HomeMy WebLinkAbout125-03 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO.125-03
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER STREET PLAN,
DEDICATING 90 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG HOWARD
NICKELL ROAD THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT IN A DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT TO
COMPLETE A CONNECTION WITH THE FUTURE EXTENSION
OF RUPPLE ROAD NORTH
WHEREAS, the new alignment of Howard Nickell Road and Rupple
Road fulfill the intent of the Master Street Plan; and
WHEREAS, the new alignment of Howard Nickell Road and Rupple
Road will be beneficial to the City of Fayetteville's policy of connectivity; and
WHEREAS, this amendment to the Master Street Plan provides
connectivity with less topography constraints.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby approves the change in the Master Street Plan as noted above and more
particularly shown on Exhibit A (attached).
t F lI EPASSED and APPROVED this the 19th day of August, 2003.
` ,
ra
Q
wt
01 [__ WEST
By
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
APPROVED:
By
DAN COODY, Mor
0
•
PPL 03-11.00 Tomlinson
-LLC
EX o f n t .,r /11k1::. Page 3
�r. •••••••••••i••••
i! ! ! ...'. i•�:i i ii • .�i� .i•••••••••••••••••••••
iii. iii.••ii•• ii
L p10 u
R
aigi
1 0
aAi
T .c____ A ._.J... 7./L....e% me into
The Estates at Salem Hills
sae -
YIYY•
r
NAME OF FILE: Resolution No. 125-03 w!Ex. A
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item #
Date
Document
•
1
08/01/03
Staff Review
Form w/attachments
draft resolution
memo to Mayor/City Council
memo to Planning Commission
copy of PC minutes for PPL 03-11.00
copy of Parkhill letter to Planning Commission
copy of Tomlinson Asphalt Co letter to City Aldermen
copy of Close Up View PPL 03-11.00 (2 views)
copy of One Mile View PPL 03-11.00
2
08/27/03
memo to Dawn Warrick
NOTES:
STAFF REOW FORM - NON-FINANCIAL OBLATION
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: August 19, 2003
45
g;'"9 /b3
/,- 03
FROM:
Dawn Warrick
Name
Planning CP&E
Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: Resolution approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
PPI, 03-11.00 was submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Civil Engineering Division on behalf of "ITM-I.LC for
property located north of West Salem Road and south of the Howard Nickell Road extension as shown on the
Master Street Plan. The property is in the county and contains approximately 40.14 acres. The request is to
amend the Master Street Plan and dedicate 90 feet of right of way along Howard Nickell Road through the
entire proposed development in a different alignment to complete a connection with the future extension of
Rupple Road north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
A
Dlvisinn Head
Ci homey
r
Approval
Department Director
Financ6 & Internal Services Dir.
Chief . dmimstrative Officer
Mayor
1a
ate
�Y 3
Date
8 -y -g3
Date
8S- 03
Date
it03
Date
sf/
Date
Received in Mayor's Office
Cross Reference:
Previous Ord/Resii:
Orig. Contract Date:
Orig. Contract Number.
New Item.
R/s
Date
Yes No
• •
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER STREET PLAN, DEDICATING 90
FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG HOWARD NICKELL ROAD THROUGII THE
ENTIRE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN A DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT TO
COMPLETE A CONNECTION WITH THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF RUPPLE
ROAD NORTH.
WHEREAS, the new alignment of Howard Nickell Road fulfills the intent of the Master
Street Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the new alignment of Howard Nickell Road will be beneficial to the City of
Fayetteville's policy of connectivity;
and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the Master Street Plan provides connectivity with less
topography constraints.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby
approves the herein above mentioned change. 4w(. S kow.. o.l Cy 1, , {., #
PASSED and APPROVED this day of August, 2003
ATTEST:
By:
By:
APPROVED:
DAN COODY, MAYOR
SONDRA SMITH; CITY CLERK
• •
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER STREET PLAN, DEDICATING 90
FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG HOWARD NICKELL ROAD TIIROUGH THE
ENTIRE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN A DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT TO
COMPLETE A CONNECTION WITH THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF RUPPLE
ROAD NORTH.
WHEREAS, the new alignment of [coward Nickell Road and Rupplc Road fulfill the
Intent of the Master Street Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the new alignment of Howard Nickell Road and Rupple Road will be
beneficial to the City of Fayetteville's policy of connectivity;
and
WHEREAS, this amendment to the Master Street Plan provides connectivity with less
topography constraints.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby
approves the change in the Master Street. Plan as noted above and more particularly
shown on Exhibit A (attached).
