Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23-01 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 23-01 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER STREET PLAN TO REMOVE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS FOR FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS • Section 1. That the Master Street Plan is hereby amended to remove right-of-way requirements for freeways and expressways. `P2A56FA. AND k ATTEST: By: APPROVED this 20th day of February , 2001. APPROVED: By: a&LA, CaordZA. Heather Woodruff, City Cleft( Charles D. Coody, Mayor • NAME OF FILE• Resolution No. 23-01 CROSS REFERENCE: 02/20/01 Resolution No. 23-01 02/12/01 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 6-7) 02/12/01 Planning Division Correspondence 01/22/01 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 52-55) 02/20/01 Staff Review Form 03/07/01 Departmental Memo from City Clerk NOTES: • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 6 RZ 01-2.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp 440) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.E. Lindsey Family Limited Partnership for property located South of Chamberland Square and East of Betty Jo Drive to Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is another rezoning, RZ 01-2.00, submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.E. Lindsey Family Limited Partnership for property located South of Chamberland Square and East of Betty Jo Drive to Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 8.25 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the request for rezoning based upon the findings included as a part of their report. I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Lindsey Properties, we are representing this property. As you mentioned the request is to rezone from C-2 to R-2. We are in agreement with staff findings. Odom: Dave, just to be clear for the record 1 have been pointed out that I said it was 8 acres, it is actually 18.25 acres. Jorgensen: 1 thought you said 18. Odom. I probably did. Do you have any further presentation you would like to make? Jorgensen: No. I would be glad to answer questions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: We'll do that after we take public comment. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. Do we have any questions or comments for the staff or Dave? Hoffman: I had a question about the access to Shiloh Drive and Persimmon. I didn't remember • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 7 whether or not Persimmon was going to be extended to the site on the east? Conklin: We have not looked at the Large Scale Development plans yet but that is a recommendation that staff will be making that Persimmon does connect from Betty Jo to Shiloh Drive through this development. Hoffman: Thanks. That's all I have. Odom: Any further questions? Ward: Did we talk about Jewel Street also? Conklin: Their concept plat that I've looked at does show a connection through that private property. Mr. Jorgensen probably better can answer that question about his work with that private property owner for connection up to Jewel. Jorgensen: We are trying to make that connection if at all possible. We need to have more access there. MOTION: Hoffman: I'll move for approval of RZ 01-2.00. Marr: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Marr to approve RZ 01-2.00, any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ, 01-2.00 is forwarded on a vote of 7-0-0. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (501) 575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Planner THRU: Tim Conklin A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: February 12, 2001 RZ 01-2.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp 440) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J E Lindsey Family Limited Partnership for property located South of Chamberland Square and East of Betty Jo Drive to Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES 0 Approved 0 Denied Date: February 12, 2001 CITY COUNCILACTION. ............ »3�Regmred;;` YES 3 3.?:::3 311331333 3 �-3�3 3j�i31 Date March 6 2001 (if forwarded) 33.3 3313 3 33 33h ,. 33_.1. p3 ..-. OApproved .-.0Denied 3 3 � i3 'WW1:" ........ Comments• H: I USERSICOMMOMDAWN7IREPOR7S\PCI2-12.0111indsey. wpd 110 SO BACKGROUND: This request is to down -zone a commercial tract of property along the west side of 1-540 to R-2, Medium Density Residential. The site is surrounded on the north and west by existing multi- family developments, property to the south is currently vacant. The zoning of the property is currently not consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan, however the requested zoning would be consistent with the Residential designation applied to this location. The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to construct apartments. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Chamberland Square Apartments, R-2 South: Vacant, A-1 East: I-540 / Single family residential, R-1 West: Multi -family residential (Betty Jo Drive), R-2 INFRASTRUCTURE• Streets: Shiloh Drive is located along the eastem boundary of this property. Shiloh is designated a collector on the Master Street Plan. In this location, Shiloh is a one way, south -bound outer road to 1-540. A Master Street Plan collector, Persimmon, is planned to be constructed along the south boundary of this property. Persimmon, when fully constructed, would connect Shiloh Drive and Rupple Road to the west. Water: Available from residential developments to the north and west. Sewer: Available from residential developments to the north and west. LAND USE PLAN* General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to R-2, Medium Density Residential is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. H: t USERSICONAION1DAWN71REPORTSPCI2-12-011lindsey. wpd N M Finding: The proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles and policies and with land use and zoning plans. The proposed zoning is actually more consistent with the City's adopted General Plan 2020 than the existing commercial zoning designation which is applied to the subject property. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in that it is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan 2020. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Changing the zoning from C-2 to R-2 should not appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: The proposed zoning would alter population density. It would not however, undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water and sewer facilities. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning -is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: Finding: N/A It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its—existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. H:1 USERSICOMNOMDAWN7IREPOR7SPCI2-12-011lindsey. wpd .. §161.06 DISTRICT R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. A. Purpose. The High Density Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the developing of a variety of dwelling types in suitable environments in a variety of densities. 13. Uses. 1. Uses Permitted. Unit 1 City -Wide Uses by Right Unit 8 Single -Family Dwellings Unit 9 Multifamily Dwellings - Medium Density 2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission. C. Density. Families Per Acre 4to24 D. Bulk and Area Regulations. 1. Lot Width Minimum. Mobile Home Park 100 Feet Unit 2 City -Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities Unit 11 Mobile Home Park Unit 25 Professional Offices C. Density. Families Per Acre 4to24 D. Bulk and Area Regulations. 1. Lot Width Minimum. Mobile Home Park 100 Feet Lot within a Mobile Home Park 50 Feet N One Family ' 60 Feet Two Family 60 Feet Three or More 90 Feet Professional Offices 100 Feet 2. Lot Area Minimum. Mobile Home Park 3 Acres Lot Within a Mobile Home Park 4,200 Sq. Ft. Row House: Development Individual Lot 10,000 Sq. Ft. 2,500 Sq. Ft. Single -Family 6,000 Sq. Ft. Two -Family 7,000 Sq. Ft. Three or More 9,000 Sq. Ft. Fraternity or Sorority 2 Acres Professional Offices 1 Acre 3. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. Mobile Home 3,000 Sq. Ft. Apartments: Two or More Bedrooms One Bedroom No Bedroom 2,000 Sq. Ft. 1,700 Sq. Ft. 1,700 Sq. Ft. Fraternity or Sorority 1,000 Sq. Ft. per Resident • E. Yard Requirements (feet). FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD 25 8 25 Cross Reference: Variances Chapter 156. F. Height Regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. (Code 1991, § 160.033; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(I11); Ord. No. 2320, 4-5-77; Ord. No. 2700, 2-2-81) 0 Parcel Polygons /\ Streets Zoning Districts Structures (1998) Master Street Classifications V °COLLECTOR FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY "•';'• MINOR ARTERIAL N PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL HISTORIC COLLECTOR Design Overlay District 400 0 400 800 Feet Streets /� 1 Zoning "N�a�st fining Districts er Street aassifications Ne 'COLLECTOR FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY MINOR ARTERIAL N PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL HISTORIC COLLECTOR Design Overlay District /,' Fayetteville City Limits 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Mies • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 52 AD 00-49.00: Administrative Item Amend Sections §156.03 (D) (1) (a) (3); §166.03 (c); §166.04 (3); § 166.05 (C)(6); and § 171.03 (A)(1) of the UDO regarding dedication of right of way. An ordinance to exclude right of way dedications for freeways and expressways. Odom: The next iteth that we have on tonight's agenda -is an Administrative Item, item number seven AD 00 -49:00 -to -amend Sections §156:03 (D) (1-) (a) (3); §166.03 (c); §166.04 (3); §166.05 (C)(6); and §171.03 (A)(1) of the UDO regarding dedication of right of way. An ordinance to exclude right of way dedications for freeways and expressways. The recommendation of the staff is to amend the Unified Development to exclude the right-of-way dedications for freeways and expressways. Conklin: Why am I bringing this to you this evening? Back on December 7`" we also discussed taking the right-of-way as part of this Eastern Bypass. At that meeting, I was directed to bring an ordinance forward to the Planning Commission not to acquire right-of-way through this Eastern Bypass shown on our Master Street Plan. What I have listed in this ordinance