize who wrote the article, a competitor. Commissioner Hanna stated that his understanding is that the motel has already been approved so that article in the paper doesn't have any bearing on what they are discussing which is 6 acres for commercial development after the motel is built. He stated that the staff's recommendation is to postpone this for • additional time to look at traffic concerns, access, and the proposed buffer zone. He added that he would hope when they speak of traffic concerns, they are talking about the possibility of putting stop lights at the two intersections on either side of the bypass like there are at the intersection of Highway 62 West plus opening the frontage road to the north. Mr. Merrell stated that those items Commissioner Hanna is referring to are exactly two examples of items they are talking about. He noted that since they are talking about the possibility of a shopping center as well as the hotel now and it obviously will generate additional traffic in that area , it needs to be studied in addition to the other traffic problems in that area. Commissioner Nash stated that it is fine with her to go ahead and postpone it but there is a question that keeps cropping up. She clarified that it is her understanding that when they are dealing with a rezoning, they are not even supposed to ask what is being built, about traffic, if there is an need or anything else. They are strictly supposed to decide if that land is compatible for that particular rezoning. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, that is a good point. He noted that in his formal job in Virginia, the staff and the Planning Commission had a little bit more latitude to look into factors beyond the pure sense of whether the land is suitable for commercial zoning. He stated that he has tried to adapt himself to the zoning ordinance here. The reason that staff has varied from that a little bit is simply the magnitude of this particular develcpment in this case. Commissioner Nash asked if there is anything in the City Code that has the Planning Commission take into consideration the areas in need for a particular industry in making a decision. Mr. Merrell stated that in his opinicn, that is (Planning Commission February 13, 1989 Page 7 addressed only very peripherally if at all in I you will find a municipal zoning ordinance that criteria for both the Commission and ultimately I Directors to consider. Many times ( Fayetteville that appointed commissioners and the elected stated that staff does not have a market study in this hotel would have on the number of rooms in Ii made the assumption that a developer willing to c< that would be involved in this kind of develol project go. Chairman Jacks stated that he has always u responsibility to look at the amount of a pa needed, but not by use. He advised that traffic rezonings are concerned. Ery Wimberly stated that they are here for a re Scale Development Plan. To clarify, they did r Plan for the motel through last fall. Mr. utilize the 15 acres that he owns there and is pla •this property in a useful manner, but they a Development Plan for a shopping center today. Mr. buffer strip which is zoned R-2 to the North betty Addition. Mr. Wimberly stated that he understands that Mr. 1 this longer, but this request was made fourteen lot of time to study it. What is now commercial was a request almost like what they are requestin problems with that intersection which brings the which comes first, the chicken or the egg. anything until it is proven that the demand is th Highway Department needs to work on the traffic i are discussing now is whether the corner shoul development whether as a hotel, shopping center o Mr. Wimberly stated that this is a major intersei of this Planning Commission as well as the Boa locate commercial developments at the inters commercial property at this particular corner is not been developed in the last 14 years. I whole intersection to move the hotel a little shopping center in the future. The demand has to and know that they are going to have the streets Walnut Grove Subdivision or Salem Road (a collect •out back to the east to eventually connect with regulations, as development occurs South Shiloh the North. The residents of Giles Addition need nice if that was opened up today. That should this development which would make them wait until fie Zoning Ordinance. Sometimes establishes that as statutory fie City Council or the Board of is an example) it is something officials need to look at. He hand showing the impacts that City. Sometimes they have to ne in and make the investment Went feels like he can make his tood that they do have a ,lar zone to see if more is always a concern as far as ;oning not to discuss the Large in the Large Scale Development lilson would like to more fully fining on using the remainder of !e not discussing a Large Scale Wilson plans to retain a 250' .en this property and the Giles rrell would like to study on ars ago and the City has had a as rezoned in 1973 and there today in 1974. There are some back to the same question of he Highway Department won't do e. The City along with the that area. However, what they be developed as a commercial whatever. .ion and it has been the policy . of Directors in the past to tions. The limited amount of fie of the reasons that it has would be a better plan for the Lrther north and plan for a fie there, but they need to plan in there. A street from the street) near here was stubbed Dorothy Jeanne. Per City .11 be opened up all the way to tother access and it would be it be a restriction to put onto :hat road is built. Commission 13, 1989 Chairman Jacks advised that this was talked about years ago and as he in all those cases, they were assured that they would have two exits site: one onto Highway 16 West and one onto the Bypass. However, changed and that has changed their viewpoint of it. Mr. Wimberly stated that when the accesses came up in 1974, Hr. Bowen went back and bought another 150' to the West to provide for that access to Highway 16. At that time, the Bypass was a two-lane road with no interchange and everybody thought that would take care of it. In the minutes of that meeting the fact was brought up that there was enough right-of-way there for a four -lane road. Then when the Highway Department decided to go