PASSED and APPROVED this day of August, 2003
ATTEST:
13y:
By:
APPROVED:
DAN COODY, MAYOR
SONDRA SMITH, CITY CLERK
it,4%.61%%%.%.*•••••••••••1•••••••••%:••••••••••••••••:•%%:/%60%%:•74. Cj.004:‘ •
•
/•.•.)
• •.
%"°
•
• :'
••••
•
-'••••
�•• •::
�.
4: :
,••
.
• •
••.
•
.•••
:o.
:ill •
•
. ••
•::
•
Tomlinson Asphalt Company, Inc.
•
City Council ming of August 05, 2003
FAYETTEVILLE
71111 CITY OF FAYEI-17-:VILLI:, ARKANSAS
PLANNING
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE:
DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville City Council
Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Dawn Warrick, Zoning and Development Administrator
July 31, 2003
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8264
PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (The Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205/206) PPL 03-11.00 was submitted
by Tomlinson Asphalt Civil Engineering Division on behalf of TTM -LLC for property located north of
West Salem Road and south of the west end of the Howard Nickell Road extension as shown on the Master
Street Plan. The property is in the county and contains approximately 40.14 acres. The request is to amend
the Master Street Plan and dedicate 90 feet of right of way along Howard Nickell Road through the entire
proposed development in a different alignment to complete a connection with the future extension of
Rupple Road north.
BACKGROUND:
The current Master Street Plan indicates Howard Nickell Road, a principal arterial requiring 110 feet of
right-of-way, to extend west to Rupple Road. Rupple Road, a minor arterial requiring 90 feet of right of
way, is planned to extend north to connect to Howard Nickell Road. fhe current Master Street Plan
indicates that the west end of Howard Nickell Road and the north end of Rupple Road intersect at a right
angle. Upon build -out of the Master Street Plan, this arterial is designed to carry traffic from I-lighway
62W north to Howard Nickell Road.
The applicant is requesting to amend the Master Street Plan and connect the two streets with a curve. At
the current Master Street Plan location for the intersection of Rupple Road and Howard Nickell Road, a
Targe ravine exists, which creates an impractical street connection potentially requiring extensive design
and engineering to complete the plan as indicated. The applicant proposes to dedicate 90 feet of right-of-
way simultaneously with this realignment request for the entire length of the street contiguous to the
applicant's property.
CURRENT STATUS:
The Preliminary Plat for The Estates at Salem Hills was approved by Planning Commission on July 14,
2003 with a vote of 7-0-0, contingent upon City Council's approval of an amendment to the Master Street
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this request.
K: IREPOR7S12003CC Ri.PORTh'A00057 AIEL7INGSV'PL 03-11.00 THEESTATES AT SALEM HILLS -8 DOC
•
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
•
PPL 03-11.00
Page 1
PC Meeting of July 14, 2003
113 W. Mountain Si.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-575-8264
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P., Zoning & Development Administrator
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
DA FE: July 14, 2003
Project: PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (The Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205/206) was
submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Civil Engineering Division on behalf of TTM -LLC (Bud
Tomlinson, Gerald Tomlinson and Mark Mahaffey) for property located north of West Salem
Road, west of Salem Road and south of the west end of the Howard Nickell R/W on the Master
Street Plan. The property is in the county and contains approximately 40.14 acres. The request
is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots ranging in size from 1.02 acres to 2.46 acres.
Findings:
Proposal: The request is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots ranging in size from 1.02
acres to 2.46 acres.
Surrounding Zoning: The property is located in the Planning Area
Surrounding Land Use: Single Family Residential, Agricultural
Water: Extended 8" water lines
Sewer: Individual septic systems for all lots. For those lots with an area of less than one and
one-half acre, county approval of the septic system is required prior to Planning Commission
approval.
Right-of-way being dedicated.:
• Howard Nickell Road (Principal Arterial on the MSP) requires 110 feet of ROW.
• Salem Road (Minor Arterial), the north -south road bisecting the property, requires 70 feet
of ROW south of Howard Nickell Road.