are the sections of the UDO that will have to be amended in order to not take the right-of-way. Based on your previous action, this is consistent with how we want to proceed with regard to planning for a freeway or expressway in Fayetteville. Bunch: Tim, since we have made the action we did on the previous item and forwarded that to the City Council, is this even required now? Could we tablethispending the action of City Council on the item that we just voted to forward to them? Conklin: That' -s a very good question: I was also thinking about showing the corridor will not be a line on our Master Street Plan..I would like you to act on this and let me get with the City Attorney to make sure there are not any conflicts in what we are showing on our Master Street Plan and -language that we have in our Subdivision regulations and if it's not necessary to amend this ordinance, I will leave it at that. If it is, I will bring it forward to the City Council. Odom. Before we take any further comment from the Planning Commission, let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this particular issue, please come forward at this time? PUBLIC COMMENT: Bemis: Again, my name is Chip Bemis. This is exactly one of the reasons we were given birth to concern. We are trying to build a house, we are going to build a house about 200 feet from the center of Fox Hunter Road. This was one of the concerns we discussed. Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 53 • • If we build a house there, we've got 16 acres potentially for the home site, we're bound at this particular moment to this_particularsite._Now, if this isn't addressed, this house is consumed by a project of the magnitude that we are talking about. Granted the line is gone_but_that_was_what_drew our_attention_to_the whole_scene. Odom. Chip, just -to be alert, the line is -not gone.- Werecommendedthat it -be -gone.- Just want to make sure you are aware City Council has to do that. Bemis: I understand. I wanted to draw your attention to that fact and I guess you probably are all very aware of that. With the size of that project, the road frontage is consumed. The front yard becomes the highway at that point in time if the highway were to land where it had been projected originally. We are also aware that the more money that's put into a project or to investigating the sites, the investment studies, impact studies, it seems to be more originally adhered to. We wanted to bring that point forward also. We thank you again. Odom. I got a question. Not necessarily you Chip, just to use you as an example. One of the concerns I have about this ordinance, although I do tend to support it, let's just say that line stays there, Chip buys that piece of property and, because we are not requiring a dedication of right-of-way, he decides to put his house in a certain location, right where the line goes over it. Conklin: That currently probably is occurring in the County because there is no building permits required in the County. So, I have no idea where people are building in Washington County within our planning area at this time. That's an issue. The only time we get to have a say in trying to plan for this Eastern Bypass is during a subdivision or lot split and then the applicant is aware of that. I think we heard from the public this evening that there are many home owners that have built $300,000 to $400,000 homes out there that are not aware of this Eastern Bypass. With regard to Mr. Bemis, the procedure I brought him through was to have his surveyor show the right-of-way dedication required for the County street which is 30 feet from centerline. I informed Mr. Bemis that I would take forward a request not to dedicate right-of-way for the Eastern Bypass. That's how he is proceeding through this process. Odom: Okay. Thank you Mr. Bemis. Anybody else want to talk about this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. I'II close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 54 action. • • Hoffman. I have one question for staff. This ordinance is worded with the general wording to exclude right-of-way dedication for freeways and expressways, does that affect any other location in Fayetteville other than this one? - - - - - - Conklin: The only freeway/expressway shown is what we call the Eastern Bypass. We don't have any future eastern bypasses shown. 'We -do classify Interstate 540 and the portion that's 71 Bypass as a freeway/expressway on our Master Street Plan. We have not required right-of-way dedication as development has occurred along those corridors. Hoffman: The only reason I ask that is because once you leave I-540 and take the Fayetteville business exit towards the mall, is that designated freeway/expressway and would we need to acquire right-of-way for any additional development north of that road? • Conklin: That is classified as a freeway/expressway. We have not required right-of-way dedication along the Interstate system or that section of the bypass next to College —Avenue. -On both sides up towards the end is C -MN, -we have not required additional right-of-way. Hoffman: Because we have a proposed fly -over shown in that location. Conklin: When that plat came through, we did require that they dedicate