ahead and put in the four lanes and build the overpass, they bought additional right-of-way which wiped out the 150' frntge that hway 16. After that, toogoaback and purchase Bowen had anymorrce landdon to thegWest to provide another was not access. able access. Chairman Jacks agreed that Mr. Wimberly was right, but the fact that at this particular time they can only achieve one access gives them a differentviewpoint on this. He advised that they need to decide if this property is p p Y land although traffic is a concern. Commissioner Allred asked if this hotel is placed farther North, would that gain another ingress/egress to move some of that traffic away from the intersection of Highway 16 & Shiloh Drive going into the hotel. Mr. Wimberly stated that the access will still be by Shiloh Drive, but it will correspondingly move the entrances to the hotel so it will eliminate some of the traffic problem. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this petition. Charlotte Smith of 104 Dorothy Jeanne stated a lot of her neighbors would be here tonight but they thought this would be tabled. She noted that their main concern is that they only have one exit from their subdivision and it is very hazardous. The plan is for this hotel to exit onto Shiloh and Shiloh only has one exit onto Highway 16 so it wouldn't matter if it was moved farther to the North, they still have the problem of trying to get out. Also, there is the traffic coming over the bridge, off of the exit ramp, off of Shiloh Drive from the south with the liquor store plus the other traffic on Highway 16 and they can't look all directions at one time. If Dorothy Jeanne was extended over to Walnut Grove, that would give them another option. Commissioner Cleghorn asked Mrs. Smith if she felt that most of the residents in that area have no objection to the rezoning and what they are going to do there. There primary objection is the traffic situation. Mrs. Smith answered, yes. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Hanna stated that when this came up the last time concerning the remembers from this that has mission 1989 • s Development for the hotel on that triangular -shaped piece of fe stated that he felt at that time and he still feels that the cation was terrible there. He noted that he does think that they neea to plan to have a traffic light at either end of that overpass and possibly put the access road coming into Shiloh Drive rather than directly into Highway 16. He added that he thinks that Shiloh needs to be opened up, but he knows the development has to be done. In view of the planning session that they had with Mr. Raby, the Planning Consultant, at the Continuing Education Center last year, the fact that Fayetteville is going to grow in that direction, the fact that they are going to reposition the hotel rather than try to put it on the triangular - shaped piece to be able to use the property better, he doesn't have anymore objections to it. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend the approval of the rezoning petition as requested, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn commented that his position, with all due respect to the history of this, they are looking at a current situation and part of that situation is the need for further study of the traffic. He would also like to •see all the possible input they can get from the new Land Use PLan. He added that he has some reservation as to whether they need additional C-2 zoning out there. Commissioner Seiff stated that he has concern from an economic viewpoint. He stated that he feels that they should not stand in the way of the project and they need to get the ball rolling and not worry about which comes first. They should start the progress and look for that additional tax base that the City will get from it and have the City move with traffic lights and Shiloh Drive when the time comes. Commissioner Klingaman commented that he thinks they need additional C-2 zoning in that part of town. With all of the R-1 zoning beyond that and such a small service area, people are going to be reluctant perhaps to move into that community without commercial support. More commercial support might make that particular part of the community more viable as a housing area. He noted that he agrees that the traffic situation needs some addressing. The motion to recommend approval passed 8-1-0 with Springborn voting "no". Chairman Jacks stated that he feels that the developer with that traffic situation won't go too far with this project until that traffic situation is straightened out anyhow. tftFffr' a The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of a Conditional Use request in an Iw�G :W..W". 1 .) .-wY-Af ?'wr .r/fi flK° Cil,'^ v.+L ^I ✓^'• uy" .>, en,Iv.aprlrpY ..r ,^v.. 1!\i 'R :nk P..I,,,i:,T n.... a... .'1 ....Y. �,I.': p.,,.;. .av,rt"r aY1T,as:....x' " :I, .rT IA.w„+.00T` rn':- r.' 'cwr ...r .•. .r• :I .. `4-.T,} .C. ' �( f.a e} yr Y,, . . r., r'•J x f. w- n. ,., .'. -. r. 3'� A' .. MIIT' ., 'rt— ..:&' ,ISY .. a9:$`?. ..aVSI I 'f M"- +.,.c.. .•ro-v. '.. Yi q,. '+••'. r.au.. ..w. ,^,. - wv yr L .♦. n i 4 v Y A'. r5^ r �a.,. •..rC S a .„:. h... l p.� o � '. -, l.. n.. 'Y. .zll.o$.•V, -2-. :J .1.M•14'I, %hMv,Y.Y {♦, aar" 4: •y. 4 {. .. 1 r. v .. ., ., , 'r r x e Y f'd'. .. .r- :, r .k♦ybry. ey.. p _ r A .._ ,.. V} • e r. Mi '. .X': TS f^'N A. .. Y • y. •. .I, , , r. r 1 l'Y T' ) ,i. nA ♦ r £ /p�•�y,.�•n�y .. i. ltli• '�YY 1•S i. 4.' , ,.. r.' ` ♦ Y - S / .. r a. .. a h - u} . . -. 'j{�I r ur n /t .. pY^. yf. £ry ". • -p . Avf'f Sv. A'\rv..L'Y:. ., , ., .. r i. ., ,. n.,. Ya. I•.r L i S ♦ IKrt Y r 4 i 5.1 , l 1. a - 'r r. [�Y ( Y. ♦ 4 =Iy. r n V n, l {. ., , 'l. 1 . a _ .n !. .r\ f• e '� -. 1 r e ,- '. \ .. .. l'N •-t�' . , ,. �J : 4 •X'i� ...24 .:. ,ik': '' 4..,. +SE!iG Ta. 'S • : "R,Y. , .�1 f. r , 1. .4 •.a Y' , 1.: r .". , r , 1 v ♦ +• / e ,-1 S ( v y „Y , w e : rL v A 1 ♦ I .. ..o ".: '. e A F b ..v: rt .L-. . v - 'G • 4 v r .i' - L - a , . a • /1 r i .. I , :. \' i' ♦ Y ) •il♦ ✓��('.' Te r Y1M1" .. 1 .. 'fv _ .. r .. -.: .. Y I\ ry .v r • .. ' .' � Y .. n • r • r' ...j ii ,. s.?51 Y .. ... la'. a-.' ♦ .@ 1 I r / '. r w .. -. ,. a v '.. .r / 4 .' ♦ v a i Y I .. f vl'. 1 '�. [ .. I, '. r , / .. ' , - ( , I • .' J, !n"i : : LI .. - 4 • ,.. 1 •. ! a ,. ':. .. a r. • r I. .I r f .'P- . r.. 1 ♦. v n o "1 fI 't ) ,•I' r'fi([• ,Y5. 'i -.M' ... L .v - :,.' : v r ..vV ._, / rt. I. v:..'.rti. .. :•. -I L A: .n ,\ vhl 4 .v j. t.£Y L _ K f♦ I,Yof e' - - - L F :• x.. 1 5 , yrf SY ` rL {r4 iy> e" r, N ,a v' ib } L as r 4• YQ w r r' "K •f{ t. Y F- -•: • r vvtt4,/' I: ya •'1'. . ♦ I 4 T, Ii., • e. I r ! b : •4„ \ f, f 4T tA[ F P ,oY 41 }w ry • Iry y54 9 • E Y �° I d' ore }}A X.. 4 k YT ✓. 4 Y. mTj 4 fi t± -. '-'-I-,. )yfn r" T� `''r 5,- 1 ♦1 , r L 4 I~ 1 I „. 'iH. . x 1k'.. . ipl.x IK. v. ♦ r 1, Y. Y<. Syr c fNr41: �`4"1 • IV A..YL I ••IY.x. ,M1 r X } I F f �R ;- pp �R" 4 'Ilia/ r. t x f l i S5 0 2, i0o T .V. ,81,' STATISTICS Typo AHui lding - 6-�1 er. Untt8, -6-2 Br. Units, Office Type B Building - 2-3 Sr. -Units •- Total Units - 72 i nits and O lace . Parking Required - 1.5 5a Ces/Unit IM 48 Spaces -I 'Parking Provided - 236 'paces P �t ` qt UV NIT MIX: - BR. 5{.6 S.F. b - 2 BR . 6 718 S . F. 30 - 3 Hit. ! 966 S.r. 30 - 3 BR. $ I124 S.#'. Units Total -(70,164 S.F. Total Plue 1.056 8.F. Office) t -C - v - • ., • & .ti b TIpIDRS�R1PTION I A. Jpart _of tbi8WU4 of the 1J4 and,' a part of the SS1J4 of ths. 1t4: , a *, tit 7, ►nshiP 16 North, Range 30 west in *h4n4toa 'Ce to, ilrk t eaIof, I tS" :J,L' teriy lea rY ibnd. as 1o11+ : R4giiMflg-atn existing in pin at the NW car, r of sa44y, 14 of thi-> 1/4 and rtznninq hapcer S 4"s. ,7 ' - 6X3 94 fefl;. : $eet=right of -„way of Shiloh fl Dtr - 8 48#4O1 * with said rjght+of-away 171.2 feet; th4n 8 #2 1' 30 ff :.0 ,txh nid r'igh't-ot_:wap 5.70 feet: 01 83 s?' es" W 846.44 'feet, thente N , 0 29'12' N 250.0 test to ' f North- line Of SAid 8R1 J 4 of the fll4j theme $ 99►n38* 3`i}" 1249.03 feet to the point of begins inq l contain- ing 5.01 acres,.moze or lee's. r i - ° .. 86 iB+ewo . I ' � 2104: Greenbriar Dr. ' M - .. - - Lawrsiitca, *9 56047- p KQ wLAA4 w S— 2 N r u • V `u I,[{y''�r .{ ♦ Y i • P.a\.. (ry 'A4'.' a :t .,I4, C Tl"' ,1. /-I I Y ''' a�t n a IR.f^ •"1 . '� .m% x ,I' -[ •.r I �" ' b . _ .Y' _ _ . - . . 1. -. .. ,. - _ r - 4• - . . - . - . , rl it it J�i'Ef2GE-> eL. c-1JG ½ 5w.41i ,14z' t -wf rtr UNr~ • _. _--ail- -- C1+E'r�t.•! r(4 U 1•-1 L% I -r.Y,..w-u.•4••,Y•_ i!7 \ 3 l ,I-• m _off mow puC "-4A•'i�h[ALL. ❑ CUfZe, 14t.E[T o wart ,.. MA 4b 40L -S uTt u 1Y FSI- ►.}ytn CT A t . - I - . - •.i &Y!LoLeE. . .. 0 . (V .--- K:C2A1t - / (n♦, I / Ir - /Ji �_ i �� i t I I Z / 6 15 1 t D1 �i W '" &44 t . . - •! . ., r 1 _- // / �/ / r ',K • I ♦.)t♦s • . ¢ .,I.r_r.ww i —.Tr+.+MwM_IrtAwil_Yw'r. �. .r I // / , I t� VV /' t t i h .. •. i.. r- .r i. n • a • '♦� •�4Y'nwK•^\'^M.*i♦u_" "aA .,I - t ' < I__ 1 f• _ aa. V,A,.ry ,� �: r / a •1 y �K•' 'T i ,, tv _ - & 1 J<7C/f 44.T 11 r:, iI ,. t v 3 7,, t 1 i 1/4 r.' 1 'Z• wY. A I I /, _11/ I / tr i. .�' .-... './,`;4 ' // 1. x• _/ I iAl I / W.' /i, It _t 1 r II t -- __ I r / / t - yi a t a J ' 1 i ' I ____ - I • . . •, r ff: I I -�/ a I ." •iM V a. 1 rr I I i •, 1 3 1: L. r f g t• t r f' i • \ r. 1 r , e Y ♦-' t •� Y.^ 1 I / . /) 1 n' 4 / r o ` 4/ 4 . J ,, • \ �, • f, 'A 3 . � �+N5.'�w..�i. {.�•+wM1_�dw .r / ♦ -/ ` 2 / / ++v ' Yn y� •i I , „• • _ A� - I I ,;'.-Et��►J IS X17 ir.4 �T Y_ j ••• I'.. ,, i •, :<♦i v: +1 ♦. v•. �. f•✓; .. K , J A' w -J ♦i v / y, / - „ a a �I�Y n r' 4 ry.\+r..5."v.._,•L..4Y./ IYvY♦•rril•.-•v 4a,1 / �r x' ....Ia.Y . '. - . I . . - .+ / / 2 a ' (Y V - / t `a -'wn' .`4Ya u•wlWl' ,✓Y' poi"" `r"'• --.,'.-.u.,. .."j 1I• -.•/f .l• 1... „ 1 • / 1 tt • '♦ , /IaYV ' .1♦/NYM. • ✓..Mr'-r♦1•K� r) �' '..; ; e.:.v,.'w..r...w1 ..w•++.J• / / ,�" +r FhP .: 4. _ .l IW'I--_YI WMw .•, /� .Yu4W i rLA6JA y `� Y I / 4 / J IY. \ --y � 1'.y, n� I Ta_•va-M • t i t / / W / t - is / ' / KK•. ,6 '+r t ...,41j m+1 __ w+i° '"" M r . �' s • ,' r .._ WI ,,. , .. ., / Y Ywr • a k'.1y p _ Y i, YW' �/ r....ru6� K4. 4 .P.Y♦:r' 14L �. ,W MI{Yd.r U AJ r.. I � � L.Y • 1 J r • }- f t� l 1 1 Y n4Yr4" 41 f .. • t Y x I .. ., • . , ♦ : • ! �- Y�'�,', /t. ,^rW4_Mw,.. 'M•'ypKOli+iy�iN°F- .W.-YWY eon a.•...K.,.:W Yvi+rYA: rf...>..»m•.I�My..rr�i.p.-.♦awr�+lw♦n..._,,...,...r ,.i - ....•r-. 3 t ♦ v r. YIMhY ••ww e.+rw •.i NMM'.u.fr MrY+_rM �. .1 y4S M 1`44' Y. M✓ •v .N•. �( F.V•-.•. tr Pre Yl» �n M i I / / / V / • ,; • . i Y • r v i I -f ,�✓ b 1 1 1 • ♦ 1 i t It, -1 f - •{ R A `. ,. ,, .4/.. S "'�• r 1.. 1 I.•.a • r F� 1 • • 1 _ r / / , (;: 1_ 'v - • I- J.l .,.. .,. '♦ "4•_IO^oF^lJK4YYiu1� r : - .r'. „ _ 'r 4 , vm.. d'J M. 1.1 r•v . -vY{. xvy� r. r •r, / t j v 1 / r a - R1 Y �/� q :'�. r1:.4 F f r ,.+p .+! ,•, Iff. f{S �rY {YI♦ ��.•.d (,(`A`){' / tr 1 1 / / r / l j. n ( , -.; •rri .. t i. , ',r' ,;, ,pig- t.. , - .. i' / / $_ / Y i. / �Y,I eir / ^ '. t. / I / 5 ' „r; .i-y,' ♦ j/I 1r w- cw `�Y .. 1 I' r.. /JIIj` .:r` i i r♦ • il• ' i '4. :'' / / -,M i _ 5,. !'I`Y.'iP\ _ , Y ... v. j/ .r / I"/// yr :r♦' - J Y' A n V, •I :'l.. / j // / .' �tl 'r I mo' trs nni" FIB t*� C.e..c(, t ^• +L... 'I, / f / �• Y' -"N K wr.•Y..r . 1 I / / 1 / l 1/ / l j A J C 1 / / ya LCJI 4 / / / / y I / / 4L • / / ♦ / , r ^'T �1. :Y. • %. ! ...: Pi v' ♦•P� r•1I_V:r¢A .,'�.. ., ,fi-'Y/lv yY;o ',:.IIY, «�.. a.! j /' 4 I \\ Y '� / i+n ...a. .. J. y ,.a.•.,i._� .-. _.�•s. H \r 1 2 I / / /� / f I •. j t c I b,.Y , r bi i ♦ .,.• n ,n •. +•. �MI:.n I77 r I ♦ I -•-I -'_ -1 ..�._.r- I ' � J f j 1 JI�Tjj � `p�` yt ,�Mj 11 Y � • � f L,r r - ,t y "� 1 a� ', ♦' 5 II a / ' / ! r t/ • f t ! • _ !.! ' } + Tom""'"'H �ii s� l rWM 1 1I n l 1 1 , / i '. %� ,A, t'��, I I• i •s oTlu l A l I i _ K..-.. '< _ tr,•Y`Y'�. 4 v' of .IY�R .Vry. .? — I•n _ 4 .,l' V �I •, y {\ Y y! Sv �F IM v P, 1 1 ilf l,i 1 r r• -TT ^^TT v I ,• r , Y `a�EMf 1 Y• • / / i.. .wv. .... .4y. W.. n / / / i / Ijs I / '< , ♦a.rf MR+ vY Y• a^mY / -. a•• -1+•_n ii !, \� 1 i `.� -.- r.Yvr•yYw�wvrY•"w•Mrhs•v�.YwYP •.-.+Y.-•_-+r r.. a vT�• ••MYrY,vsWr .,, "�yby"—yl� I�Iw 1� 1-.rY_..r .yv-n w ..M}. wl,ai b 4av va a • �r-.. wa».v�r. .• nay__ -� __I_ - n.._.- -w. ...-.-�. -.. .. --.« ._. -v.. .+L .+.. ..+Y. - W ` W »(N• •Y1. 4 •.efw♦,r �".M .. +4.avr ._ J, .. ^ r v.v_-•.-I.v,rv•.at If x...4,.,1-rn,a..- , I_....1... .♦ _ (F ; .wnn.wr.+e. ._/ - •. 1' • ».•Lf•1..wr 'n - .... ... .r .••. .. rry �, `P'-ry"I - IW '•�_ } raT -, ._a 1-,- { 1:, . �.V_ ^. III':Yu .. .,.•w�.+�Ma.r ... v .AAI „-. .. I .s_.. „s.••... w �M Y11�.v rY .1•• " �rY M ✓ •,.! Ar ' ...w ./•. .'"FY M� wN•v rr ,ti".- .•-• vA4d MYVYrvY.v,- .br�«�♦.' Y,�._Y♦ ,�a•~a- MF.. •.._. v.,•.r.r ��Y 1i' , • ,,, Y► ,..YII /I M ✓, .«4".'4°"r. ._ .., I_. ,_ -. x- - ,Y.«M w...r _ - e_•� fM"�!� 'R • • O 4 't .ft ili}, ./ e •.x...a.••.• ..•+r.1•MI.IY•YWv- 'r wll" :a..w--y'}vr'+'. _., ,♦ ._I `�J Y J ,'?•N•.I+..w _•raa,a...a..•1•.+ .•-...•. M. 4� � �,a� 1 . - .Y >- ,.h.sr♦a- .« ...' 'a, - - '`a t 1 ,r� n♦r i, ��J��}/� <.N ' y /.A/ .. ) I j Y L O " - A f 51 h }C ',f �4 1 1 ;.Z "' ) 10 V/ fIj i r ^• \ - I rr ri i t I i C. 4' 1't. 4 t ! v NJ I y' ,xl� \ ��{ /yy-�� ,{j �� Jy `♦w�i/ ]jPlTi{ �yy1M� �.� : f. � yl t ts_ -" 1 ! , A /- ✓/ L /I v__.• -- -- T_...r�Arwl•y.._nr1••Wyy�.•.....4� aYr111,,,Y,.•v --_wr,_...{. }. A.YMwY.I..YLrTKvy". a._-....-•..._•....v-...+_v + �,v♦+Fnr ♦ a ,. - 1 __________ •t . - . - . - sa_,...r ,r_a�� ...-..a-..-.. �.n-�.. ,.--m- _ ..,.1. r -} _. r,. v... -,_r._.• ,•iYlu_ __ _ r •..- .T_•r�•_._ roof•.•M�r..-M1-_i �,-.rr...,.4ATln rv-,.-....oI v-1,_ _ rMY 1 -••.. ._-of"_ -r� _,.-Y.M♦••,!-W 4of•-._-'•1. -,._i •M. V.T._+.. VYf. n,._ .v.of4r. ..v-. r,Ppl•fynr"M..n_'.f. b._. _ ,_--- •y.n ..n f�„-.•4•..Y_. 1J . ..... •n. .i+•r-' .,Vn-..+•w..rvl.�.r,nlrw T+♦._ -w._. .♦_r/Y•a-,..«�� ,•-•^.1••wr.f.-..rtMr..--,n.v.,-r....--.•..♦•„•re 1 - �•'••11.1MMvw. w. �+.l..T.v_••..a.,. -r+.. •. • J�J I - P - 'J%,1NNNr trD(,,iJQ CYT_Al . MF' b �tK_C lAtt.4T . - ,. — \. - ., • .. - . . . - . .. -.. . . . . . . - . . . . . - • - - n- -- -. . . :- . - - - - - - . . . - - - - - — - - - - -. - - - - - . - - - — 1 _ __ rtntA2MAL &,: ASOT5 ` Oil UT1 to ' -o//it. RS6o'ffAr1 Wine ltJbIQ tbuALw D11 U T-' COtaPt. 4 t e S I kWO Qb . 1 GUt�1l7UrrS it bc ikcv UbCi7 hE,, 1 Qot Rtt . i • I RU- 11 KI t2•ICL,At44D H OU_Owew r CN4A�L IZ . 4 O-4tP.LCflt A.. K. A FYa "M 5M i TN a A f RECEIVED JUL o I Mt u, ,, 0 cn ✓ Iii 0 Z S. (I) CMG W W 0 Z N A W Y W Q V) U) C1 • - 0 :. --3..--H- .: flU). •,.. : ; V) p w^ • Z4oi3 Y•• V r La w. t► rl N _ th X m Q 8 U) 0 V `l 4 , --.I d 1 ♦ , Y I - - - - -. - - - - - - - - -. - - T \'1c_(+-4t1't'i&.P. - I•.t- - - - - -, - - . - - -- • - - •-. - - - - - r r I s .- 5,.LL�a"( i 5 . Y .. • , I .r a,'�I'YfY rNP 1.'rh `•. tl ♦ - s y, ♦ r Y / . - - - -- -. - - -- -•.-. -- - - -- :-- -- -- : ). - : -, - ... 5 A f .4 a • - w r. d f M. 1 a: .r i ;. r at ..` .r n, 'r llr : YY r.*'.1 W . 1 r^r V, r s)'r r^-`i ':r• \ a "" rr .Y. �: y r i'k .. ' ^ Y ,- ✓ v. 1 .v ♦ e`r • i 1 '4r ♦ .S Y "PW if r.r, fix.. ♦ 0 r. ,5 .. ? r!' '.- n .' .. r [ r. r- .: a .. A. A a .♦r} .' :. 'r rr .3. .. f -•. a.. .}f. -. :.. .. y .. ♦ ... .. : .. -, v .. .. ... • L, r r ..., ...r. .. Y.i. .. a .,. t .. i .rJ ♦.1., ,.v -. .-- .< -' i i .. 9' ..'. % n., Y. \: .i♦ !. wa,+i i i`H .s r R. Y SY v ..-.'... .. .... v R .. - r.- -,. d _ .. v . ♦ ...}.. r a{. '... , 4. -. .. - r ♦ A'. Ar -!. y v iYd ,?,.. v. r: l� .:- iY!.. .: F.. G -. .. .. �! ,a .: -.,n .' .� - ^.1'. "oAd'v. r 5 ...- 1�. .r. ♦ .♦ r :.. a.: .A .' ..., �. -4 ';:� r .fi hS :" i �". A }. ? A. ..Y' I ♦ a p� r.. .., �di v. a F - �, , , .. - - .. -. .. pl - r -.r'! , '•. �.. $YP.;.a} ♦. f .. .'..a. ♦ �'. .. ... rt.Yr k. ,•e'5w.v ♦ ..:, .a '.I t ,.. ,%.. 1 C a rf. : -. u - i -Y. :R. y rT-. : r `.4tM1 ., M1... 5gW., ^f `1.rfrPi: "lL-P '. �r¢°S94$r�iri"T f:YT. f fnr -..85, r♦ a"4 1t`.4f M<n'HE .r rtA. t'.i;.,v ..w F... y'.,,I . '.I , Y ..1$ Y ',' / - Y -