The applicant is requesting to amend the Master Street Plan, vacate the existing right-of-way, and
dedicate 90 feet of ROW along Howard Nickel Road through the entire proposed development in
a different alignment. Staff is in support of this request. The applicant is indicating 60 feet of
right-of-way for West Salem Road to the south, which is compliant with the Master Street Plan.
K Reporu120031PCREPOR75-107-14 FPL 03.11.00 Salem 10113 doe
• • PPL O3-11.00
Page 1
Street Improvements Proposed: Howard Nickel Road will be improved to Washington County
Standards, to include a 28'foot wide street with curb and gutter. All interior streets will likewise
be 28 feet in width. West Salem road is being paved along the length of the property frontage to
the south.
Background: The preliminary plat for The Estates at Salem Hills was heard at the Technical
Plat Review on June 18, 2003 and at Subdivision Committee on July 03, 2003. The Subdivision
Committee forwarded the project to full Planning Commission, with an amended condition
regarding the County approval of septic systems.
Recommendation:
Conditions to Address / Discuss:
Prior to Planning Commission approval of the preliminary plat, a conditional letter of
approval for individual septic systems on those lots less than one and one-half acre shall
be obtained from the county and submitted to the Planning Division for review.
2. Prior to final plat approval, individual septic system approval shall be obtained from the
County for those lots having a gross area of less than one and one-half acre. A permit for
individual septic systems must be granted by the Arkansas Department of Health for each
proposed lot in this size category.
3. The lot split to create that portion of the property to the west of Howard Nickel Road
shall be filed with the county prior to final plat approval.
4. Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval for an amendment to the
Master Street Plan must be obtained for the proposed Howard Nickel Road alignment.
The request for vacation of right-of-way for the current Howard Nickel Road alignment
shall be considered by Planning Commission and approved by City Council.
rllM,it d
Access to Howard Nickel Road shall be limited to those lots without frontage onto
interior streets. A provision fora -access shall be indicated on the final plat for a
maximum of4-ive curb cuts onto Howard Nickel Road.
r,sir,r
Required Right-of-way dedication for Howard Nickel Road (90') and West Salem Road
(30'from centerline) shall occur with the final plat.
8. Access from Howard Nickell Road shall be provided at the developer's expense to
replace the drives to the homes of Dr. Bailey and Dr. Coker.
9. Addition Conditions:
a.
K-tRepoeri11003VPCREPOR7S07-I4 PPL03-11.00 Salem Hillr.doc
• • PPL 03-11.00
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date: July 14, 2003
Comments:
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page two of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
K (Reports i20031PCR£POR7S07- NIPP1.03-11.00 Salem Hills dot-
Planning Commission • •
July 14, 2003
Page 2
PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (The Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205/206) was
submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Civil Engineering Division on behalf of TTM -LLC
(Bud Tomlinson, Gerald Tomlinson and Mark Mahaffey) for property located north of
West Salem Road, west of Salem Road and south of the west end of the Howard Nickell
R/W on the Master Street Plan. The property is in the county and contains approximately
40.14 acres The request is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots ranging in size from
1.02 acres to 2.46 acres.
Estes:
Good evening, welcome to the Monday evening, July 14, 2003 meeting of
your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business is the
roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven commissioners present
with Commissioner Hoover and Commissioner Anthes being absent.
Estes:
The next order of business would be approval of the minutes. Renee, I do
not sec the approval of the minutes on the agenda, is there a reason for
that?
Thomas: None that I'm aware of.
Estes:
Oh, I see, we have it under the consent agenda, I apologize. The next item
of business is the consent agenda, the approval of the minutes from the
June 23, 2003 meeting. Are there any changes, modifications, additions or
corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, they will be approved. The first
item of business is a Preliminary Plat, it is PPL 03-11.00. the Estates at
Salem Hills. Jeremy, is this your item?
Pate: Yes Sir it is.
Estes: Tell us what we need to know about this particular item please.
Pate: This proposal is for a Preliminary Plat for an item that is located in the
Planning area. It is on West Salem Road, north of West Salem Road, west
of Salem Road and south of the west end of Howard Nickell Road. The
request is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots ranging in size from
1.02 acres to 2.46 acres. Proposed are individual septic systems for all
lots. For those lots with an area of less than one and a half acre county
approval is required for those septic systems prior to Planning
Commission approval. The right of way being dedicated is Howard
Nickell Road which requires 110' of right of way and Salem Road which
requires 70' of right of way. The applicant is requesting to amend the
Master Street Plan, vacate the existing right of way and dedicate 90' of
right of way along Howard Nickell Road through the entire proposed
development in a different alignment as indicated on your site plan. Staff
Planning Commission
July 14, 2003
Page 3
Estes:
• •
is in support of this request. The applicant is indicating 60' of right of
way for West Salem Road to the south of the site which is compliant with
the Master Street Plan. Street improvements proposed along Howard
Nickell Road will be to Washington County standards to include a 28'
wide street with curb and gutter. All interior streets will likewise be 28' in
width and West Salem Road is being paved along the length of the
property frontage to the south. Staff is recommending Planning
Commission approval at this level. There are nine conditions. I will read
over those for you. 1) Prior to Planning Commission approval of the
Preliminary Plat a conditional letter of approval for individual septic
systems on those lots less than one and one half acre shall be obtained
from the county and submitted to the Planning Division for review. That
letter is included in your packets and we have reviewed that. 2) Prior to
Final Plat approval septic system approvals shall be obtained from the
county for those lots having a gross area of less than one and one half
acres. A permit for individual septic systems must be granted by the
Arkansas Department of Health for each proposed lot in this size category.
3) The lot split decreeing that portion of the property to the west of
Howard Nickell Road shall be filed with the county prior to Final Plat
approval 4) Planning Commission consideration and City Council
approval for an amendment to the Master Street Plan must be obtained for
the proposed Howard Nickell Road alignment. 5) The request for
vacation of right of way for the current Howard Nickell Road alignment
shall be considered by the Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council. 6) Access to Howard Nickell Road shall be limited to those lots
without frontage onto interior streets. A provision for shared access shall
be indicated on the Final Plat for a maximum of five curb cuts onto
Howard Nickell Road. 7) The required right of way dedication for
Howard Nickell Road, which is 90' and West Salem Road, 30' from
centerline shall occur with the Final Plat. 8) Access from Howard Nickell
Road shall be provided at the developer's expense to replace the drives of
the homes of Dr. Bailey and the home of Dr. Coker. That is all I have,
thank you.
Thank you Jeremy. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative
present? If so, would you come forward please and if you have a
presentation please provide us with the benefit of your presentation.
Hennelly: Yes Sir, I am Tom Hennelly with Tomlinson Asphalt Company, a Project
Engineer. We don't really have a problem with any of the conditions with
the exception of some of the wording in condition six. Access to Howard
Nickell Road shall be limited to those lots without frontage onto interior
streets. We don't really have a problem with that. That would, however,
allow for eight curb cuts rather than five and we think that with the size of
the lots being an acre and a half with frontage, most of them over 200' and
Planning Commission
July 14, 2003
Page 4
• •
some of them nearing 300' that for 2,400 feet of road eight curb cuts
doesn't seem to be excessive. Everything else we are in compliance with.
Estes: Thank you very much.
Hennelly: Yes Sir.
Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide us with
their comments regarding the requested PPL 03-11.00? Yes Ma'am, if
you would please come forward, say your name and provide us with the
benefit of your comments.
Bell:
My name is Kris Bell and I am a resident of the Salem community. 1 live
directly across the street from the proposed subdivision. I want to say that
Mr. Tomlinson is a very good neighbor and 1 am not opposing the
subdivision. 1 am a member of the Fayetteville School Board and I have
great concerns with the traffic situation that this proposed plat, in addition
to 750 other houses being built within a two mile radius of Ilolt Middle
School and Holcomb Elementary School. It is almost impossible now to
access in and off of Mount Comfort to Salem, before you even start
building these. We are really concerned about the traffic issues and the
safety of our children. I just wish that the Planning Commission and the
city would address the infrastructure before they allow more subdivisions
because it cannot handle it now. That is my major comment, we need to
look at safety. We have no other roads right now for these children to
access on. We also have no sidewalks so they cannot get to most of the
schools unless they are driven or by a school bus and these are very
narrow roads. We have had accidents before with school buses turning
over and parents get very anxious, children are saying "I'm going to be
late, I'm going to be late, I'm going to be late." They can't get on the
streets, they cannot get on Mount Comfort now. I just don't see, unless
we build some roads, and I know they are in the plan, but they are in the
plan five years out. These schools are almost near capacity now before
you even add additional students and they are going to have to be bussed
somewhere because they cannot go to Holcomb School pretty soon. Even
with the addition that we are putting on two years or three years that
school is going to be full and I understand there is another subdivision
going with 65 more houses off of Mount Comfort so I don't know where
we are going with this. It is fine that we build but we have to do
something about the infrastructure first. I don't know if this is the forum
for it but it just needs to be addressed. I don't know if you can make
comments when you pass this on but it is just impossible. My road right
now is dangerous. It is a dirt road, I know it will be paved, but people
speed up and down Salem Road and unless there is a four way stop put
there somebody is going to get hurt there, it could be a school bus, it could
be my child, it could be me, it could be my neighbor. There needs to be
Planning Commission • •
July 14, 2003
Page 5
stop lights or a stop sign, a three way stop put at Mount Comfort or at the
Holt entrance, somewhere. I talked to a lady from Goosebury and she said
I don't know what I'm going to do. I can't get off of Goosebury now
before they put the 750 houses because that is 3,000 cars on narrow roads.
It is my understanding that Salem Road is considered a minor artery and
that Howard Nickell is considered the major. That is crazy You should
see the traffic on that road. I don't know again, if this is the forum, but I
want that concern to be brought up when you pass it on. Thank you.
Estes: Thank you Kris. Yes Sir, if you would please come forward.
Mason: My name is Mike Mason and I am principal of Holt Middle School and I
just want to reemphasize what Kris Bell just said. Our concem at Holt of
course is not with the subdivisions going in or even with the students, we
will handle that as we need to add on or build new buildings. This year I
became increasingly concerned with the traffic flow on Mount Comfort
and a few momings I was arriving at school between 7:30 and 8:00,
usually I get there at 7:00. I didn't realize what a problem there was
between 7:30 and 8:00. There are times where Mount Comfort is backed
up for as far as I can see and I don't know how much further beyond the
curve or over the hill it goes. That is a problem in that there is so much
traffic and we are concerned with all the new houses going in that that is
going to continue to get worse. A second concern we have is we have a
lot of kids that live in walking distance or biking distance but because
there is no shoulder or no sidewalks in that area it is really dangerous and
we try to prohibit them from doing that but of course if their parents allow
it they can. We are afraid that somebody is going to get hurt and so once
again 1 am kind of like Kris, I don't know if this is the proper forum but
we do have a serious concern about our student's safety issues and we
would just like to see that addressed. If we can do anything to help you in
that we will invite you out or give you what information you need to let
you see that we think it is a really dangerous situation that is obviously
going to get worse. Thank you.
Estes: Thank you Mike. Is there anyone else who would like to provide
comment on this requested Preliminary Plat?
Goodman: Yes, my name is Debbie Goodman and I own property on Howard Nickell
and Hutchinson Lane, which is right close to this development. My
concern is the same thing, the traffic. My parents own a place on Howard
Nickell and they can't hardly get out of their drive because of all the
traffic. The roads out there just won't handle it. All of my life I've lived
out there off and on and I've always walked. Now I can't even hardly
walk because of the traffic. You get run off the road and everything else.
The concern is the traffic.
Planning Commission • •
July 14, 2003
Page 6
Estes: Thank you Debbie. Is therc anyone else? Let me bring the item back to
the applicant and if you would please address some of the concerns that
Ms. Bell and Mr. Mason and of course Debbie have raised it would be
appreciated.
Hennelly: Yes Sir. The only thing I can add to that is that sure enough these twenty
three lots will increase the traffic count in that part of town. There is just
no denying it. We are however, and I guess it has been the philosophy of
the city, that because of the amount of growth that has gone on it is tough
for you all to keep up with doing capital improvements to help maintain
the situation but also in addition to that because of the growth you also
have had hundreds of developers come in that have built millions of
dollars worth of infrastructure that they have turned over to the city to help
alleviate this problem. 1 know that the Master Street Plan calls for
Howard Nickell Road, at some point when that area is annexed into the
city to be a minor arterial, as well as Rupple Road's continuation all the
way down to Mount Comfort, which will alleviate a lot of the problem at
Salem Road and it will take it right in front of the new middle school that
is out there. That property is constantly under development from Mount
Comfort Road north up to this project and really with our improvements
that we are proposing 1 think it is Clabber Creek subdivision is improving
along there as well and it is just a matter of time before Rupple Road is
connected all the way through. That is really the only thing that I can add.
This property, as we propose it, creates a much lesser impact on traffic
than what could have been proposed with smaller lots and meeting the
minimum requirements of residential subdivisions. These are all acre and
a half lots, which 1 guess if it had to be developed, this would be the best
case scenario.
Estes:
Thank you. Let me bring the item back to the Commission for discussion,
comments and motions. Commissioner Bunch, if we could begin with
you. Could you give us a brief report of Subdivision?
Bunch: We had some very good public comment. Some of the same people who
spoke at Subdivision spoke tonight and shared their concerns with us.
Another thing we were concerned with were the two lots that were less
than an acre and half and that has been taken care of with the situation on
the septic systems but most of the comments were just getting a grasp and
understanding how the roads would be vacated, how the easements would
be laid out, what roads would be paved, which ones would be new roads
and the new application for the Master Street Plan, which of course will
have to go to the City Council. That was basically the jest of the
Subdivision Committee for this project.
Estes: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Commissioners, is there any
discussion?
Planning Commission •
July 14, 2003
Page 7
Shackelford:
Warrick:
Shackelford:
Warrick.
Shackelford:
Warrick:
Shackelford:
Estes:
Vaught:
Warrick:
Condition number six discusses the curb cuts along Howard Nickell Road.
The applicant has obviously expressed a desire for eight curb cuts instead
of five, can you expand a little bit on the justification and the thought
process for the limitation of five please?
Howard Nickell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial street. It is to carry large volumes of traffic. Access management
on those higher level streets is critical in order to maintain capacity and
levels of service once those streets are developed and staffs intent in this
recommendation is to minimize the number of conflicts that may occur on
that street by combining some of the potential curb cuts.
What do our ordinances say as far as requirements for frontage, distance
between curb cuts and that sort of thing?
With regard to this property, it is located outside of the city limits. We do
have some areas of town, such as the Overlay District, where we more
strictly regulate the distances for curb cuts. In this particular situation if it
were inside the city limits there would be minimal distances between curb
cuts required. You will see in front of you you have a draft transportation
study that is a work in progress that the city has contracted for and part of
that docs include more attention to access management, especially on our
higher level streets. This is something that staff felt was appropriate to go
ahead and look at in this particular situation because we are dealing with
one of our Master Street Plan streets and a major point of connectivity for
the city.
If this was inside the city limits would it apply? How would those
minimum distances work? What are those standards?
Between residential driveways you would be looking at a minimum of 10',
5' from the property line on either side for a curb cut for a driveway.
Thank you.
Is there any other discussion?
Yes. Specifically which lots were you looking at because the way they
have it drawn the two roads kind of curve together. The five curb cuts,
they are off Howard Nickell Road, do you know which lots you are talking
about?
It looks like it would affect a single curb cut access to lot number three, a
combined access between lots one and two, a combined between lots 15
Planning Commission • •
July 14, 2003
Page 8
Estes:
Ostner:
Estes:
MOTION:
Ostner:
Estes:
Shackelford:
Bunch:
Warrick.
Shackelford:
Warrick.
Shackelford:
and 16, a combined access to serve lots 19 and 20 and a single access for
lot number eight.
Are there any other comments? Are there any motions?
I am in favor of the request by the applicant. Limiting curb cuts does help
however, we are just pushing them together and I don't see how that
really, in this case it is one 28' curb cut instead of two 14's that are side by
side. I would be ok with making it 8. I don't know how the other
Commissioners feel.
Is that a motion?
I will make a motion that we approve PPL 03-11.00 changing condition
six to read a provision for shared access shall be indicated on the Final
Plat for a maximum of eight curb cuts onto Howard Nickell Road.
We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner to approve PPL 03-11.00 to
be forwarded with the one change that in condition number six that five
curb cuts be changed to eight curb cuts, is there a second?
1 will second.
A question to the motioner. If we move to eight curb cuts instead of five
is there any requirement for shared access, could that part be stricken from
the motion?
If you allow the eight curb cuts you can eliminate item number six. Eight
curb cuts would provide one access point for each lot that could access.
One thing that is important is that there are corner lots that we would
encourage that they access off of the side streets and not off Howard
Nickell when they have that option.
Dawn, by limiting that that is kind of my thought process of why 1 wanted
to leave the verbiage of limiting it to eight curb cuts to allow obviously the
developer is going to use those opportunities to access those lots that don't
have any other access. I think if we leave the verbiage of eight curb cuts
maximum that it is going to force them to use the interior streets on those
corner lots.
I think that is important.
I didn't make the motion but that was the intent of where 1 was going with
my conversation.
Planning Commission • •
July 14, 2003
Page 9
Estes: Dawn, is it staff's request that if we change five to eight that we eliminate
condition of approval six?
Warrick: I think that it can stay if we change it to eight. It doesn't address a shared
situation anymore but it does address limiting access to Howard Nickell
Road then to eight curb cuts, which would provide one individual curb cut
for any of those lots that only access Howard Nickell Road. Yes, I think it
can stay.
Shackelford: Why don't we change the word shared to limited access indicated on the
Final Plat for a maximum of eight, is that acceptable?
Ostner. I would accept that as a motion.
Shackelford: As will 1 as a second.
Estes:
We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by
Commissioner Shackelford to approve PPL 03-11.00, is there any
discussion?
Church: I guess staff would probably be the ones to comment on this. The
neighbors have been so kind as to show up here tonight to talk about the
traffic concerns and maybe this body is not the one to address that but I
guess I would just like to have a comment about when that will be
addressed because 1 think it is a very real problem. If it is five years from
now I think we need to know that but I guess I would just like to hear a
comment on the traffic situation.
Estes: Matthew, Dawn, Jeremy, who is going to take that one?
Warrick: I will start. Connectivity in the City of Fayetteville is generally realized
through development. When developers propose a project the streets and
infrastructure that is necessary to serve that project and to connect it to the
city's infrastructure systems are required of that developer at that time. In
this case we are looking at a connection that will complete part of our
Master Street Plan and provide additional connectivity between Salem
Road and Howard Nickell Road. We are, as I mentioned, in the process of
a quarter million dollar transportation study that is city wide, that is
addressing our Master Street Plan. We have had public hearings on this,
in fact, we had one on June 26th. We encourage people to contact our
Engineering Division to provide public comment and to attend these
transportation meetings. This transportation plan will be brought to the
Planning Commission and to the City Council. Therefore, there will be
additional public hearings to address it. Public input is critical in order for
these plans to reflect the current condition and to project into the future the
Planning Commission • •
July 14, 2003
Page 10
needs of the community. As I mentioned, it is addressing and it will be
addressing, what infrastructure needs we have with regard to
transportation not only vehicular transportation but alternate modes of
transportation such as trail systems and bikeways. We are encouraging as
much public input as possible in that process and we plan to provide you,
through our consultant, a project plan that will identify priories in the city
that then the City Council will need to review and determine what needs to
occur with regard to funding and time frame on those projects.
Estes: Thank you Dawn. Commissioner Church, is that responsive?
Church. Yes, thank you.
Estes: 1 share the concerns that Kris, you articulated and Mike, that you brought
to our attention and that you Debbie spoke about. The pragmatic fact is
that our infrastructure is dependent upon development. The funding
mechanism for our infrastructure is development and it would be
wonderful if we could have the infrastructure and then have the
development but there is no funding mechanism for that. The funding
mechanism comes from private development so we see private
development and then we see the connectivity that Dawn has described
and we see the infrastructure being built. To do it otherwise would be
prohibitively expensive, we couldn't afford it. We depend on private
developers to do it and that is why we see the development and then we
see the infrastructure, we see the streets, we see the curbs, we see the
sewer go in. If we don't approve the development we are not going to see
the infrastructure. I suppose that just the opposite of that is true if we
don't approve the development then there is no need for the infrastructure.
1 enjoy living in Fayetteville. I have lived here for 35 years and I have
seen it grow and I hope that it continues to grow. It is for that reason that 1
will vote in favor of the motion. Is there any other discussion?
Bunch: At the last meeting of the study for the traffic survey for the City of
Fayetteville we did have some representatives from the Planning
Departmcnt of the State Highway Department here, and I know in the past
we have beat up on the State Highway Department for not always being
responsive to the needs of our community but I would like to compliment
the Arkansas State Highway Department for sending personnel up to be a
part of our process and also I would encourage the school system to be
very much a part of the process because it is one of the largest traffic
generators we have in our community. It is an even greater safety
situation with schools than say for factories or something like that where
you have large traffic generation but it is mostly adults who are aware of
the rules of the road. As we go with this traffic study I would encourage
the school board and the school administration to give us the benefit of
their information and that is one of the proper avenues to get that