right-of-way to us I also informed them they have to dedicate additional right -of -way -in case that does happen to have access over to Mall Avenue and Shiloh. Hoffman: So this will not affect that? Conklin: No. MOTION: Hoffman: Thank you. That's my only question. With that being said, I'll go ahead and move approval of AD 00-49.00 subject to the staff recommendation. Marr: I'll second that. I just have one quick question. Is there a reason why we would not want it to specifically state that we would exclude right-of-way dedication for the proposed Eastern Bypass, corridor, freeway or expressway so if something happened, we wouldn't be addressing that? Is there a reason we wouldn't want to have that in • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 55 there? Conklin: I really can't think of any reason why you would want to make it just apply to the —Eastern_Bypass._I_think_when we_are_talking.aboutafreeway/expressway system, that's a much larger system that's serving a regional population and for a developer to –dedicate right-of-way for a facility that's serving the needs of an entire region, I personally have some issues with that. I think we are talking about something larger than what's required to serve his development. I'm in support of making that amendment not to require right-of-way on all freeways/expressways. Odom. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, AD 00-49.00 is forwarded by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 52 AD 00-49.00: Administrative Item Amend Sections §156.03 (D) (1) (a) (3); §166.03 (c); §166.04 (3); § 166.05_(C)(6);_and §171.03 (A)(1)of the UDO-regarding dedication of right of way. An ordinance to exclude right of way dedications for freeways and expressways. Odom. The next item that we have on tonight's agenda -is an Administrative Item, item number -seven AD 00 -49:00 -to amend Sections §15643 -(D) -(1)-(a) (3); §166.03 (c); §166.04 (3); §166.05 (C)(6); and §171.03 (A)(1) of the UDO regarding dedication of nght of way: -An ordinance to exclude right of way dedications for freeways and expressways. The recommendation of the staff is to amend the Unified Development to exclude the right-of-way dedications for freeways and expressways. Conklin: Why am I bringing this to you this evening? Back on December 7th we also discussed taking the right-of-way as part of this Eastern Bypass. At that meeting, I was directed to bring an ordinance forward to the Planning Commission not to acquire right-of-way through this Eastern Bypass shown on our Master Street Plan. What I have listed in this ordinance are the sections of the UDO that will have to be amended in order to not take the right-of-way. Based on your previous action, this is consistent with how we want to proceed with regard to planning for a freeway or expressway in Fayetteville. Bunch: Tim, since we have made the action we did on the previous item and forwarded that to the City Council, is this even required now? . Could we table -this pending the action of City Council on the item that we Just voted to forward to them? Conklin: That!s a very good question:- I was also -thinking about showing -the -corridor -will not be a line on our Master Street Plan..I would like you to act on this and let me get with the City Attorney to make sure there are not any conflicts in what we are showing on our Master Street Plan and language that we have in our Subdivision regulations and if it's not necessary to amend this ordinance, I will leave it at that. If it is, I will bring it forward to the City Council. Odom: Before we take any further comment from the Planning Commission, let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this particular issue, please come forward at this time? PUBLIC COMMENT: Bemis: Again, my name is Chip Bemis. This is exactly one of the reasons we were given birth to concern. We are trying to build a house, we are going to build a house about 200 feet from the center of Fox Hunter Road. This was one of the concerns we discussed. Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 53 • • If we build a house there, we've got 16 acres potentially for the home site, we're bound at this particular moment to this particular_site. Now, if this isn't addressed, this house is consumed by a project of the magnitude that we are talking about. Granted the line is —gone butthat_waswhatdrewnur attention to_the whole. scene Odom: Chip, just -to -be -alert; the line -is -not gone.--We-recommended that it -be -gone. Just want to make sure you are aware City Council has to do that. Bemis: I understand. I wanted to draw your attention to that fact and I guess you probably are all very aware of that. With the size of that project, the road frontage is consumed. The front yard becomes the highway at that point in time if the highway were to land where it had been projected originally. We are also aware that the more money that's put into a project or to investigating the sites, the investment studies, impact studies, it seems to be more originally adhered. to. We wanted to bring that point forward also. We thank you again. Odom: I got a question. Not necessarily you Chip, just to use you as an example. One of the concerns I have about this ordinance, although 1 do tend to support it, let's just say that __ line stays there, Chip buys that piece_of property and, because we are not requiring a dedication of right-of-way, he decides to put his house in a certain location, right where the line goes over it. Conklin: That currently probably is occurring in the County because there is no building permits required in the County. So, I have no idea where people are building in Washington County within our planning area at this time. That's an issue. The only time we get to have a say in trying to plan for this Eastern Bypass is during a subdivision or lot split and then the applicant is aware of that. I think we heard from the public this evening that there are many home owners that have built $300,000 to $400,000 homes out there that are not aware of this Eastern Bypass. With regard to Mr. Bemis, the procedure I brought him through was to have his surveyor show the right-of-way dedication required for the County street which is 30 feet from centerline. I informed Mr. Bemis that I would take forward a request not to dedicate right-of-way for the Eastem Bypass. That's how he is proceeding through this process. Odom: Okay. Thank you Mr. Bemis. Anybody else want to talk about this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 54 action. • • Hoffman: I have one question for staff. This ordinance is worded with the general wording to exclude right-of-way dedication for freeways and expressways, does that affect any -other location in Fayetteville other than this one? Conklin: The only freeway/expressway shown is what we call the Eastern Bypass. We don't have any future eastern bypasses shown. We -do classify Interstate 540 and the portion that's 71 Bypass as a freeway/expressway on our Master Street Plan. We have not required right-of-way dedication as development has occurred along those corridors. Hoffman: The only reason I ask that is because once you leave I-540 and take the Fayetteville business exit towards the mall, is that designated freeway/expressway and would.we • . need to acquire right-of-way for any additional development north of that road? Conklin: That is classified as a freeway/expressway. We have not required right-of-way dedication along the Interstate system or that section of the bypass next to College Avenue: On both •.sides =uptowards the end is C -MN, -we have not required additional right-of-way. Hoffman: Because we have a proposed fly -over shown in that location... Conklin: When that plat came through, we did require that they dedicate right-of-way to us. I — -also-informed them they havetodedicate-additional right -of -way -in case that does happen to have access over to Mall Avenue and Shiloh. Hoffman: So this will not affect that? Conklin: No. MOTION: Hoffman: Thank you. That's my only question. With that being said, I'll go ahead and move approval of AD 00-49.00 subject to the staff recommendation. Marr: I'll second that. I just have one quick question. Is there a reason why we would not want it to specifically state that we would exclude right-of-way dedication for the proposed Eastern Bypass, corridor, freeway or expressway so if something happened, we wouldn't be addressing that? Is there a reason we wouldn't want to have that in Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 55 there? • • Conklin: I really can't think of any reason why you would want to make it Just apply to the —Eastem-Bypass._I_think when we are_talking about.a-freeway/expressway system, that's a much larger system that's serving a regional population and for a developer to –dedicate right-of-way for a facility that's serving the needs of an entire region, I personally have some issues with that. I think we are talking about something larger than what's required to serve his development. I'm in support of making that amendment not to require right-of-way on all freeways/expressways. Odom: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, AD 0049.00 is forwarded by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • STAFF REVIEW FORM • X AGENDA REQUEST CONTRACT REVIEW GRANT REVIEW For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of February 20, 2001. FROM: Tim Conklin Name Planning public' Worke Division Department ACTION REQUIRED: To approve a resolution for AD 00-49 amending the City' s Master Street Plan by eliminating the requirement for dedication of right-of-way for designated freeways/expressways. COST TO CITY: Cost of this Request Account Number Project Number Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name Funds Used To Date Program Name Remaining Balance Fund STA/ R PoR BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached Budget Manager Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: Ac punting Manager Cit Date Internal Auditor Date ti Ci AttornMey Date ADA Coordinator Date Purchasing Officer Date STAFF RECOMMENDATION- Staff recommends approval of this request. Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 on January 22, 2001 to recommend approval and to forward the request to the City Council for final consideration. 1-/G- of Date Z2—C 1 irector Dat% /L t H.•-1 rative 1.ervices director Iat- Zai4 Mayor DateDate Cross Reference New Item: Yes Prev Ord/Res #: Orig Contract Date: Orig Contract Number: