HomeMy WebLinkAbout126-03 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO.126-03
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF BUTTERFIELD
TRAIL VILLAGE TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
UDC REQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION PURSUANT
TO §166.18
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby grants the appeal of Butterfield Trail Village from the Planning
Commission's denial of a lesser dedication of right of way required by §166.18
and grants a reduction of right of way dedication to zero additional right of way
dedication because of undue hardship or practical difficulties shown by
Butterfield Trail Village.
PASSED and APPROVED this the 19th day of August, 2003.
APPRO ED:
By
ATFEST:
SO DRA SMITH, City Clerk
DAN COODY, Mayor
•
111 /Vad
(gitnif�ZG-03
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc.
Corporate Office: 3317 SW 1" Street • P.O. Box 1408 • Bentonville, AR 72712-1408 • (479) 273-9472 • (479) 273-0844
August 18, 2003
DISTRIBUTION:
RWR/FIIdSteven Jones/Dun Hunnicutt
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: Appeal of The Master Street Plan Right of Way Dedication Requirements
Butterfield Trail Village
1923 East Joyce Blvd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CEI Project #17793.0
Dear Chairperson:
Please except this letter as a formal request from Butterfield Trail Village (owner), for an appeal of the
Master Street Plan Right of Way dedication requirements for the above referenced project. Please see the
attached drawing Exhibit "A" Right of Way Dedication for clarification of the area in question. The master
street plan classifies this section of Joyce Boulevard as a principal arterial, which requires a right of way of
one hundred and ten feet in width as shown in Exhibit "B" Principal Arterial Section.
The existing right of way from centerline of street along this frontage is approximately forty feet in width.
Approximately three feet beyond this existing right of way is a green space approximately twenty-three feet
in width containing wood fencing and nice mature trees. In keeping with the City of Fayetteville's tree
preservation principles and green space requirements the owner would like to consider other possible
options to allow this green space to remain. The principal arterial section makes allowances for areas where
sufficient right of way is unobtainable and allows the use of the minor arterial four -lane section to be used.
With the use minor arterial four lane section the same number of lanes is provided and the green space is
located as buffer along the Butterfield Trail Village frontage in the form of nice mature trees versus in the
form of ornamental trees with in the median.
The minor arterial section requires a right of way section ninety feet in width as shown in Exhibit "C"
Minor Arterial Section. The owner requests that no additional right of way dedication be required. The
green space width in the minor arterial street section could be reduced to five feet from ten feet, which
would allow the existing green space with wood fencing and nice mature trees to remain.
We appreciate your time and consideration on this issue and if you have questions or require additional
information, please do no hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Yates, P.E.
Project Manager
Local Development/Public Works
See Attachments: Exhibits "A", "B", & "C"
Bentonville, AR • Fresno CA • St. Augustine, FL • Nashville, TN • Atlanta, GA • Dallas, TX • Wills Point, TX • Jasonville, IN • Scranton, PA
=r
g
55.00'
NF
NOT TO SCALE
OWNER/DEVELOPER
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
1923 E. JOYCE BLVD.
FAYE TTE'LLE, AR 72701
BOB BRENNAN
479-442-7220
R.O.W.
DEDICATION
INITIAL DESIGN
b 6 &
eGN
5-22-03
KRY
KRY
c9
JLK
16849-
VANTAG
VEN TVR
C/0 AR
JLK
DATE
PRN
PM
DES
DRW
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
NEW ALZHEIMER'S CARE UNIT
(k:EI/CENGINEERIG
A
SSOCIA TES, INC
ENGINEERS
•
PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
3317 SW '1" Street
Ban tonHlle, AR 77717
EXHIBI T
FAYETTEV/LLE
(479) 773-9472 .X18 NO:
FAX (479) 273-0844 DRG NAME:
DED/CA TION
""A "" R. a W.
AR
DATE
06-05-0J
10:50 AM
REV -2
1779. .0
EXHIBIT A
SHEET Na
1OF1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
•
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS carry high volumes of through traffic.. They are designed as
boulevards for beauty and safety. In areas where sufficient right of way is unobtainable, the minor
arterial four lane section can be used.
Design Service Volume:
Speed:
Traffic Lanes:
Parldng Lanes:
Paved Width:
Right of Way:
Multi -use Trails:
Median:
Tree planting areas:
17,600 vpd, 20,600 vpd with left turn bay
40-45 mph
Four 12' travel lanes, 12' turn lanes possible at intersections and at
frequent intervals
None
28' from back of curb each side of median
At least 110'
Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
20' mimmum if no turn bay: May be reduced to 8' to accommodate
tum bays
Two, at least 10' wide, in addition to the median
20
1100-0•
Minimum
Principal Arterial
Exhibit '.'B"
Principal Arterial Section
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-5
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
HISTORIC COLLECTOR provides traffic circulation within the historic and developed parts of
central Fayetteville. This type of collector street recognizes the nght-of-way limitations associated
with developing in "built -out" areas of the city.
Design Service Volume:
Speed:
Traffic Lanes:
Parking Lanes:
Paved Width:
Right of Way:
Sidewalk
4,000 vpd, 6,000 vpd with left turn bays
25-30 mph
Two 11' travel lanes, 10' tum bays where warranted
Two lanes provided. None when turn bay exists
36' from back of curb
At least 50'
6'
MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS connect higher functional class facilities, etc. Residential frontage
is strongly discouraged. Access should be from perpendicular local or residential streets.
Design Service Volume:
Speed:
Traffic Lanes:
Parking Lanes:
Paved Width:
Right of Way:
Multi -use Trail:
Tree Planting Areas
12,200 vpd, 14,800 vpd with left turn bays
35-40 mph
Four 12' travel lanes, 11' turn lanes possible at intersections
None
52' from back of curb, 59' with turn lane
At least 90'
Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Two, at least 10' wide
52'
90.'-0'
Minimum
Minor Arterial
Exhibit
•"c1I
Minor Arterial Section
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-4
Lynn F Wade
Attorney at law
• •
Ri5, I) ka3
MICROFtab
Law Offices of RECEIVED
APR 3 0 2004
Wade & Gunderson
A Professional Limited Company
20 East Center Street — P.O. Box 1000
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1000
Telephone: (479) 521-1411
Fax: (479) 521-5574
Brenda Blankenship
Legal Secretary
Mayor Dan Coody
City of Fayetteville
Administration Building
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Clifton Wade
Founding Partner
11910-1974)
April 29, 2004
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
MAYOR'S OFFICE
Steven D. Gunderson Melissa .1. Larson
Attorney at Law legal .Secretary
Re: Butterfield Trail Village, Inc.ICity of Fayetteville
Dear Mayor Coody:
RECEIVED
MAY 10 2694
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK S OFFICE
Some time ago I had deeds and easements executed by the Board of Directors of
Butterfield Trail Village, Inc. and transmitted same to you in order for the City of
Fayetteville to initiate a certain project on the East side of Butterfield Trail Village, Inc.
on Old Wire Road.
If you would be so kind as to have someone on your staff transmit to me file -marked
copies of these documents, I would like to have those for my records.
As always, should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely yours,
DE & GUN , P.L.C.
. n son
SDG:bb
Copy to Bob Brennan
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item #
Date
Resolution No. 126-03
emo to Dawn Warric
NOTES:
1
06/05/03
Transmittal Letter from CEI Engineering Assc.
11/071 Al
Appeal of Butterfield Trail Village
Exhibit A map
Exhibit B Plans & Policies
Exhibit C
copy of pictures
copy of memo to Mayor/City Council
map
map
map
map
map
map
photos of Butterfield Trail Village
photos of Butterfield Trail Village
copy of memo to Planning Commission
copy of Tree Preservation Plan Reviwe Form
copy of Tree Mitigation Form
copy Close Up View
Copy of One Mile View
copy of
PC minutes
Buttler Trail Village petition (12)
copy of memo to Mayor/City Council
faxed appeal w/attachments
emo to Dawn Warric
NOTES:
-1/4143
LSU o;—I.S0c7(BJ\t-tA.S.,QLQ kPc& L V
lila
11/071 Al
R. Paert(u7,S -N:- v,\\a�_frri�, F++rrnnuL
q[
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 1408, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712
(479) 273 9472 •Fax (479) 273-0844
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Date: June 5, 2003
RECFIVFr
JUN 0 R 2003
CITY OF E.,YETTE V I. LE
C'tlY rLERX'a OFFICE
Distribution: RWRffile
To: City of Fayetteville Planning Project: Butterfield Trail Village
113 West Mountain CEI Project No.: 17793.0
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Reference: Master Street Plan Appeal
479-575-8323
Attn: Ms. Sandra Smith
We are sending you the following items:
O Attached Via: Hand Delivery
Copies:
Date:
No.:
Description:
11
Appeal of Master Street Plan Right -Of -Way Dedication Requirements
I 1
Site Pictures
These are transmitted:
❑ For Approval and Payment
® For Review and Comment
El Your Use
Signature:
Orr /
40,
J'rr
Kevin R. Y,;l�
P.E
❑ For Bid Due / /
❑ As Requested
❑
Title. Project Manager
Atlanta, GA • Bentonville, AR • Dallas. TX • Frebnu, CA • Jasonville, IN • Nashville, 'IN • St. Augustine, FL • Scranton, l'A
4111
Cer,r.rtCEI Engineering Associates, Inc.
Corporate Office: 3317 SW "I" Street • P.O. Box 1408 • Bentonville. AR 72712-1408 • (479) 273-9472 • (479) 273-0844
June 5, 2003
DISTRIBUTION:
RWR/Filcisteven Jones/Don Hunnicun
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: Appeal of The Master Street Plan Right of Way Dedication Requirements
Butterfield Trail Village
1923 East Joyce Blvd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CEI Project #17793.0
Dear Chairperson:
Please except this letter as a formal request from Butterfield Trail Village (owner), for an appeal of the
Master Street Plan Right of Way dedication requirements for the above referenced project. Please sce the
attached drawing Exhibit "A" Right of Way Dcdication for clarification of the area in question. The master
street plan classifies this section of Joyce Boulevard as a principal arterial, which requires a right of way of
one hundred and ten feet in width as shown in Exhibit "B" Principal Arterial Section.
The existing right of way from centerline of street along this frontage is approximately forty feet in width.
Approximately three feet beyond this existing right of way is a green space approximately twenty-three feet
in width containing wood fencing and nice mature trees. In keeping with the City of Fayetteville's tree
preservation principles and green space requirements the owner would like to consider other possible
options to allow this green space to remain. The principal arterial section makes allowances for areas where
sufficient right of way is unobtainable and allows the use of the minor arterial four -lane section to be used.
With the use minor arterial four lane section the same number of lanes is provided and the green space is
located as buffer along the Butterfield Trail Village frontage in the form of nice mature trees versus in the
form of ornamental trees with in the median.
The minor arterial section requires a right of way section ninety feet in width as shown in Exhibit "C"
Minor Arterial Section. The owner could dedicate an additional three feet of right of way totaling forty-
three feet of the required forty-five feet of right of way for the owner's side of the street. The green space
width in the minor arterial street section could be reduced to seven feet from ten feet, which would allow the
existing green space with wood fencing and nice mature trees to remain.
We appreciate your time and consideration on this issue and if you have questions or require additional
information, please do no hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
,10‘;%.
Kevin R. Yates, P.E.
Project Manager
Local Development/Public Works
See Attachments: Exhibits "A", "B", & "C"
Bentonville. AR • Fresno CA • St. Augustine. FL • Nashville, TN • Atlanta. GA • Dallas, TX • Wills Point, TX • Jasonville. IN • Scranton, PA
53
•
J
m
1
N4
NOT 70 SCALE
, fTh
t
1/4
7.
)
•
00000000000
2 Li &® @ O 0 00 O a V
1l
l
!)t
CC:20
•
1
1s;
sJ
Li
007
12 �in�F &13-' rte•
f cTJo!
O� G 0 0 0
G 0 0
f55.Q'
OWNER/DEVELOPER
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
1923 E. JOYCE BLVD.
FAYETTEVILLE. AR 72701
BOB BRENNAN
479-442-7220
1;)
R.O.W.
DEDICATION
A.
'FE v i
1
1 r-
16849 -
VAN TAG
i
16849-
VANIAG
VENTUR
C/0 AR
INITIAL DESIGN
5-22-03
KRY
KRY
JL
,LK
DATE
PRN
PM
DES
DRW
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
NEW ALZHEIMER'S CARE UNIT
(CEI/AssocIACE ERIN INC
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS SURVEYORS
3377 SW "I" Street
Bentonville. AR 77717
E
XHIB/ T "A " R. O. W.
FAYETTEVILLE
(479) 273-9477 JOB Na:
FAX (479) 773-0844 OWG NAME:
77793.0
DEDICATION OATO6-OS-OJ
10:50 AM
AR REV -2
EXMBIT A
SNEEr Na
1OF1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS carry high volumes of through traffic. They are designed as
boulevards for beauty and safety. In areas where sufficient nght of way is unobtainable, the minor
arterial four lane section can be used.
Design Service Volume:
Speed:
Traffic Lanes:
Parking Lanes:
Paved Width:
Right of Way:
Multi -use Trails:
Median:
Tree planting areas:
17,600 vpd, 20,600 vpd with left turn bay
40-45 mph
Four 12' travel lanes, 12' turn lanes possible at intersections and at
frequent intervals
None
28' from back of curb each side of median
At least 110'
Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
20' minimum if no turn bay. May be reduced to 8' to accommodate
turn bays
Two, at least 10' wide, in addition to the median
28' 28'
20'
110' 0"
Minimum
Principal • Arterial
Exhibit "B"
Prbncipal Arterial Section
— Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-5
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
..Rm10:0
Myer
Boskus
Lock
bVY b�W
1/044.1121 ics 1711•4t
Architects. PA.
•
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
— 01 209
Mille:
Boskus
Lock
• caoawavm
�11>i Ica in YI�Y
w ere, n
Architects, PA.
JY
•
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CC Meeting of July 1, 2003
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville City Council
Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., Community Planning & Engineering Services Director
June 26, 2003
Butterfield Trail Village Right -of -Way and Broyles Rezonings
IBUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE LSD 03-15
Attached you will find information on how Joyce Boulevard can be designed to add a boulevard
with left turn lanes and save the existing oaks in front of the development. The current Master
Street Plan requires 110 feet of right-of-way in order to build a 20 foot median, two 12 foot travel
lanes each direction (28 feet back of curb to back of curb) and a 10 foot green space with a 6 foot
sidewalk.
To save the existing Targe oak trees, staff has modified the master street plan cross section to reduce
the median width from 20 feet to 11 feet and eliminated the green space in front of the sidewalk.
This street could be widened to include an 11' median, four 11 foot travel lanes, and a sidewalk
continuous with the curb or having the sidewalk built south of the trees on Butterfield Trail
property. This design can be accommodated within the existing 80 feet of right-of-way without
having to take additional right -of way.
BROYLES REZONING RZN 03-19 & RZN 03-20
Mr. Broyles has agreed to offer a Bill of Assurance to the City Council for the entire R-2 zoning
area based on what was discussed during the prior rezoning. Staff is preparing the Bill of Assurance
for signatures and will be sending this to Mr. Broyles to obtain property owner's signatures.
Attached are the minutes of the City Council meeting from November 6, 2001 and December 4,
2001.
IOV11IA 0131*311
I
3OV11IA 01I LkJ31lf18
0 ee eine*a
-.': "' KM 1
1
-.z.•z. -a .z. j-. -J 4-.:J .i- a.:,z- r a . k
:t,/ :C , 1 / / ..t ;t :1 .:.•
a•
• a
N E
F�I
y `. acll i
A1
1
::`1 in nnn
01
4.
j, aas
a.
•
i
1'aT',:
e � , 1
flIt
U.,:
f. .N.. *.. .111.' f'.
''
,. 1
.
-i &,y ,
WTS a •�
t ,: F 1
.:J..3., :�. �r.:r :'..� =r .r art ' may' V, �, r.r
1
1
�.
•
3
J.: -
't11
.i;JI -
.
°may
-Q
'W. _
,w ��.I
• 3« ,n.
., jl a,
.,
r^
a- /1'
1
1
flits;
II
•
:1'
tee e
e eaviuteeee
s
Li
m W
D C
71
rm
m
<I
Em
mm
D r
3J
7
Z JJ
N D
C-
C
Z
T
c
U-
'0
C
0
3
r
Y/
m
�3a;8
O
C
CD
o
p o
3
R
N
a
^V�
T
VVVVVV V
3 : v
c''
•
1 J
,
l
ft
___.-._ ..- iii' •
`• ft
\.. i iL �
�i c-l�`c 2
•
\LI c r
i
� L �
\ s ,.
I ' r aeJ J " • ? 'A
y • y L'� • J M � •�
li :. •- - .
a oyc
� TTT CC
I $
J
•
11.11 ♦ III -
a
11 ~ � •
r 1 I Y JI'
• ♦1/ . ♦ Y
t.:
.I
• 1 j 1r f.-!-
•
i11 Ems'; t �• �:';;`'
. Y
II -� ry •�
JI v. � �' ♦_r �
II
/1r 1 U�I r--,wY. �• II.
`•
II i .._
[if.
I
i1 I
_.
•
Y •'Y 5. 11 1 -.
. •G r' �. ci' '1(+p
it
•t C+y
C ti
^:ra •
- a
.
J, 11yy--
Y1. .n Ir {_ ; x••11= _A
•
v II:v-4L. ISIII 1�1 �I r• . _ ,1
J -
1,
a
I
•I� ¶ CT• I . . Iii \ 1, f r•�• ! ) ,
• L 119 f �� l 1 1 .• / o
11ti h' I n l' a. .. ( • 1 , .. a
�► L• .r. .1_' -tom* 1 .�>i
LSD 03-15.00
Page r
PL Meeting of April 28, 2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Butterfield Traa Village, LSD
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Dawn Warrick, Zoning and Development Administrator, A.IIC.P.
FROM: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: April 24, 2003
Project: LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was
submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield Trail
Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2, Medium
Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for the addition of a
new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking spaces proposed.
Findings: Proposal: Expansion of the existing medical facility to include a 22,347 square
foot Alzheimer's Care Unit and the construction of a new parking with a total of 41 parking
spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion. There will be a net gain of 34
spaces.
Existing
Development:
There is a current medical facility on site
as well as apartments, duplexes,
and villa
homes.
Surrounding Zoning: North: R -O
South: R-1
East: R -O
West: R -O and A-1
Surrounding Land Use: North: Office
South: Single Family Residential
East: Office
West: Office
Water: Available of site
Sewer: Available on site
Right-of-way being dedicated: 55 feet from centerline on Joyce Boulevard
Street Improvements Proposed: None
a
LSD 03-15.00
Pogt 2
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Joyce Boulevard is a principal arterial on the Master Street
Plan.
Tree Preservation: Existing: 15.7%
Preservation: 15.35%
Mitigation: 31 trees planted on site
Recommendation: Approval Subject to the Following Conditions
Conditions of Approval:
Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by Fire Code.
2. Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and
Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning district.
3. The required bicycle parking racks shall be u -shaped as required by ordinance.
4. Fifty-five feet from centerline shall be dedicated along Joyce Boulevard.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
7. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the
City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
% 6 LSD 03-15.00
Page 3
Background:
The project was reviewed at the April 3, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the April 17, 2003
Subdivision Committee Meeting.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included commercial design standards and tree
preservation.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning
Commission subject to all staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments:
The "CONDITIONS
OF
APPROVAL", beginning on page
one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by
the
entity requesting approval of this
development item,
0
Title
City of Fayetteville
Tree Preservation Plan Review Form
Project: Butterfield
Trail Village
Developer:
Butterfield Trail Village
Location Address:
19233 Joyce Boulavard
Engineer:
CEI Engineering
This form shall stand
as a: Olnitial Review/Letter
of Confirmation
✓Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council
OFinal Administrative Determination'
Submital requirements met:
Olnitial Review
Comments:
✓Site Analysis OAnalysis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan
Canopy measurements:
% Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved
Land Use R-2
%To be Preserved 20%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 45.73 acres
Square Feet: 1,992, 074 sf
Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Acres: 9.79
Square Feet: 300,422 sf
% of Total Site Area: 15.7%
Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Acres: 9.15
Square Feet: 292,470.
% of Total Site Area 15.35%
Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: ✓Yes ONo
✓On -Site Mitigation OOff-Site Preservation OOff-Site Forestation OTree Fund
Tree Preservation Criteria Met: ✓Yes ONo (See back for criteria list and
comments)
Applicant's Plan: ✓Approved ODisapproved OConditionally Approved
Conditions of Approval:
7,952 sf is to be mitigated by way of 31 (2" caliper) on -site replacement trees. Prior to building
permit approval, please provide a landscape plan that shows the location and species for
Mitigation trees.
,the Landscape Administrator, date
Criteria used by Landscape Aftrator to evaluate Tree Preservaftlan:
1. The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species.
Comments Three significant trees exist in the location of the building and is proposed for removal. Whether
the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
Comments The building location is tied to the need for services and the connection to the existing building.
2. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of
the tree or group of trees.
Comments Minor - due to the extent of landscaping installed throughput the complex.
3. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood
and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
Comments_Minor - due to the extent of landscaping installed throughput the complex.
4. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
Comments Additional efforts or proof that such is not feasible is required for approval.
5. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
Comments. Yes, there is a specific reason for this unit to be attached to the existing facility.
7. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease,
injury or hazard.
Comments Fair to good
8. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the
property.
Comments Trees shown for removal are those that existing in this open space near existing buildings. The
location of the proposed structure is tied to the services provided in those existing buildings which override
the possibility of locating the proposed structure elsewhere.
9. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or
maintaining essential public utilities.
Comments N/A
10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where
possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
Comments The project is utilizing existing roads and utilities.
11. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
12. The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development
design.
Comments N/A
14. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted.by
state and federal regulations.
Comments N/A
15. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant.
Comments
•An appeal may be filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with Chapter 155' of the Unified Development
Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator determinations/decisions may be appealed by any person aggrieved to the Planning
Commission within I0 business days. Recommendations go straight to Planning Commission, thus no formal appeal is necessary for
recommendations.
a
Project: Butterfield Trail Village
City of Fayetteville
Tree Mitigation Form
Developer: Butterfield Trail Village
Location Address: 19233 Joyce Boulavard Engineer: CEI Engineering
it is required that this form be submitted concurrently with the Tree Preservation Plan if mitigation
of any kind is sought.
Canopy measurements:
% Tree Canopy:
Required to be Preserved 20%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 43.94
Square Feet: 1,913,983 sf
Amount of Preservation Requirement Requested for
Mitigation:
Acres:
Square Feet: 7,952 sf
% of Total Site: 0.35%
Type of Mitigation Pursued:
✓0n Site Mitigation
OOff Site Preservation
Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Acres:
Square Feet: 300,422 sf
% of Total Site Area: 15.7%
Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Acres:
Square Feet 292,470
% of Total Site Area 15.35%
OOff Site Forestation OTree Fund
List Mitigation Species, Caliper, and Quantity of trees to be planted in the space below. Refer to
table and on back for figuring quantity and caliper sizes.
Species Caliper Qty.
Amount proposed to be deposited in the City of Fayetteville Tree Fund:
Mitigation Proposal: OApproved ODisapproved
Landscape Administrator, 44i4&e
•
Tree Mitigation Base Density/Off Site Alternatives
When preservation cannot be accomplished and existing canopy is to be removed below minimum canopy
requirements, mitigation is required. Before any Mitigation/Off-Site Alternatives are carried out, approval
must be granted by the Landscape Administrator. When mitigation is an issue a mitigation form, available
from the Landscape Administrator, detailing all proposed actions should be submitted with the Tree
Preservation Plan. Mitigation and reforestation densities, preferred species, spacing, and amounts are
determined by the tables below.
Existing High Priority
Canopy Proposed For
Removal
Existing Mid -Level
Priority Canopy
Proposed For Removal
Existing Low Priority
Canopy Proposed For
Removal
Required # of trees
per acre removed
Density
I Factor
Required H of trees
per acre removed
Density
Factor
Caliper of
Replacement
Tree
Required H of
trees per acre
removed
Density
Factor
200
218sf
150
290sf
100
436sf
2"
230
190sf
173
252sf
115
380sf
11/2^
232sf
125
350sf
1"
250
175sf
188
'The Density Factor is a ratio of canopy removed to numtrer 01 trees repiaccu
Here are the 5 simple steps on how to calculate the size and number of trees needed for mitigation
Establish how many acres/square feet of canopy is proposed to be removed on site that falls
below the minimum canopy requirement
7,952 sf
2. Establish the Priority type of the canopy proposed to be removed.
High = 3050
Mid = 4902
3. Select what caliper of mitigation trees are going to be used. Note:.Contact Nurseries to
confirm caliper availability in the species desired
2"
4. Refer to the table and find Density Factor that correlates with Canopy type removed and
caliper size proposed for replacement.
5. Take Density Factor and divide by the square feet of canopy removed to. get number of
mitigation trees needed.
3050/218= 14 trees
4902 / 290 = 17 trees
On -Site Mitigation is preferred over Off -Site Alternatives. Show the location and species of
mitigation trees on the tree preservation plans and submit the Mitigation/Off-Site
Alternatives form at time of submittal
:111 I:rt\I��IIA���h�
LSDO3-15.OO BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
One Mile Yew
t? r
c-2 t 1 i.I i A - -F - --0- -'r t ..-I...L
A1 l
I I RD J ,
' i ] I '{I I � II _ A -t
-- — — r � . 6.2 A"11' � �f'__ jl R-2odr,�.'R-2t.:, lt...l � ' I _R ._ � � I—
rE """111����I L "wt` I r .11 I:
� 62 , 11, I }R-2, I .�may.. -- R-1 � - -
-,'Sr �IIIbM / i _ IR 2') / A-1 R-1
I ^�=14_3 _. _ I
I a I I'r'! L R 2 ,7=. {R 21 a 'R-1 I R 2 :>q.F —�
G2 Wv
' • r -I.;.z::-:-rc-L
- I _G2 �T_I� I I 11i1Ut°IJ':"�^�, `i' d LJ I
I- +. _ �"^v111111� I:.��-
GI I 2 y I I 7- t_.J - - y
j.
F2 (Y2 '— •'. ` L. _ __ III _r _ R-1 I R-1
_ y.... Em
IA-1 A-1
I I r-tI I e IR-0u
SUBJECT PROPERTY -
C-2 '% I L,
R -O-. -
1 �• •� I R-1.5
J v i
R -
R-0 sir i-�u,tJ lya Y^ YIA�E 11-—�--
:«erse.'. LI
R-0 •I oil' y O .• ;t I I 1
r t3R-1 C_ 1 u _ _ I
R-1'' -F � .f ;-^ :. _ ,fit I
w�j lodt A G2 rt_-• �lTl LI ��+ t' `a r
si ✓I Y .
—!"a . t „
V'7j G2—R1R h .'�•';d+�tT�'''YweQ?' t-�'•'^,Z•Yt} ._'
-' A1
v., R Ir"'7 _,—`]�I'}T! .- IPJMIfiiU*I�•jgp`-�J�I I R -t
ily,�-'.�1p2 G2 I:'?Y'Ily,., „ T " R I . {��.: r.• 1L.
/ 3..; {.,,; ;R ' 1 �} '� •,>�'` ' R , te` _]
.' 11.:1.,M -l\ I >, I. �- c _
Overview Legend
. _. $IIbjBCt Propery Boundary W Wr StrM Plan
® ISDO}75.00 o%e PanrWV M• .cztz'/c. ,jt_vI
0 0000 # I/RKIyr NI•Y
San 000008 OMAq Maki
- awllr
'1� F0lWp L _ C4y IJnWs I, .r
OOubid•Cly •••• II-.Lcizi-
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.Q.
Planning Commissions
May 27, 2003
Page 25
a
LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was
submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield
Trail Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for
the addition of a new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking
spaces proposed.
Hoover: Moving on to item number six, the companion item, LSD 03-15.00 for
Butterfield Trail Village. Jeremy?
Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This proposal is for the expansion of that
existing medical facility we just spoke of to include a 22,347 sq.ft.
Alzheimer's care unit and the construction of a new parking lot with 41
spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion with a net
gain of 34 spaces. The right of way being dedicated is 55' from centerline
on Joyce Blvd. The applicant is requesting a lesser dedication which must
be approved by the City Council. A letter and exhibit is included in your
packet pertaining to that request. Tree preservation, existing is 15.7%, the
preservation is 15.35%, mitigation will be 31 trees planted on site. Staff is
recommending approval of this Large Scale Development subject to eight
conditions of approval. 1) Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by
Fire Code. 2) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to
allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning
district. 3) The required bicycle parking racks shall be u -shaped as
required by ordinance. 4) Fifty-five feet from centerline shall be
dedicated along Joyce Boulevard. Items five through eight are standard
conditions of approval.
Hoover: Can the applicant go ahead and give us a presentation of your Large Scale
Development including your elevations?
Yates: Kevin Yates with CEI Engineering and I have Steven Jones here with
Miller, Boskus Lack Architects. He is the architect on the project. We are
fine with all of the issues that you have except for the right of way
dedication. The reason being there is they have some really nice trees and
a wood fence along that frontage along Joyce. We had marked with some
orange flagging and asked that you guys go by and tour this on your
agenda session to have a look at if we gave that right of way and the
improvements did happen how they would affect those trees and that fence
in that area. In the letter I prepared to you I showed you where the
principal arterial section does allow for the use of a minor arterial section.
Hoover: I am sorry, we are looking for the letter.
Planning Commission a
May 27, 2003
Page 26
Warrick: They were distributed at your places this evening. They should be in front
of you as additional information.
Hoover: Thank you. Please continue on.
Yates: Yes Ma'am. The principal arterial section does make an allowance for
when right of way is unattainable the minor arterial four lane section may
be used with a 90' right of way verses the 110' required for the principal
arterial. What we would like to request is in our consideration for
reduction of this right of way requirement is to allow us to dedicate to that
fence, which would be 43' approximately from centerline of the existing
street and if we could reduce that 10' greenspace between the sidewalk
and the back of curb to 7' that would make that function as far as that
section allowing that greenspace fencing and trees to remain. It is like 23'
wide between the fence and their parking that is on site at this point. It is
just those are really nice trees and the people at Butterfield Trail Village
would like to keep that look up. I understand that the improvements aren't
planned in the near future but if they did happen and the right of way was
there they would more than likely be taken out.
Hoover: Thank you
Kevin.
Would
you
like to go ahead and go through the
commercial
design
guidelines
with
your elevations?
Warrick: This is actually a residential development because it is residential in nature
we don't consider this applicable for commercial.
Yates: As far as our elevations and looks, if you are aware of the Butterfield Trail
Village buildings that are out there now it will be a rock veneer with wood
shake shingles. It is a real similar look. In fact, I think they are going to
be able to use the same quarry in the rock to get the similar look on the
building.
Anthes: Whether or not we are considering it I would like to thank Miller, Boskus,
Lack for doing such a good job with the packet and including it anyway.
Thank you.
Hoover: I am going to open it to the public now. Is there anyone that would like to
address this LSD 03-15.00 for Butterfield Trail Village? Seeing none, I
will bring it back to the Commissioners and the applicant. Right of way
discussion?
Estes: I am reluctant to give up the right of way. The reason is if the city needs it
back they are going to have to pay for it. We are giving it away today and
they are going to have to buy it back at some time in the future. That
doesn't make any economic good sense to me. As stewards and as
Planning Commissions
May 27, 2003
Page 27
a
servants of the community I think we need to, I know we need to think
about that. To give away property of substantial value today anticipating
that perhaps at some time in the future there will be a need for it and then
we will have to pay for it is not good stewardship on our part and I am just
not willing to do that. You know there has been the improvement to the
north side of the street, the sidewalk improvement. There are other needs,
something has got to be done with Zion. This isn't even on the radar
screen but if 30 years or 40 years or 20 years from now it is I don't want
somebody getting a hold of me and saying why did you give it away back
in May, 2003 and now we're having to pay 5.5 million dollars to get it
back.
Yates: May I respond?
Hoover: Yes please.
Yates: I believe you make a good point there as far as your responsibility in
looking out for that but I think we gave you an option here to meet the
requirement as far as making this function with a minor arterial section
and right of way there. That is actually in place as far as the street section
right now. I think the trees and the fencing there that falls within the
guidelines the Planning Commission likes to go for as far as maintaining
those nice mature trees and the greenspaces and everything and that is
what we are looking for here. This is a home to all of these folks and if
you take those trees away just imagine what it is going to be like with no
screening or anything to Joyce Blvd. there being a busy street as it is and I
would just like you to take that into consideration.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight will you give it back when we ask for it? That
seems fair to me.
Yates: I really can't answer that. I would like to forward that on to Mr.
Honeycutt here with Butterfield Trail Village.
Honeycutt: I am Don Honeycutt, I represent the Butterfield Trail Village Board. We
were trying to keep our beautiful landscape front there as far as, it has
been there for about 17 or 18 years now. Trees are getting to be pretty big.
In another five or ten years they will be much bigger. It would be a shame
I think to lose the whole front there at any point. If we have room now
with this way to get an extra lane I feel like that would be enough property
to give that lane and that is what we would be asking for.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight will you give it back to us when we ask for it?
Honeycutt: What do you mean, the tree line?
Planning Commission a
May 27, 2003
Page 28
Estes: Your ordinance requires right of way dedication 55' from centerline on
Joyce and you are asking for what?
Honeycutt: 45'.
Yates: We are asking to reduce it. Right now currently there is approximately
40' and we are asking to go ahead and give 43' up to the fence which
would be 2' shy of the minor arterial section which if the right of way is
unattainable you are allowed to use that section verses a principal arterial,
which is the 20' reduction in right of way requirement. We would be
within 2' and I think we can make that function by giving in that
greenspace in that section a little bit. Complementing the fact we have a
huge greenspace on the other side of it. Granted that is for separation
from traffic but 7' or 10' you know, you still have got pretty good
separation there.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight when we want it back will you give it to us or
are you going to make us pay for it?
Honeycutt: I can't make that determination. We have a board meeting tomorrow
night that we can bring a proposal like that up with the board.
Estes: Mr. Williams is such a thing permissible?
Williams: I would doubt that the board could really commit to that at this point in
time without a deed to the city. I don't think the City Council would go
along with a reduction. It is my understanding the City Council would
also have to approve this. Dawn, is that correct if it is a lesser dedication?
Warrick: Yes.
Williams: What I would like to assure you, and my parents live there as you know so
I am well acquainted with Butterfield Trail and it is certainly a nice
development, the city is not about to go out and knock down all of those
trees. On the other hand I also don't think the city is going to approve a
lesser dedication for one of its principal arterials. As you know on the
Master Street Plan Joyce is the northern most through way through the city
and I don't think that they are going to approve a lesser dedication even
than a minor arterial would require for a street that has got tremendous
traffic and only going to have more traffic in the future. I think Mr. Estes'
point is well taken. On the other hand, I want to assure you that there is
nothing in the Capital Improvements Project list that I have seen
anywhere in the near future to do anything that would, in fact, endanger
those trees.
Planning Commissions 40
May 27, 2003
Page 29
Honeycutt: As I say, still, I couldn't release that until the Board approved it, the
Butterfield Trail Board. I think the offering that we have here would give
the additional lane that would be required probably for turning. It would
just eliminate the width because the section shows a 20' boulevard down
the middle of that section, which I wouldn't see as working there because
there are so many drives to turn in and out of you would eliminate that
whole boulevard there in a center lane for turning and that is what we need
the full length of Joyce is a turning lane so you can get out and get on the
other side. The boulevard in the center of that section would not work
there I don't believe. I would refer maybe to the Hwy. 265 that went
through where a boulevard was proposed there and that didn't go through
with the Highway Department. There is where I think we can make up the
difference and pull those boundaries in from 55' and still get that
additional lane. You see the tree section in the center of that boulevard?
Estes: Yes.
Honeycutt: What we are in effect doing is eliminating that and making a turn lane
down through there and putting the greenspace on the outside of it where
our trees are. If I am correct we are going to have to go to the board to get
this approved. We were just trying to get some comments from the
Planning Commission as far as preserving the landscaping that we have
and any comments that you have positive or negative. It looks like we
have some negatives but I don't, we're not asking or trying to say that we
will do this, because we will be appealing it to the board. That is the way
the ordinance reads isn't it?
Warrick: Yes.
Hoover: Are there any other comments?
Ostner: I would agree with Commissioner Estes that I am reluctant to narrow or to
lessen our right of way dedication. Part of the point is trying to be
consistent with other developments along this street and if we give it to
you we've got to give it to them and suddenly we have reduced our area to
expand and serve traffic. I understand the reasoning on the lane issue.
However, in right of ways we bury all kinds of stuff. We bury storm
drains, sewers, water and electric. We might bury nothing but I am
inclined to suggest the more trees get planted inward and in 30 years if we
have to expand they are already grown. I don't know of a better solution.
Honeycutt: We've got some parking that would be interfering with that right now if
you look at the plan. There is a whole line of parking right next to the
building itself. I don't know how many spaces. It is between the main
Planning Commissions
May 27, 2003
Page 30
entrance there to Butterfield and the east entrance. There is a service drive
that comes in for the parking right there which to get the same amount of
landscaping we would be eliminating that whole drive right through there.
Hoover: Are there any other comments?
Bunch: Regardless of what the dedication of the right of way is or even if the right
of way dedication is not reduced, that does not mean that the design
parameters that were discussed by the applicant could not be achieved
within regardless of whether it was a smaller dedication or larger
dedication. It is the same design theme as a reasoning for the smaller
dedication could still be used with the larger dedication.
Yates: That is true. We just wouldn't have the assurance at this time that those
trees would be protected because you might not be here to give guidance
in that. If that was your intent now and we gave that right of way
someone else 10 years down the road had the authority to come in and
build that road they might not realize what your intent was and come
through and just take all the trees out. That is where we would be
reluctant as far as the additional right of way with the less design scheme.
Bunch: I definitely appreciate your concerns because this is the same kind of issue
that gave us North College, the removal of trees in the right of way and
that sort of thing to create access. There is another part of this. Dawn,
you might can help me. Did we get the 30% over and under parking for
this type of project?
Warrick: That is permitted.
Bunch: I noticed that you were speaking of parking in relation to this and you
were showing 455 required and even with the additional parking only
coming up to 363, is that taking into account the 30% under?
Yates: The
required that is
shown
does not
take into account the 30% under. We
fall
into compliance
if you
take
that
into account.
Bunch: The 30% under would bring you down to about 319?
Yates: Yes Sir.
Bunch: Ok.
Vaught: I would agree with Commissioner Estes also on this right of way issue. In
20 years no matter if we lessen the dedication or not, if we need the land
the city will get it and tear down the trees. It is a matter of if we are going
Planning Commissions
May 27, 2003
Page 31
to pay for it in 20 or 30 years or whether we have it dedicated now. No
matter which way we go when we need to expand Joyce we will expand
Joyce I think. That is the issue to me. It is not a protection of the trees
because no matter which way we go they would be in jeopardy. I would
be against lessening the right of way for the same reasons physically for
the city having to come up with the money in 20 or 30 years.
Bunch: In 20 or 30 years as the applicant discussed, those trees will be quite
sizeable and I think unless our tree ordinance changes in that 30 years
would be listed as significant trees and there would have to be a
replacement for them and there would have to be considerable mitigation
so that would definitely be a consideration when all of us are gone as to
what happens to those trees within that right of way.
Honeycutt: Another comment about that is we have had discussions about the cost of
redoing the landscaping that we have done there if that is taken in as right
of way who pays for that if we have to go inward to get it. That is another
discussion that we have had at Butterfield Trail.
Hoover: Dawn, would you address that?
Warrick: At this time no additional landscaping would be required beyond what the
Large Scale proposes. If any additional landscaping were proposed or
desired by the applicant then that would be your option.
Honeycutt: If the widening went into effect then we would lose the line of trees and
landscaping and we wouldn't have any room really to put anything along
where this parking is that is on the east side there. It would be like the
north side of the street where we have got parking lot right up to the
sidewalk is what it would look like and we are trying to shield Butterfield
from its original landscape design by leaving that landscaped area in there.
That is really our point that we would like to see.
Yates: I would like to repose this question. I think there may have been some
misunderstanding. If the street improvements happen in the future and
those trees are taken out and the mitigation was required because they are
substantial trees, who would pay for that mitigation at that time I think is
what Mr. Honeycutt's question was.
Warrick: If the trees were part of the city right of way and they were owned by the
city and the city removed them then the city would be responsible for any
replacement I believe would be the situation in the future.
Honeycutt: Replacement on the owner's property?
Planning Commission 0
May 27, 2003
Page 32
Warrick: It would most likely be a replacement within the city right of way as it
exists after the improvements.
Hoover: Is there anymore discussion?
Anthes: I guess I would
like to reassure
the
applicant that no one on this
Commission wants
to see those trees
town
down.
Honeycutt: I understand that, we are just trying to see if we feel like we can keep
them.
Anthes: We also appreciate that you came to us with a solution, not just a problem.
I appreciate the street section. I hope we put it in a permanent file so
when the street is redesigned your firm is hired to do the work and you can
do that very section. For the reasons Commissioner Estes stated it is very
difficult for us to say now that we will accept a lesser dedication knowing
that in the future we will have to pay for it and knowing that in the future
we can design to a standard such as you suggested. That said, I believe I
would have to concur with the other comments of the Commissioners this
evening.
Honeycutt: One other question I have, is the full 55' taken all up and down Joyce
now?
Warrick: All along the front property line of the subject property.
Honeycutt: On the north side?
Warrick: I don't know if the full 55' exists along the north side. That is a vacant
piece of property and when we look at a development on that if it has not
been dedicated. There is a portion of that that is undeveloped. Any of the
property that has been developed since the Master Street Plan went into
affect in 1995 is subject to the right of way dedication requirements. That
is when the 55' from centerline was determined. The street sections that
we are considering that the applicants provided are actually part of the
city's General Plan and our Master Street Plan document. The city has the
flexibility to work within those street sections when we are looking at
developing new streets and improving or expanding existing streets.
When we send those projects out to design or if we design them in house
we do have those standards existing. Like I said, the flexibility is there to
mitigate situations where you may not have the necessary right of way or
there may be improvements such as these that the city desires to maintain
if possible within the parameters of the existing right of way. There are
possibilities to work around those trees. If we don't have the right of way
Planning Commission% S
May 27, 2003
Page 33
then we
don't have
anything
to work around and we don't really have the
options
that may be
available
otherwise.
Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Is there any other discussion or motions?
MOTION:
Estes: I move for approval of LSD 03-15.00.
Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second?
Allen: Second.
Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any other discussion? Seeing
none, will you call the roll Renee?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-15.00 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero.
Hoover: Thank you.
•
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and ' keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Name
Apartment / Cottage #
33
34
3s
0
v
c
0
4
/ D P
/g0
/14
773
/a
/17
/s
Butterfield 'Nail
Village
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Nai Apartment / Cottage # /IJno, flat 7(D
7
�-� /73
7
tat 'WY
r�x
/
/
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
/ Cottage #
'7 /,
/L7
/S
PTO
1
S Z�
I.
. O
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Apartment / Cottage #
L2L�
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Name Apartment / Cottage #
'tau O $L& tt- ¼
11-
243
'LS D
-J
•
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Name Apartment I Cottage #
0 / 'p , •
a. -
In
'- R -
ph
7
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Name Apartment / Cottage #
fJ
O
-%- f/5/ lv
yl�/C C,o-a 31 /1/
47 Cs" IV
308ty
%�• �/jY J r7S
% 3b
2/k"
rr'
1 • 1
I.•
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
It
i 1•
I '. ,.
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Name h t rApartment / Cottage #
9 i A ,,cJjtic c 369
N
ME
a
3-S
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
Name Apartment / Cottage #
U
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
—sh..c - C -/2c
C Il9
V4 t
- --- 2 - / 0 /.
- A'
M1
r `y
: ,.
I I.
Be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Butterfield Trail Village,
petition the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas to exercise the power and
authority to grant a waiver the dedication of any more land as bounds the
north side of Butterfield Trail Village in connection with the expansion of the
health care center. We, the undersigned wish to preserve the green space and
trees as currently exists and to maintain and keep in waiver in effect
perpetuity.
N / % Apartment / Cottage #
/ > 7 O/r-.eL,, , r) Din. ✓# •7
C — 1 1
l FAYETTPVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Gt/ CAfg)M6EJJ
b4TrERFIEID Tn !I
U I II¢y 4jpRk O
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-575-8264
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TO: Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville City Council
FROM: Tim Conklin, Director of Community Planning and Engineering Services
DATE: August 14, 2003
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Cost on Joyce Blvd.
The amount of right-of-way that we are requesting to be dedicated pursuant to the Master Street
Plan is an additional 13,943 square feet. Inquiry into recent sales of property along Joyce Blvd,
East of College Ave. has indicated a selling range of $350,000 - $400,000/acre ($ 8.00-
$ 9.00/ft2). If purchased in 2003, the total cost of this right-of-way would range from $111,544
to $125,487.
SENT, BY: CEI EIJGINFERING;
1 479 P54 8A99; AU8•f8•01 1:59Pt1;
03 I:.
CE! Engineering Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1408 . Bentonville, Arkansas 72712
(479) 273-9472 • Fax (479) 273-0844
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DateAugust 18, 2003
Time: 11.16 AM
Distribution:
PAGE I
R WRIFile
To: Sondra Smith Project: Butterfield Trail Village
Company: City of Fayetteville CEI Project No.: 17793.0
From: 'Traci for Kevin R. Yates FAX No.: 479-718-7695
Reference: Appeal of The Master Street Plan Right of Way Dedication Requirements
Comments:
Total pages including cover: _5_
❑ Plcasc Confirm Sltc.® 8'/t" x 11"
❑ 8'.i:" x 14"
❑ No Confirmation Necessary ❑ Other
Please call us Immediately If the fax you receive is incomplete or illegible.
Athnts. GA • Dcmmflv.ur.
Ak • D81ss. TX • ?¢•m,. CA • Jasmvdlc.
IN • Nashv,tle.
TN • %cnnlui,
PA • Sr
Augwunr, IL
Rev 024M411
SENT, BV: CEI ENGINEERING;
1 479 254 6899 ;
0
AUG 18 03
I:59PM;
a
PAGE 2
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc.
Corporate Office: 3317 SW "I- Street • P.O. Box 1408 • Bentonville. AR 72712-1408
August IS, 2003
City of Fayetteville
1 I I West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 2739472 • (479) 2730844
UISTRIDVr)r)N'
RWR/F,k/S1e•ai Jcots/I)c,, Hunnicua
RE: Appeal of The Master Street Plan Right of Way Dedication Requirements
Butterfield Trail Village
1923 East Joyce Blvd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CEI Project #17793.0
Dear Chairperson:
Please except this letter as a formal request from Butterfield Trail Village (owner). for an appeal of the
Master Street Plan Right of Way dedication requirements for the above referenced project. Please see the
attached drawing Exhibit "A" Right of Way Dedication fur clarification of the area in question. The master
street plan classifies this section of Joyce Boulevard as a principal arterial, which requires a right of way of
one hundred and ten feet in width as shown in Exhibit "B" Principal Arterial Section.
The existing right of way from centerline of street along this frontage is approximately forty feet in width.
Approximately three feet beyond this existing right of way is a green space approximately twenty-three feet
in width containing wood fencing and nice mature trees. In keeping with the City of Fayetteville's tree
preservation principles and green space requirements the owner would like to consider other possible
options to allow this green space to remain. The principal arterial section makes allowances for areas where
sufficient right of way is unobtainable and allows the use of the minor arterial four -lane section to be used.
With the use minor arterial tour lane section the same number of lanes is provided and the green space is
located as buffer along the Butterfield Trail Village frontage in the form of nice mature trees versus in the
form of ornamental trees with in the median.
the minor arterial section requires a right of way section ninety feet in width as shown in Exhibit "C"
Minor Arterial Section. The owner requests that no additional right of way dedication be required. The
green space width in the minor arterial street section could be reduced to five feet from ten feet, which
would allow the existing green space with wood fencing and nice mature trees to remain.
We appreciate your time and consideration on this issue and if you have questions or require additional
information, please do no hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Yates, E.
Project Manager
Local DevelopmentPublic Works
Scc Auaclmxnts: Exhibits "A" "B", Sr "C"
Bcntonifo. AR • Fresno. CA • St Aijusune. FL • Nashville. TN • Atlanta, GA • Dallas. TX • Wills Pant. TX • Jasonviae, IN • Scranton. PA
SENT, BY: CE! ENGINI
1--
h
1 479 254 6899 ; AUG 1R 03 1:59PM; PAGE 3/5 II _
e; CiGat; Lr., yy.: rd .C'
1�5
$ w ,.
ndc��c�C X41
a
l
I I
f 55.00
R.O.W.
DEDICATION
P
I I
N 44
NOT m SCALE
O%KR/pEVF' ODER
BUTTEREIELD 1RAR, MLL AGE
1923 E. JOYCE BLVD
TAVE11LMLLI. AR 72701
008 9RENNAN
479-442-7220
INI TIAE DESIGN
4
C Q
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE_
JEW ALZHEIMER'S CARE UNIT T
tEC
� ASSOCIA TESN INC
CG4PS lt4NNfR5
' Sw "I- sfrdl (479) 273-9472 J NO.. 177930
en.Ola AR 77717 FAY 479 773-0844 DwG NAYS: E,V89T
HIBIT "A" R.O.W DEDICATION °" sNEirPd
00-05-0.1
10: s0 AY 10F I
4YErTEWLLE AR acv -z
SENT BY: CEI ENGINEERING; 1 479 254 6899 ; AUG•18•03 2:OOPU; PAGE 4/5
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS carry high volumes of through traffic. They are designed as
boulevards for beauty and safety. In areas where sufficient right of way is unobtainable, the minor
arterial four lane section can be uscd.
Design Service Volume: 17,600 vpd, 20,600 vpd with left turn bay
Spy{: 40-45 mph
Traffic Lanes: Four 12' travel lanes, 12turn lanes possible at intersections and at
frequent intervals
Parking Lanes: None
Paved Width: 28' from back of curb each side of median
Right of Way: At least 110'
Multi -use Trails: Two at least C wide, at least 10' from curb
Median: 20' minimum if no turn bay. May be reduced to 8' to accommodate
turn bays•
Tree planting areas: Two, at least 10' wide, in addition to the median
no' -o'
Infirm
Principal Arteriol
Exhibit "B"
Principal Arterial Section
::._. �..._....._. ....._......--- PiyettevtUe, Atkins" • GENE LAL PLAN 2020 •' 2001 A•visloa
10-5
SENT BY: CET ENGINEERING;
1 479 254 GB99 ;
AUG-1B-03 2:00PU;
a
PAGE 5/5
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
HISTORIC COLLECTOR provides traffic circulation within the historic and developed parts of
central Fayetteville. This type of collector street recognizes the right-of-way limitations associated
with developing in "built -out" areas of the city.
Design Service Volume: 4,000 vpd, 6,000 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 25-30 mph
Traffic Lanes: Two 11' travel lanes, 10turn bays where warranted
Parking Lanes: Two lanes provided. None when turn bay exists
Paved Width: 36' from back of' curb
Right of Way: At least 50'
Sidewalk 6'
MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS connect higher functional class facilities, etc. Residential frontage
is strongly discouraged. Access should be from perpendicular local or residential streets.
Design Service Volume: 12,200 vpd, 14,900 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 35-40 mph
Traffic Lames: Four 12' travel lanes, 11' turn lanes possible at intersections
Fading Lanes: None
Paved Width: 52' from back of curb, 59' with turn lane
Right of Way: At least 90'
Multi -use Trail; Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Tree Planting Areas Two, at least 10' wide
Min;mum
Minor Arterial
Exhibit "C"
Minor Arterial Section
Payettevale, Arkaaaas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 1tevisioa
10-4
JFAY1IE77 _ILA
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Dawn Warrick
Planning
FROM: Sondra Smith
City Clerk
DATE: 08/27/03
SUBJECT: Butterfield Trail Village
Right of Way Dedication Appeal
Attached is a copy of Resolution
126-03 for
the above referenced appeal.
The original
will be microfilmed
and filed in
the City Clerk's office.
Thanks!
Sondra Smith
City Clerk
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor
• • • • LSD 03-15.00
Pate I
PC Meeting of Apri128, 2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THF, CITY OF FAYEfl EVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Butterfield Trail Village, LSD
.jc.kte1 7/i/d3ta 2Js
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members /y\ Al k -c 9/19 /05
THRU: Dawn Warrick, Zoning and Development Administrator, A.I,C.P. Mt i�q
FROM: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: April 24, 2003
Project: LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was
submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield Trail
Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2, Medium
Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for the addition of a
new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking spaces proposed.
Findings: Proposal: Expansion of the existing medical facility to include a 22,347 square
foot Alzheimer's Care Unit and the construction of a new parking with a total of 41 parking
spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion. There will be a net gain of 34
spaces.
Existing
Development:
There is a current medical facility on
site as well as apartments, duplexes,
and villa
homes.
Surrounding Zoning: North: R -O
South: R-1
East: R -O
West: R -O and A -I
Surrounding Land Use: North: Office
South: Single Family Residential
East: Office
West: Office
Water: Available of site
Sewer: Available on site
Right-of-way being dedicated: 55 feet from centerline on Joyce Boulevard
Street Improvements Proposed: None
• 0 • • LSD 03-15.00
Page 2
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Joyce Boulevard is a principal arterial on the Master Street
Plan.
Tree Preservation: Existing: 15.7%
Preservation: 15.35%
Mitigation: 31 trees planted on site
Recommendation: Approval Subject to the Following Conditions
Conditions of Approval:
1. Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by Fire Code.
2. Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and
Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning district.
3.
The required bicycle parking racks
shall be u -shaped as required by ordinance.
4.
Fifty-five feet from centerline shall
be dedicated along
Joyce Boulevard.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. • All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
7. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the
City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
• • • LSD 03-15.00
Page 3
Background:
The project was reviewed at the April 3, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the April 17, 2003
Subdivision Committee Meeting.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included commercial design standards and tree
preservation.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning
Commission subject to all staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Date:
Comments:
yes Required
Approved Denied
The "CONDITIONS
OF
APPROVAL", beginning on page
one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by
the
entity requesting approval of this
development item.
By
Title
"nfl
0
City of Fayetteville
Tree Preservation Plan Review Form
Project: Butterfield Trail Village Developer: Butterfield Trail Village
Location Address: 19233 Joyce Boulavard Engineer: CEI Engineering
This form shall stand as a: Olnitial Review/Letter of Confirmation
Submital requirements met:
0lnitial Review
Comments:
✓Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council
OFinal Administrative Determination•
✓Site Analysis OAnalysis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan
Canopy measurements:
% Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved
Land Use R-2
%To be Preserved 20%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 45.73 acres
Square Feet: 1,992, 074 sf
Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Acres: 9.79
Square Feet: 300,422 sf
% of Total Site Area: 15.7% _
Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Acres: 9.15
Square Feet: 292,470.
% of Total Site Area 15.35%
Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: ✓Yes ONo
✓On -Site Mitigation OOff-Site Preservation OOff-Site Forestation OTree Fund
Tree Preservation Criteria Met: ✓Yes ONo (See back for criteria list and
comments)
Applicant's Plan: ✓Approved ODisapproved OConditionally Approved
Conditions of Approval:
7,952 sf is to be mitigated by way of 31 (2" caliper) on -site replacement trees. Prior to building
permit approval, please provide a landscape plan that shows the location and species for
Mitigation trees.
,the Landscape Administrator, date IS —D
Criteria used by Landscape*nistrator to evaluate Tree Presloa* Plan:
1. The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species.
Comments Three significant trees exist in the location of the building and is proposed for removal. Whether
the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
Comments The building location is tied to the need for services and the connection to the existing building.
2. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of
the tree or group of trees.
Comments Minor - due to the extent of landscaping installed throughput the complex.
The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood
and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
Comments_Minor - due to the extent of landscaping installed throughput the complex.
4. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
Comments Additional efforts or proof that such is not feasible is required for approval.
5. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
Comments. Yes, there is a specific reason for this unit to be attached to the existing facility.
7. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease,
injury or hazard.
Comments Fair to good
8. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the
property.
Comments Trees shown for removal are those that existing in this open space near existing buildings. The
location of the proposed structure is tied to the services provided in those existing buildings which override
the possibility of locating the proposed structure elsewhere.
9. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or
maintaining essential public utilities. —
Comments N/A
10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where
possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
Comments The project is utilizing existing roads and utilities.
11. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
12. . The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development
design.
Comments N/A
14. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by
state and federal regulations.
Comments N/A
15. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant.
Comments
•An appeal may be filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with Chapter 155 of the Unified Development
Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator determinations/decisions may be appealed by any person aggrieved to the Planning
Commission within 10 business days. Recommendations go straight to Planning Commission, thus no formal appeal is necessary for
recommendations.
• •
••
Project: Butterfield Trail Village
City of Fayetteville
Tree Mitigation Form
Developer: Butterfield Trail Village
Location Address: 19233 Joyce Boulavard Engineer: CEI Engineering
It is required that this form be submitted concurrently with the Tree Preservation Plan if mitigation
of any kind is sought.
Canopy measurements:
% Tree Canopy:
Required to be Preserved 20%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 43.94
Square Feet: 1,913,983 sf
Amount of Preservation Requirement Requested for
Mitigation:
Acres:
Square Feet: 7,952 sf
% of Total Site: 035%
Type of Mitigation Pursued:
✓On Site Mitigation OOff Site Preservation
Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Acres:
Square Feet: 300,422 sf
% of Total Site Area: 15.7%
Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Acres:
Square Feet 292,470
% of Total Site Area 15.35%
OOff Site Forestation OTree Fund
List Mitigation Species, Caliper, and Quantity of trees to be planted in the space below. Refer to
table and on back for figuring quantity and caliper sizes.
Species Caliper Qty.
Amount proposed to be deposited in the City of Fayetteville Tree Fund:
Mitigation Proposal: OApproved ODisapproved
Landscape Administrator, 4/// - Le
•• ••
Tree Mitigation Base Density/Off Site Alternatives
When preservation cannot be accomplished and existing canopy is to be removed below minimum canopy
requirements, mitigation is required. Before any Mitigation/Off-Site Alternatives are carried out, approval
must be granted by the Landscape Administrator. When mitigation is an issue a mitigation form, available
from the Landscape Administrator, detailing all proposed actions should be submitted with the Tree
Preservation Plan. Mitigation and reforestation densities, preferred species, spacing, and amounts are
determined by the tables below.
Existing High Priority Existing Mid -Level Existing Low Priority
Canopy Proposed For Priority Canopy Canopy Proposed For
Removal Proposed For Removal Removal
Caliper of Required # of Density Required # of trees Density Required # of trees Density
Replacement trees per acre Factor per acre removed Factor per acre removed Factor
Tree removed
2" u - 200 II 218sf II 150 II 290sf II 100 Ii 436sf
11/2"
230
190sf
173
252sf
115
380sf
II 350sf
125
250
175sf
II 188
232sf
1
Density Factor is a ratio of canopy removed to number of trees
Here are the 5 simple steps on how to calculate the size and number of trees needed for mitigation
Establish how many acres/square feet of canopy is proposed to be removed on site that falls
below the minimum canopy requirement
7,952 sf
2. Establish the Priority type of the canopy proposed to be removed.
High= 3050
Mid = 4902
3. Select what caliper of mitigation trees are going to be used. Note: Contact Nurseries to
confirm caliper availability in the species desired
2"
4. Refer to the table and find Density Factor that correlates with Canopy type removed and
caliper size proposed for replacement.
5. Take Density Factor and divide by the square feet of canopy removed to get number of
mitigation trees needed.
3050 / 218 = 14 trees
4902 / 290 = 17 trees
6. On -Site Mitigation is preferred over Off -Site Alternatives. Show the location and species of
mitigation trees on the tree preservation plans and submit the Mitigation/Off-Site
Alternatives form at time of submittal
:11II:l_1IviIut_xhf
LSD0315.OOI BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
One Mile View
�`QFc<� I I I 1 �--. •#1 T `�i, I _�_ i1E',�Sif'�
C-2 I ILI $ 'I -------I A=1 - ------'j
t ;... I I I
a l
p -11
G2 ! '; �t �, .�z A4' �_-, IT 7 _ A -t
R -2O 2_i / `l i i
)N R I5I- - -I
1 - fir, G2 ` II +! II
l J 4"• SIR 2-).� 1 A-1 - - - --
R1
G2 wry [pl 7--A-7�1 I I R2 _R1I I> R2 tY:.'
1 -- � _ .�. 1 __ `
1 J 1 — t-Lr
�-.-J—�IG2 h G2- '• ~< L - - = .'3R1 R-1 II�� 4i I�
hnY
-- � i ¶:'__4 ' R-0 1 IR-0II �R F.' ItL.
R-0 R2
I; �..;`\ Gzi' #R-0' 1 i SUBJECT PROPERTY
m''f. 1.1uyyI'" 2 _(
'Vtld.€^ 1' `T , _YA-� I.. -_1R-2 F J _ _
1 f �
{ _ '; 02 :C-,21 _ : Ia.a r, 7 - f
t-•,
} .9°� ! s — ^ i I`—_� '1 �(rR,y�2 L. ���r _ 'R-1.5
R-
1_YF2' •-_ r, T 1i e' ie jt n oal
} ,R-1 ! L_1 L 1
o�aclne'� . t y- ��'� `j r_' R-1 C yY St 1
R-0 - IR11 Y' : !u -!u.' 1 L -1 er!p?l�s—LI•!a:a4
I�T�sollo!l' A- c -f tJ' I
1R•2+`fir ..� al t— _ �s1~TTIffr:rr
-I 1 • " R-1
�r 72,ro."„N r^?s�A r.__ o-t%wwowoixg `Ir +w1k;uRlIhl +I.
f"
Q t! ` 7
I -I • t - I.
r -. I to
�'
>; .Airy
Rr�t I
SubjDjaU Property
ectd Boundary IAssO sbut pion
® LSDOS-15.00 >•> Ptsnllhp Mn /•`9 Fe•••l1Elw�.•ry
8000% fin, pyy� ^rtrey wt.11r
000008
Sbasb . — — 40%0 writ
'1� GY•np L _ �' LYnOt I, , C•
JIG,�rrr�e O oubidscity 0%. of .•kc.rm
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.l
files
I 1 1 I
R1 iL.IlIj.
it I I
I R -0I
-1•
.. - }.
r -., -r'-; x
R1
Planning CommIjn.
May 27, 2003
Page 25
• •
LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was
submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield
Trail Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for
the addition of a new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking
spaces proposed.
Hoover: Moving on to item number six, the companion item, LSD 03-15.00 for
Butterfield Trail Village. Jeremy?
Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This proposal is for the expansion of that
existing medical facility we just spoke of to include a 22,347 sq.ft.
Alzheimer's care unit and the construction of a new parking lot with 41
spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion with a net
gain of 34 spaces. The right of way being dedicated is 55' from centerline
on Joyce Blvd. The applicant is requesting a lesser dedication which must
be approved by the City Council. A letter and exhibit is included in your
packet pertaining to that request. Tree preservation, existing is 15.7%, the
preservation is 15.35%, mitigation will be 31 trees planted on site. Staff is
recommending approval of this Large Scale Development subject to eight
conditions of approval. 1) Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by
Fire Code. 2) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to
allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning
district. 3) The required bicycle parking racks shall be u -shaped as
required by ordinance. 4) Fifty-five feet from centerline shall be
dedicated along Joyce Boulevard. Items five through eight are standard
conditions of approval.
Hoover: Can the applicant go ahead and give us a presentation of your Large Scale
Development including your elevations?
Yates: Kevin Yates with CEI Engineering and I have Steven Jones here with
Miller, Boskus Lack Architects. He is the architect on the project. We are
fine with all of the issues that you have except for the right of way
dedication. The reason being there is they have some really nice trees and
a wood fence along that frontage along Joyce. We had marked with some
orange flagging and asked that you guys go by and tour this on your
agenda session to have a look at if we gave that right of way and the
improvements did happen how they would affect those trees and that fence
in that area. In the letter I prepared to you I showed you where the
principal arterial section does allow for the use of a minor arterial section.
Hoover: I am sorry, we are looking for the letter.
Planning Commis n 0 • •
May 27, 2003
Page 26
Warrick: They were distributed at your places this evening. They should be in front
of you as additional information.
Hoover: Thank you. Please continue on.
Yates: Yes Ma'am. The principal arterial section does make an allowance for
when right of way is unattainable the minor arterial four lane section may
be used with a 90' right of way verses the 110' required for the principal
arterial. What we would like to request is in our consideration for
reduction of this right of way requirement is to allow us to dedicate to that
fence, which would be 43' approximately from centerline of the existing
street and if we could reduce that 10' greenspace between the sidewalk
and the back of curb to 7' that would make that function as far as that
section allowing that greenspace fencing and trees to remain. It is like 23'
wide between the fence and their parking that is on site at this point. It is
just those are really nice trees and the people at Butterfield Trail Village
would like to keep that look up. I understand that the improvements aren't
planned in the near future but if they did happen and the right of way was
there they would more than likely be taken out.
Hoover: Thank you
Kevin.
Would
you
like to go ahead and go through the
commercial
design
guidelines
with
your elevations?
Warrick: This is actually a residential development because it is residential in nature
we don't consider this applicable for commercial.
Yates: As far as our elevations and looks, if you are aware of the Butterfield Trail
Village buildings that are out there now it will be a rock veneer with wood
shake shingles. It is a real similar look. In fact, I think they are going to
be able to use the same quarry in the rock to get the similar look on the
building.
Anthes: Whether or not we are considering it I would like to thank Miller, Boskus,
Lack for doing such a good job with the packet and including it anyway.
Thank you.
Hoover: I am going to open it to the public now. Is there anyone that would like to
address this LSD 03-15.00 for Butterfield Trail Village? Seeing none, I
will bring it back to the Commissioners and the applicant. Right of way
discussion?
Estes: I am reluctant to give up the right of way. The reason is if the city needs it
back they are going to have to pay for it. We are giving it away today and
they are going to have to buy it back at some time in the future. That
doesn't make any economic good sense to me. As stewards and as
Planning Commi•n• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 27
servants of the community I think we need to, I know we need to think
about that. To give away property of substantial value today anticipating
that perhaps at some time in the future there will be a need for it and then
we will have to pay for it is not good stewardship on our part and I am just
not willing to do that. You know there has been the improvement to the
north side of the street, the sidewalk improvement. There are other needs,
something has got to be done with Zion. This isn't even on the radar
screen but if 30 years or 40 years or 20 years from now it is I don't want
somebody getting a hold of me and saying why did you give it away back
in May, 2003 and now we're having to pay 5.5 million dollars to get it
back.
Yates: May I respond?
Hoover: Yes please.
Yates: I believe you make a good point there as far as your responsibility in
looking out for that but I think we gave you an option here to meet the
requirement as far as making this function with a minor arterial section
and right of way there. That is actually in place as far as the street section
right now. I think the trees and the fencing there that falls within the
guidelines the Planning Commission likes to go for as far as maintaining
those nice mature trees and the greenspaces and everything and that is
what we are looking for here. This is a home to all of these folks and if
you take those trees away just imagine what it is going to be like with no
screening or anything to Joyce Blvd. there being a busy street as it is and I
would just like you to take that into consideration.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight will you give it back when we ask for it? That
seems fair to me.
Yates: I really can't answer that. I would like to forward that on to Mr.
Honeycutt here with Butterfield Trail Village.
Honeycutt: I am Don Honeycutt, I represent the Butterfield Trail Village Board. We
were trying to keep our beautiful landscape front there as far as, it has
been there for about 17 or 18 years now. Trees are getting to be pretty big.
In another five or ten years they will be much bigger. It would be a shame
I think to lose the whole front there at any point. If we have room now
with this way to get an extra lane I feel like that would be enough property
to give that lane and that is what we would be asking for.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight will you give it back to us when we ask for it?
Honeycutt: What do you mean, the tree line?
Planning Commirun • •
May 27, 2003
Page 28
Estes: Your ordinance requires right of way dedication 55' from centerline on
Joyce and you are asking for what?
Honeycutt: 45'.
Yates: We are asking to reduce it. Right now currently there is approximately
40' and we are asking to go ahead and give 43' up to the fence which
would be 2' shy of the minor arterial section which if the right of way is
unattainable you are allowed to use that section verses a principal arterial,
which is the 20' reduction in right of way requirement. We would be
within 2' and I think we can make that function by giving in that
greenspace in that section a little bit. Complementing the fact we have a
huge greenspace on the other side of it. Granted that is for separation
from traffic but 7' or 10' you know, you still have got pretty good
separation there.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight when we want it back will you give it to us or
are you going to make us pay for it?
Honeycutt: I can't make that determination. We have a board meeting tomorrow
night that we can bring a proposal like that up with the board.
Estes: Mr. Williams is such a thing permissible?
Williams: I would doubt that the board could really commit to that at this point in
time without a deed to the city. I don't think the City Council would go
along with a reduction. It is my understanding the City Council would
also have to approve this. Dawn, is that correct if it is a lesser dedication?
Warrick: Yes.
Williams: What I would like to assure you, and my parents live there as you know so
I am well acquainted with Butterfield Trail and it is certainly a nice
development, the city is not about to go out and knock down all of those
trees. On the other hand I also don't think the city is going to approve a
lesser dedication for one of its principal arterials. As you know on the
Master Street Plan Joyce is the northern most through way through the city
and I don't think that they are going to approve a lesser dedication even
than a minor arterial would require for a street that has got tremendous
traffic and only going to have more traffic in the future. I think Mr. Estes'
point is well taken. On the other hand, I want to assure you that there is
nothing in the Capital Improvements Project list that I have seen
anywhere in the near future to do anything that would, in fact, endanger
those trees.
Planning Commisn* • •
May 27, 2003
Page 29
Honeycutt: As I say, still, I couldn't release that until the Board approved it, the
Butterfield Trail Board. I think the offering that we have here would give
the additional lane that would be required probably for turning. It would
just eliminate the width because the section shows a 20' boulevard down
the middle of that section, which I wouldn't see as working there because
there are so many drives to turn in and out of you would eliminate that
whole boulevard there in a center lane for turning and that is what we need
the full length of Joyce is a turning lane so you can get out and get on the
other side. The boulevard in the center of that section would not work
there I don't believe. I would refer maybe to the Hwy. 265 that went
through where a boulevard was proposed there and that didn't go through
with the Highway Department. There is where I think we can make up the
difference and pull those boundaries in from 55' and still get that
additional lane. You see the tree section in the center of that boulevard?
Estes: Yes.
Honeycutt: What we are in effect doing is eliminating that and making a turn lane
down through there and putting the greenspace on the outside of it where
our trees are. If I am correct we are going to have to go to the board to get
this approved. We were just trying to get some comments from the
Planning Commission as far as preserving the landscaping that we have
and any comments that you have positive or negative. It looks like we
have some negatives but I don't, we're not asking or trying to say that we
will do this, because we will be appealing it to the board. That is the way
the ordinance reads isn't it?
Warrick: Yes.
Hoover: Are there any other comments?
Ostner: I would agree with Commissioner Estes that I am reluctant to narrow or to
lessen our right of way dedication. Part of the point is trying to be
consistent with other developments along this street and if we give it to
you we've got to give it to them and suddenly we have reduced our area to
expand and serve traffic. I understand the reasoning on the lane issue.
However, in right of ways we bury all kinds of stuff. We bury storm
drains, sewers, water and electric. We might bury nothing but I am
inclined to suggest the more trees get planted inward and in 30 years if we
have to expand they are already grown. I don't know of a better solution.
Honeycutt: We've got some parking that would be interfering with that right now if
you look at the plan. There is a whole line of parking right next to the
building itself. I don't know how many spaces. It is between the main
Planning Commftn• •'
May 27, 2003
Page 30
entrance there
to Butterfield and the east
entrance. There is
a service drive
that comes in
for the parking right there
which to get the same amount of
landscaping we would be eliminating that
whole drive right
through there.
Hoover: Are there any other comments?
Bunch: Regardless of what the dedication of the right of way is or even if the right
of way dedication is not reduced, that does not mean that the design
parameters that were discussed by the applicant could not be achieved
within regardless of whether it was a smaller dedication or larger
dedication. It is the same design theme as a reasoning for the smaller
dedication could still be used with the larger dedication.
Yates: That is true. We just wouldn't have the assurance at this time that those
trees would be protected because you might not be here to give guidance
in that. If that was your intent now and we gave that right of way
someone else 10 years down the road had the authority to come in and
build that road they might not realize what your intent was and come
through and just take all the trees out. That is where we would be
reluctant as far as the additional right of way with the less design scheme.
Bunch: I definitely appreciate your concerns because this is the same kind of issue
that gave us North College, the removal of trees in the right of way and
that sort of thing to create access. There is another part of this. Dawn,
you might can help me. Did we get the 30% over and under parking for
this type of project?
Warrick: That is permitted.
Bunch: I noticed that you were speaking of parking in relation to this and you
were showing 455 required and even with the additional parking only
coming up to 363, is that taking into account the 30% under?
Yates: The
required that is
shown
does not
take into account the 30% under. We
fall
into compliance
if you
take that
into account.
Bunch: The 30% under would bring you down to about 319?
Yates: Yes Sir.
Bunch: Ok.
Vaught: I would agree with Commissioner Estes also on this right of way issue. In
20 years no matter if we lessen the dedication or not, if we need the land
the city will get it and tear down the trees. It is a matter of if we are going
Planning Commi:jn• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 31
to pay for it in 20 or 30 years or whether we have it dedicated now. No
matter which way we go when we need to expand Joyce we will expand
Joyce I think. That is the issue to me. It is not a protection of the trees
because no matter which way we go they would be in jeopardy. I would
be against lessening the right of way for the same reasons physically for
the city having to come up with the money in 20 or 30 years.
Bunch: In 20 or 30 years as the applicant discussed, those trees will be quite
sizeable and I think unless our tree ordinance changes in that 30 years
would be listed as significant trees and there would have to be a
replacement for them and there would have to be considerable mitigation
so that would definitely be a consideration when all of us are gone as to
what happens to those trees within that right of way.
Honeycutt: Another comment about that is we have had discussions about the cost of
redoing the landscaping that we have done there if that is taken in as right
of way who pays for that if we have to go inward to get it. That is another
discussion that we have had at Butterfield Trail.
Hoover: Dawn, would you address that?
Warrick: At this time no additional landscaping would be required beyond what the
Large Scale proposes. If any additional landscaping were proposed or
desired by the applicant then that would be your option.
Honeycutt: If the widening went into effect then we would lose the line of trees and
landscaping and we wouldn't have any room really to put anything along
where this parking is that is on the east side there. It would be like the
north side of the street where we have got parking lot right up to the
sidewalk is what it would look like and we are trying to shield Butterfield
from its original landscape design by leaving that landscaped area in there.
That is really our point that we would like to see.
Yates: I would like to repose this question. I think there may have been some
misunderstanding. If the street improvements happen in the future and
those trees are taken out and the mitigation was required because they are
substantial trees, who would pay for that mitigation at that time I think is
what Mr. Honeycutt's question was.
Warrick: If the trees were part of the city right of way and they were owned by the
city and the city removed them then the city would be responsible for any
replacement I believe would be the situation in the future.
Honeycutt: Replacement on the owner's property?
Planning Common • •
May 27, 2003
Page 32
Warrick: It would most likely be a replacement within the city right of way as it
exists after the improvements.
Hoover: Is there anymore discussion?
Anthes: I guess I would like to reassure the applicant that no one on this
Commission wants to see those trees town down.
Honeycutt:
I understand
that, we are just trying to see if we
feel like we can keep
them.
Anthes: We also appreciate that you came to us with a solution, not just a problem.
I appreciate the street section. I hope we put it in a permanent file so
when the street is redesigned your firm is hired to do the work and you can
do that very section. For the reasons Commissioner Estes stated it is very
difficult for us to say now that we will accept a lesser dedication knowing
that in the future we will have to pay for it and knowing that in the future
we can design to a standard such as you suggested. That said, I believe I
would have to concur with the other comments of the Commissioners this
evening.
Honeycutt: One other question I have, is the full 55' taken all up and down Joyce
now?
Warrick: All along the front property line of the subject property.
Honeycutt: On the north side?
Warrick: I don't know if the full 55' exists along the north side. That is a vacant
piece of property and when we look at a development on that if it has not
been dedicated. There is a portion of that that is undeveloped. Any of the
property that has been developed since the Master Street Plan went into
affect in 1995 is subject to the right of way dedication requirements. That
is when the 55' from centerline was determined. The street sections that
we are considering that the applicants provided are actually part of the
city's General Plan and our Master Street Plan document. The city has the
flexibility to work within those street sections when we are looking at
developing new streets and improving or expanding existing streets.
When we send those projects out to design or if we design them in house
we do have those standards existing. Like I said, the flexibility is there to
mitigate situations where you may not have the necessary right of way or
there may be improvements such as these that the city desires to maintain
if possible within the parameters of the existing right of way. There are
possibilities to work around those trees. If we don't have the right of way
Planning Commi:un•
May 27, 2003
Page 33
• •
then we
don't have
anything
to work around and we don't really have the
options
that
may be
available
otherwise.
Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Is there any other discussion or motions?
MOTION:
Estes: I move for approval of LSD 03-15.00.
Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second?
Allen: Second.
Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any other discussion? Seeing
none, will you call the roll Renee?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-15.00 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero.
Hoover: Thank you.
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 1408, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712
(479) 273-9472 -Fax (479) 273-0844
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Date: June 5, 2003
To: City of Fayetteville Planning
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-575-8323
Attn: Ms. Sandra Smith
We are sending you the following items:
® Attached Via: Hand Delivery
RECE'1/ED
JUN OR 2003
CITY OF FAYETYE VIit_E
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
Distribution: RWR/File
Project: Butterfield Trail Village
CEI Project No.: 17793.0
Reference: Master Street Plan Appeal
Copies:
Date:
No.:
Description:
11
Appeal of Master Street Plan Right -Of -Way Dedication Requirements
11
Site Pictures
These are transmitted:
❑ For Approval and Payment ❑
® For Review and Comment O
Your Use O
For Bid Due
As Requested
Signature: / Title: Project Manager
Kevin
Atlanta, GA • Bentonville. AR • Dallas, TX • Fresno, CA • Jasonville, IN • Nashville, TN • St. Augustine, FL • Scranton, PA
• • • • LSD 03-15.00
Page!
PC Meeting of April 28, 2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CrrY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Butterfield Trail Village, LSD
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Dawn Warrick, Zoning and Development Administrator, A.I,C.P.
FROM: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner
Man Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: April 24, 2003
Project: LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was
submitted by Kevin Yates of CE! Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield Trail
Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2, Medium
Density Residentialand contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for the addition of a
new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking spaces proposed.
Findings: Proposal: Expansion of the existing medical facility to include a 22,347 square
foot Alzheimer's Care Unit and the construction of a new parking with a total of 41 parking
spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion. There will be a net gain of 34
spaces.
Existing Development: There is a current medical facility on site as well as apartments, duplexes,
and villa homes.
Surrounding Zoning: North: R -O
South: R-1
East: R -O
West: R -O and A -I
Surrounding Land Use: North: Office
South: Single Family Residential
East: Office
West: Office
Water: Available of site
Sewer: Available on site
Right-of-way being dedicated: 55 feet from centerline on Joyce Boulevard
Street Improvements Proposed: None
•0
• • LSD 03-15.00
Page 2
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Joyce Boulevard is a principal arterial on the Master Street
Plan.
Tree Preservation: Existing: 15.7%
Preservation: 15.35%
Mitigation: 31 trees planted on site
Recommendation: Approval Subject to the Following Conditions
Conditions of Approval:
Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by Fire Code.
Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and
Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning district.
The required bicycle parking racks shall be u -shaped as required by ordinance.
Fifty-five feet from centerline shall be dedicated along Joyce Boulevard.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the
City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
• 0 • • LSD 03-15.00
Page 3
Background:
The project was reviewed at the April 3, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the April 17, 2003
Subdivision Committee Meeting.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included commercial design standards and tree
preservation.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning
Commission subject to all staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Date:
Comments:
yes Required
Approved Denied
The "CONDITIONS
OF
APPROVAL", beginning on page
one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by
the
entity requesting approval of this
development item.
By
Title
Date
City of Fayetteville
Tree Preservation Plan Review Form
Project: Butterfield Trail Village
Developer: Butterfield Trail Village
Location
Address:
19233
Joyce Boulavard
Engineer: CE! Engineering
This form
shall stand
as a:
Olnitial Review/Letter
of Confirmation
✓Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council
OFinal Administrative Determination'
Submital requirements met:
Olnitial Review ✓Site Analysis OAnalysis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan
Comments:
Canopy measurements:
% Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved
Land Use R-2
%To be Preserved 20%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 45.73 acres
Square Feet: 1,992, 074 sf
Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Acres: 9.79
Square Feet: 300,422 sf
_ _ %o of Total Site Area: 15.7%
Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Acres: 9.15
Square Feet: 292,470.
% of Total Site Area 15.35%
Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: ✓Yes ONo
✓On -Site Mitigation OOff--Site Preservation OOff-Site Forestation OTree Fund
Tree Preservation Criteria Met: ✓Yes ONo (See back for criteria list and
comments)
Applicant's Plan: ✓Approved ODisapproved OConditionally Approved
Conditions of Approval:
7,952 sf is to be mitigated by way of 31 (2" caliper) on -site replacement trees. Prior to building
permit approval, please provide a landscape plan that shows the location and species for
Mitigation trees.
,the Landscape Administrator, date l " 'S —D
Criteria used by Landsca�AMPinistrator to evaluate Tree Presoaln Plan:
1. The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species.
Comments Three significant trees exist in the location of the building and is proposed for removal. Whether
the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
Comments The building location is tied to the need for services and the connection to the existing building.
2. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of
the tree or group of trees.
Comments Minor - due to the extent of landscaping installed throughput the complex.
3. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood
and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
Comments_Minor - due to the extent of landscaping installed throughput the complex.
4. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
Comments Additional efforts or proof that such is not feasible is required for approval.
5. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
Comments. Yes, there is a specific reason for this unit to be attached to the existing facility.
The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease,
injury or hazard.
Comments Fair to good
8. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the
property.
Comments Trees shown for removal are those that existing in this open space near existing buildings. The
location of the proposed structure is tied to the services provided in those existing buildings which override
the possibility of locating the proposed structure elsewhere.
9. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or
maintaining essential public utilities.
Comments N/A
10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where
possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
Comments The project is utilizing existing roads and utilities.
11. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
12. The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development
design.
Comments N/A
14. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by
state and federal regulations.
Comments N/A
15. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant.
Comments
'An appeal may be filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with Chapter 155 of the Unified Development
Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator determinations/decisions may be appealed by any person aggrieved to the Planning
Commission within 10 business days. Recommendations go straight to Planning Commission, thus no formal appeal is necessary for
recommendations.
City of Fayetteville
Tree Mitigation Form
Project: Butterfield Trail Village Developer: Butterfield Trail Village
Location Address: 19233 Joyce Boulavard Engineer: CEI Engineering
It is required that this form be submitted concurrently with the Tree Preservation Plan if mitigation
of any kind is sought.
Canopy measurements:
% Tree Canopy:
Required to be Preserved 20%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 43.94
Square Feet: 1,913,983 sf
Amount of Preservation Requirement Requested for
Mitigation:
Acres:
Square Feet: 7,952 sf
% of Total Site: 0.35%
Type of Mitigation Pursued:
✓On Site Mitigation OOff Site Preservation
Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Acres:
Square Feet: 300,422 sf
% of Total Site Area: 15.7%
Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Acres:
Square Feet 292,470
% of Total Site Area 15.35%
OOff Site Forestation OTree Fund
List Mitigation Species, Caliper, and Quantity of trees to be planted in the space below. Refer to
fl.1EIutstshU.MWtO
H. - . ___
Amount proposed to be deposited in the City of Fayetteville Tree Fund:
Mitigation Proposal: OApproved ODisapproved
, Landscape Administrator, �____ -(, e
Tree Mitigation Base Density/Off Site Alternatives
When preservation cannot be accomplished and existing canopy is to be removed below minimum canopy
requirements, mitigation is required. Before any Mitigation/Off-Site Alternatives are carried out, approval
must be granted by the Landscape Administrator. When mitigation is an issue a mitigation form, available
from the Landscape Administrator, detailing all proposed actions should be submitted with the Tree
Preservation Plan. Mitigation and reforestation densities, preferred species, spacing, and amounts are
determined by the tables below.
Existing High Priority
Canopy Proposed For
Removal
Existing Mid -Level
Priority Canopy
Proposed For Removal
Existing Low Priority
Canopy Proposed For
Removal
Required if of
trees per acre
removed
200
230
Density
Factor
218sf
190sf
Required k of trees
per acre removed
Density
Factor
Required if of trees
per acre removed
100
Density
Factor
436sf
Caliper of
Replacement
Tree
150
290sf
2"
11/2"
173
252sf
115
380sf
250
175sf
188
232sf
125
0 350sf
1"
'The Density Factor is a ratio of canopy removed to number of trees replaced
Here are the 5 simple steps on how to calculate the size and number of trees needed for mitigation
1. Establish how many acres/square feet of canopy is proposed to be removed on site that falls
below the minimum canopy requirement
7,952 sf
2. Establish the Priority type of the canopy proposed to be removed.
High = 3050
Mid = 4902
3. Select what caliper of mitigation trees are going to be used. Note: Contact Nurseries to
confirm caliper availability in the species desired
2"
4. Refer to the table and find Density Factor that correlates with Canopy type removed and
caliper size proposed for replacement.
Take Density Factor and divide by the square feet of canopy removed to get number of
mitigation trees needed.
3050 / 218 = 14 trees
4902 / 290 = 17 trees
6. On -Site Mitigation is preferred over Off -Site Alternatives. Show the location and species of
mitigation trees on the tree preservation plans and submit the Mitigation/Off-Site
Alternatives form at time of submittal
:iuiP
LSD03-15.00 BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
One Mile View
i4 "
I I I
s
I ' =Z1 �rt
{DI'' 21E)oA`r��o�ry } P`1' _ ,�
a.Q
�•
1 q I.II _ r�r.�-<i�a-�.�.� uitl II _ A-i
-- R-2 "%r. -r H-4 ICI R Wit_. -_l'
WIC
I I- G1 ''SIR-2:II ._ R-1-_-..tS,
`&/A1E oa.. .... '4r -. G2 I 421R-2 rr ', .S', I W r
1ERT
G2 f =! i . t .j TI .r-• L R:2, .. R-1 R 2
C-2 .. 'I -
G2 I_ . Y. L. - - rl•'.1., A-77 A-1 I R-1 R-1
2 9
! -- ' ite l.__v .- R -O I R1^ay: — —, r —'I �eruun on. 1�
-'1- II Ii0
R G2•
1' R -O i SUBJECT PROPERTY
R-0...
• ! ?.) \�` 'A-1 I I
I I I \� .C21My' 'fl' ,_ —. tEsfi�1. T 11 ' i IR-2J hli•�q?%I i R-1.5
•1'• I I I K 11• R 1 " - I
Zl ' if c♦ o I r- �' R-2 1' I I
iil> t I. 1 .1 )Rp1E Coy
R -0I. T .. 17hi i j r 0 , _._I ETe0.,AA DR f{ i
I I
3< � � ri ,Ir�jlw'Y�CNLIT[R 611��L I lU� I ._ T
oxcvta+'. HNIMx1lY'5Y.'�kr G2.. �P-1 cY:t`)~ "R 1 0`01 !—I_ Jswwon's7 I 1
.-1 �. _L -.I � j�N� I �1 -♦ 'R-1
dddQQ4"'
' 14 -21 i II 1 R-1� iJ &
I0!I' A G2 ''= t :�dp���i'. --f^r M 1 flC'.:: .I , 1 'i' w�a�y1
'ryYIYIR Iy�. ;' � R 1'1 ' LIIL
1 - IR�Pr
1' C-2 • _ 4i0[cS/Ah
R 1i rr
.�.� 2 - LL r� (� L ATE'pl 4 �!M i .. ++ Y I A 11
i ... I r I f Y li oN ST. '
y. _i I R-1 li sr P-1 R-1 . I
'r_C — - -- I — _ /MAMA . J, r.. "!
.'1C°5L?L^-Gi�s-e"'1If�Yp.LL}�1� Iq�11I�e,�i T fR-1, ! L— -' 1 xilFlUi:l": R 1
pi err 17..' FL ti♦ H i `I,� ! tp41—'j—'
. I R-2 I. 14 °rye...;; -� I kL1 'l.a,, „ . 4 fry .1 R-1 I 1 I Ln 1 :.
N[ISALN Il 1.
�r.�p1 -2 G2 �1, WyLL � rsr. ' .� `�. � .lr } lr', I ! -,
11..- !' i I~4 oI�-11-;rJ-:.`.-- ''•. I�:R 1 I�!.
� - l.f R1
1 I L snEey ' 1 1 ' 1, �o� s --$ \.' ♦ •' . r j.. A-1 _._ - ` A Y:I . R -r "^�<RI
r^yG2 I -0 l I I I.., "T:':.; +f[ 1i6 i RI
�. F2 7 I !.•,•9 _ "-L•`� R 1 �'� R 1
Lam. i� 1' ! _<....
Ovenriew Legend
Subject Property Boundary Mawr sat Ptan
® LSD0SIs.00 r_. Plan,*y Me. ^'i" .,....,E_��'n'
d)0006 14 Nydo -An
o O,May District
saaab oovve8
•-- ��tbvAMtl
�•`11I�JF L_ C"Y Lms I,\CUEm
�!✓�t�M O Qnsiea Dly aaaa IYgblc Fc b
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. Mlles
Planning Commioo • •
May 27, 2003
Page 25
LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was
submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield
Trail Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for
the addition of a new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking
spaces proposed.
Hoover: Moving on to item number six, the companion item. LSD 03-15.00 for
Butterfield Trail Village. Jeremy?
Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This proposal is for the expansion of that
existing medical facility we just spoke of to include a 22,347 sq.ft.
Alzheimer's care unit and the construction of a new parking lot with 41
spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion with a net
gain of 34 spaces. The right of way being dedicated is 55' from centerline
on Joyce Blvd. The applicant is requesting a lesser dedication which must
be approved by the City Council. A letter and exhibit is included in your
packet pertaining to that request. Tree preservation, existing is 15.7%, the
preservation is 15.35%. mitigation will be 31 trees planted on site. Staff is
recommending approval of this Large Scale Development subject to eight
conditions of approval. 1) Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by
Fire Code. 2) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to
allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning
district. 3) The required bicycle parking racks shall be u -shaped as
required by ordinance. 4) Fitly -live feet from centerline shall be
dedicated along Joyce Boulevard. Items five through eight are standard
conditions of approval.
Hoover: Can the applicant go ahead and give us a presentation of your Large Scale
Development including your elevations?
Yates: Kevin Yates with CEI Engineering and I have Steven Jones here with
Miller, Bosktis Lack Architects. He is the architect on the project. We are
fine with all of the issues that you have except for the right of way
dedication. The reason being there is they have some really nice trees and
a wood fence along that frontage along Joyce. We had marked with some
orange flagging and asked that you guys go by and tour this on your
agenda session to have a look at if we gave that right of way and the
improvements did happen how they would affect those trees and that fence
in that area. In the letter I prepared to you I showed you where the
principal arterial section does allow for the use of a minor arterial section.
Hoover: I am sorry, we are looking for the letter.
Planning Commi:on• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 26
Warrick: They were distributed at your places this evening. They should be in front
of you as additional information.
Hoover: Thank you. Please continue on.
Yates: Yes Ma'am. The principal arterial section does make an allowance for
when right of way is unattainable the minor arterial four lane section may
be used with a 90' right of way verses the 110' required for the principal
arterial. What we would like to request is in our consideration for
reduction of this right of way requirement is to allow us to dedicate to that
fence, which would be 43' approximately from centerline of the existing
street and if we could reduce that 10' greenspace between the sidewalk
and the back of curb to 7' that would make that function as far as that
section allowing that greenspace fencing and trees to remain. It is like 23'
wide between the fence and their parking that is on site at this point. It is
just those are really nice trees and the people at Butterfield Trail Village
would like to keep that look up. I understand that the improvements aren't
planned in the near future but if they did happen and the right of way was
there they would more than likely be taken out.
Hoover: Thank you
Kevin.
Would
you
like
to go ahead
and go through the
commercial
design
guidelines
with
your
elevations?
Warrick: This is actually a residential development because it is residential in nature
we don't consider this applicable for commercial.
Yates: As far as our elevations and looks, if you are aware of the Butterfield Trail
Village buildings that are out there now it will be a rock veneer with wood
shake shingles. It is a real similar look. In fact, I think they are going to
be able to use the same quarry in the rock to get the similar look on the
building.
Anthes: Whether or not we are considering it I would like to thank Miller, Boskus,
Lack for doing such a good job with the packet and including it anyway.
Thank you.
Hoover: I am going to open it to the public now. Is there anyone that would like to
address this LSD 03-15.00 for Butterfield Trail Village? Seeing none, I
will bring it back to the Commissioners and the applicant. Right of way
discussion?
Estes: I am reluctant to give up the right of way. The reason is if the city needs it
back they are going to have to pay for it. We are giving it away today and
they are going to have to buy it back at some time in the future. That
doesn't make any economic good sense to me. As stewards and as
Planning Commtonn • 0
May 27, 2003
Page 27
servants of the community I think we need to, I know we need to think
about that. To give away property of substantial value today anticipating
that perhaps at some time in the future there will be a need for it and then
we will have to pay for it is not good stewardship on our part and I am just
not willing to do that. You know there has been the improvement to the
north side of the street, the sidewalk improvement. There are other needs,
something has got to be done with Zion. This isn't even on the radar
screen but if 30 years or 40 years or 20 years from now it is I don't want
somebody getting a hold of me and saying why did you give it away back
in May, 2003 and now we're having to pay 5.5 million dollars to get it
back.
Yates:
May I respond?
hoover:
Yes please.
Yates:
I believe you make a good point there as far as your responsibility in
looking out for that but I think we gave you an option here to meet the
requirement as far as making this function with a minor arterial section
and right of way there. That is actually in place as far as the street section
right now. I think the trees and the fencing there that falls within the
guidelines the Planning Commission likes to go for as far as maintaining
those nice mature trees and the greenspaces and everything and that is
what we are looking for here. This is a home to all of these folks and if
you take those trees away just imagine what it is going to be like with no
screening or anything to Joyce Blvd. there being a busy street as it is and I
would just like you to take that into consideration.
Estes:
If we give it to you tonight will you give it back when we ask for it? That
seems fair to me.
Yates: I really can't answer that. I would like to forward that on to Mr.
Honeycutt here with Butterfield Trail Village.
Honeycutt: I am Don Honeycutt, I represent the Butterfield Trail Village Board. We
were trying to keep our beautiful landscape front there as far as, it has
been there for about 17 or 18 years now. Trees are getting to be pretty big.
In another five or ten years they will be much bigger. It would be a shame
I think to lose the whole front there at any point. If we have room now
with this way to get an extra lane I feel like that would be enough property
to give that lane and that is what we would be asking for.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight will you give it back to us when we ask for it?
Honeycutt: What do you mean, the tree line?
Planning Commilon• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 28
Estes: Your ordinance requires right of way dedication 55' from centerline on
Joyce and you are asking for what?
I Ioneycutt: 45'.
Yates: We are asking to reduce it. Right now currently there is approximately
40' and we are asking to go ahead and give 43' up to the fence which
would be 2' shy of the minor arterial section which if the right of way is
unattainable you are allowed to use that section verses a principal arterial,
which is the 20' reduction in right of way requirement. We would be
within 2' and I think we can make that function by giving in that
greenspace in that section a little bit. Complementing the fact we have a
huge greenspace on the other side of it. Granted that is for separation
from traffic but 7' or 10' you know, you still have got pretty good
separation there.
Estes: If we give it to you tonight when we want it back will you give it to us or
are you going to make us pay for it?
Honeycutt: I can't
make
that determination.
We have
a board
meeting tomorrow
night
that we
can bring a proposal
like that up
with the
board.
Estes: Mr. Williams is such a thing permissible?
Williams: I would doubt that the board could really commit to that at this point in
time without a deed to the city. I don't think the City Council would go
along with a reduction. It is my understanding the City Council would
also have to approve this. Dawn, is that correct if it is a lesser dedication?
Warrick: Yes.
Williams: What I would like to assure you, and my parents live there as you know so
I am well acquainted with Butterfield Trail and it is certainly a nice
development, the city is not about to go out and knock down all of those
trees. On the other hand I also don't think the city is going to approve a
lesser dedication for one of its principal arterials. As you know on the
Master Street Plan Joyce is the northern most through way through the city
and I don't think that they are going to approve a lesser dedication even
than a minor arterial would require for a street that has got tremendous
traffic and only going to have more traffic in the future. I think Mr. Estes'
point is well taken. On the other hand, I want to assure you that there is
nothing in the Capital Improvements Project list that I have seen
anywhere in the near future to do anything that would, in fact, endanger
those trees.
Planning Common• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 29
Honeycutt: As I say, still, I couldn't release that until the Board approved it, the
Butterfield Trail Board. I think the offering that we have here would give
the additional lane that would be required probably for turning. It would
just eliminate the width because the section shows a 20' boulevard down
the middle of that section, which I wouldn't see as working there because
there are so many drives to turn in and out of you would eliminate that
whole boulevard there in a center lane for turning and that is what we need
the full length of Joyce is a turning lane so you can get out and get on the
other side. The boulevard in the center of that section would not work
there I don't believe. I would refer maybe to the Ilwy. 265 that went
through where a boulevard was proposed there and that didn't go through
with the Highway Department. There is where I think we can make up the
difference and pull those boundaries in from 55' and still get that
additional lane. You see the tree section in the center of that boulevard?
Estes: Yes.
Honeycutt: What we are in effect doing is eliminating that and making a turn lane
down through there and putting the greenspace on the outside of it where
our trees are. If I am correct we are going to have to go to the board to get
this approved. We were just trying to get some comments from the
Planning Commission as far as preserving the landscaping that we have
and any comments that you have positive or negative. It looks like we
have some negatives but I don't, we're not asking or trying to say that we
will do this, because we will be appealing it to the board. That is the way
the ordinance reads isn't it?
Warrick: Yes.
Hoover: Are there any other comments?
Ostner: I would agree with Commissioner Estes that I am reluctant to narrow or to
lessen our right of way dedication. Part of the point is trying to be
consistent with other developments along this street and if we give it to
you we've got to give it to them and suddenly we have reduced our area to
expand and serve traffic. I understand the reasoning on the lane issue.
However, in right of ways we bury all kinds of stuff. We bury storm
drains, sewers, water and electric. We might bury nothing but I am
inclined to suggest the more trees get planted inward and in 30 years if we
have to expand they are already grown. I don't know of a better solution.
Honeycutt: We've got some parking that
would be interfering with
that right now if
you look at the
plan. There
is a whole line of parking
right next to the
building itself.
I don't know
how many spaces. It is between the main
Planning Common• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 30
entrance there to Butterfield and the east entrance. There is a service drive
that comes in for the parking right there which to get the same amount of
landscaping we would be eliminating that whole drive right through there.
Hoover: Are there any other comments?
Bunch: Regardless of what the dedication of the right of way is or even if the right
of way dedication is not reduced, that does not mean that the design
parameters that were discussed by the applicant could not be achieved
within regardless of whether it was a smaller dedication or larger
dedication. It is the same design theme as a reasoning for the smaller
dedication could still be used with the larger dedication.
Yates: That is true. We just wouldn't have the assurance at this time that those
trees would be protected because you might not he here to give guidance
in that. If that was your intent now and we gave that right of way
someone else 10 years down the road had the authority to come in and
build that road they might not realize what your intent was and come
through and just take all the trees out. That is where we would be
reluctant as far as the additional right of way with the less design scheme.
Bunch: I definitely appreciate your concerns because this is the same kind of issue
that gave us North College, the removal of trees in the right of way and
that sort of thing to create access. There is another part of this. Dawn,
you might can help me. Did we get the 30% over and under parking for
this type of project?
Warrick: That is permitted.
Bunch: I noticed that you were speaking of parking in relation to this and you
were showing 455 required and even with the additional parking only
coming up to 363, is that taking into account the 30% under?
Yates: The
required that is
shown
does not
take into account the 30% under. We
fall
into compliance
if you
take that
into account.
Bunch: The 30% under would bring you down to about 319?
Yates: Yes Sir.
Bunch: Ok.
Vaught: I would agree with Commissioner Estes also on this right of way issue. In
20 years no matter if we lessen the dedication or not, if we need the land
the city will get it and tear down the trees. It is a matter of if we are going
Planning Common• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 31
to pay for it in 20 or 30 years or whether we have it dedicated now. No
matter which way we go when we need to expand Joyce we will expand
Joyce I think. That is the issue to me. It is not a protection of the trees
because no matter which way we go they would be in jeopardy. I would
be against lessening the right of way for the same reasons physically for
the city having to come up with the money in 20 or 30 years.
Bunch: In 20 or 30 years as the applicant discussed, those trees will be quite
sizeable and I think unless our tree ordinance changes in that 30 years
would be listed as significant trees and there would have to be a
replacement for them and there would have to he considerable mitigation
so that would definitely he a consideration when all of us are gone as to
what happens to those trees within that right of way.
Honeycutt: Another comment about that is we have had discussions about the cost of
redoing the landscaping that we have done there if that is taken in as right
of way who pays for that if we have to go inward to get it. That is another
discussion that we have had at Butterfield Trail.
I loover: Dawn, would you address that?
Warrick: At this time no additional landscaping would he required beyond what the
Large Scale proposes. If any additional landscaping were proposed or
desired by the applicant then that would be your option.
Honeycutt: If the widening went into effect then we would lose the line of trees and
landscaping and we wouldn't have any room really to put anything along
where this parking is that is on the cast side there. It would he like the
north side of the street where we have got parking lot right up to the
sidewalk is what it would look like and we are trying to shield Butterfield
from its original landscape design by leaving that landscaped area in there.
That is really our point that we would like to see.
Yates: I would like to repose this question. I think there may have been some
misunderstanding. If the street improvements happen in the future and
those trees arc taken out and the mitigation was required because they are
substantial trees, who would pay for that mitigation at that time I think is
what Mr. Honeycutt's question was.
Warrick: If the trees were part of the city right of way and they were owned by the
city and the city removed them then the city would be responsible for any
replacement I believe would be the situation in the future.
Honeycutt: Replacement on the owner's property?
Planning Common• • •
May 27, 2003
Page 32
Warrick: It would most likely be a replacement within the city right of way as it
exists after the improvements.
Hoover: Is there anymore discussion?
Anthes: I guess I would like to reassure the applicant that no one on this
Commission wants to see those trees town down.
Honeycutt: I understand that, we arc just trying to see if we feel like we can keep
them.
Anthes: We also appreciate that you came to us with a solution, not just a problem.
I appreciate the street section. I hope we put it in a permanent file so
when the street is redesigned your firm is hired to do the work and you can
do that very section. For the reasons Commissioner Estes stated it is very
difficult for us to say now that we will accept a lesser dedication knowing
that in the future we will have to pay for it and knowing that in the future
we can design to a standard such as you suggested. That said, I believe I
would have to concur with the other comments of the Commissioners this
evening.
Honeycutt: One other question I have, is the full 55' taken all up and down Joyce
now?
Warrick: All along the front property line of the subject property.
Honeycutt: On the north side?
Warrick: I don't know if the full 55' exists along the north side. That is a vacant
piece of property and when we look at a development on that if it has not
been dedicated. There is a portion of that that is undeveloped. Any of the
property that has been developed since the Master Street Plan went into
affect in 1995 is subject to the right of way dedication requirements. That
is when the 55' from centerline was determined. The street sections that
we are considering that the applicants provided are actually part of the
city's General Plan and our Master Street Plan document. The city has the
flexibility to work within those street sections when we are looking at
developing new streets and improving or expanding existing streets.
When we send those projects out to design or if we design them in house
we do have those standards existing. Like I said, the flexibility is there to
mitigate situations where you may not have the necessary right of way or
there may be improvements such as these that the city desires to maintain
if possible within the parameters of the existing right of way. There are
possibilities to work around those trees. If we don't have the right of way
Planning CommiSTon•
May 27, 2003
Page 33
0 •
then we don't have anything to work around and we don't really have the
options that may be available otherwise.
I loover: Thank you Dawn. Is there any other discussion or motions?
MOTION:
Estes: I move for approval of LSD 03-15.00.
Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second?
Allen: Second.
Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any other discussion? Seeing
none, will you call the roll Renee?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-15.00 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero.
Hoover: Thank you.
I.
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 1408, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712
(479)273-9472• Fax (479) 273-0844
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
RECEIVED
JUN OR 2003
CITY OF FAYETTE VILLE
CITY CLER,Y'c OFFICE
Date: June 5, 2003 Distribution: RWR/File
To: City of Fayetteville Planning Project: Butterfield Trail Village
113 West Mountain CEI Project No.: 17793.0
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Reference: Master Street Plan Appeal
479-575-8323
Attn: Ms. Sandra Smith
We are sending you the following items:
® Attached Via: Hand Delivery
Copies: Date: No.: Description:
11 Appeal of Master Street Plan Right -Of -Way Dedication Requirements
11 Site Pictures
These are transmitted:
❑ For Approval and Payment ❑
For Review and Comment 0
Your Use 0
For Bid Due
As Requested
Signature: Title: Project Manager
Kevin R. Y , P.E
Atlanta, GA • Bentonville. AR • Dallas, TX • Franc, CA • lasonville, IN • Nashville, TN • St. Augustine, FL • Scranton, PA
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc.
Corporate Office: 3317 SW "I" Street • P.O. Box 1408 • Bentonville, AR 72712-1408 • (479) 273-9472 • (479) 273-0844
June 5, 2003
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
DISTRIBUnON:
RWR/File/Stcven Jones/Don Hunnicutt
RE: Appeal of The Master Street Plan Right of Way Dedication Requirements
Butterfield Trail Village
1923 East Joyce Blvd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CEI Project #17793.0
Dear Chairperson:
Please except this letter as a formal request from Butterfield Trail Village (owner), for an appeal of the
Master Street Plan Right of Way dedication requirements for the above referenced project. Please see the
attached drawing Exhibit "A" Right of Way Dedication for clarification of the area in question. The master
street plan classifies this section of Joyce Boulevard as a principal arterial, which requires a right of way of
one hundred and ten feet in width as shown in Exhibit "B" Principal Arterial Section.
The existing right of way from centerline of street along this frontage is approximately forty feet in width.
Approximately three feet beyond this existing right of way is a green space approximately twenty-three feet
in width containing wood fencing and nice mature trees. In keeping with the City of Fayetteville's tree
preservation principles and green space requirements the owner would like to consider other possible
options to allow this green space to remain. The principal arterial section makes allowances for areas where
sufficient right of way is unobtainable and allows the use of the minor arterial four -lane section to be used.
With the use minor arterial four lane section the same number of lanes is provided and the green space is
located as buffer along the Butterfield Trail Village frontage in the form of nice mature trees versus in the
form of ornamental trees with in the median.
The minor arterial section requires a right of way section ninety feet in width as shown in Exhibit "C"
Minor Arterial Section. The owner could dedicate an additional three feet of right of way totaling forty-
three feet of the required forty-five feet of right of way for the owner's side of the street. The green space
width in the minor arterial street section could be reduced to seven feet from ten feet, which would allow the
existing green space with wood fencing and nice mature trees to remain.
We appreciate your time and consideration on this issue and if you have questions or require additional
information, please do no hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Yates, P.E.
Project Manager
Local Development/Public Works See Attachments: Exhibits "A", "B", & "C"
Bentonville, AR • Fresno, CA • St. Augustine, FL • Nashville, TN • Atlanta, GA • Dallas, TX • Wills Point. TX • Jasonville, IN • Scranton, PA
w • eeiiriiiiii _--
H`
• .. .
DEDICATION
NOT TO SCALE
I
i S OWNER/OEVELOPER
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
1923 E. JOYCE BLVD.
FAYETTEVILLE. AR 72701
808 BRENNAN
479-442-7220
668rsgr i• S ••.6r0
16849-
VANTA
VEN NR
C/OAF
INITIAL DESIGN 5-22-03 KRY KRY JLK .A1(
DATE I PRN I PM I DES I DRW
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
NEW ALZHEIMER'S CARE UNIT
itlASSDENGCIAEERIES, INC
ENQNEERS PLANNERS SORWYOPS
3317 SW "l" Street (479) 273-9472 JOB NO.: 17793.0
Bentonville, AR 72712 FAX (479) 273-0844 DVC NAME: EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT "A" R.O. W. DEDICA TION OA1E SHEET NO,
08 -OS -03
10:50 AM 1 OF 1
FAYETTEVILLE AR R£v-2
S.
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
T ,
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS carry high volumes of through traffic.. They are designed as
boulevards for beauty and safety. In areas where sufficient right of way is unobtainable, the minor
arterial four lane section can be used.
Design Service Volume: 17,600 vpd, 20,600 vpd with left turn bay
Speed: 40-45 mph
Traffic Lanes: Four 12' travel lanes, 12' turn lanes possible at intersections and at
frequent intervals
Parking Lanes: None
Paved Width: 28' from back of curb each side of median
Right of Way: At least 110'
Multi -use Trails: Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Median: 20' minimum if no turn bay. May be reduced to 8' to accommodate
turn bays
Tree planting areas: Two, at least 10' wide, in addition to the median
110-0'
Minimum
Principol Arteriol
Exhibit "B"
Principal Arterial Section
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-5
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
HISTORIC COLLECTOR provides traffic circulation within the historic and developed parts of
central Fayetteville. This type of collector street recognizes the right-of-way limitations associated
with developing in "built -out" areas of the city.
Design Service Volume: 4,000 vpd, 6,000 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 25-30 mph
Traffic Lanes: Two 11' travel lanes, 10' turn bays where warranted
Parking Lanes: Two lanes provided. None when turn bay exists
Paved Width: 36' from back of curb
Right of Way: At least 50'
Sidewalk 6'
MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS connect higher functional class facilities, etc. Residential frontage
is strongly discouraged. Access should be from perpendicular local or residential streets.
Design Service Volume: 12,200 vpd, 14,800 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 35-40 mph
Traffic Lanes: Four 12' travel lanes, 11' turn lanes possible at intersections
Parking Lanes: None
Paved Width: 52' from back of curb, 59' with turn lane
Right of Way: At least 90'
Multi -use Trail: Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Tree Planting Areas Two, at least 10' wide
Minor Arterial
Exhibit "C"
Minor Arterial Section
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-4
0
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
HISTORIC COLLECTOR provides traffic circulation within the historic and developed parts of
central Fayetteville. This type of collector street recognizes the right-of-way limitations associated
with developing in "built -out" areas of the city.
Design Service Volume: 4,000 vpd, 6,000 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 25-30 mph
Traffic Lanes: Two 11' travel lanes, 10' turn bays where warranted
Parking Lanes: Two lanes provided. None when turn bay exists
Paved Width: 36' from back of curb
Right of Way: At least 50'
Sidewalk 6'
MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS connect higher functional class facilities, etc. Residential frontage
is strongly discouraged. Access should be from perpendicular local or residential streets.
Design Service Volume: 12,200 vpd, 14,800 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 35-40 mph
Traffic Lanes: Four 12' travel lanes, 11' turn lanes possible at intersections
Parking Lanes: None
Paved Width: 52' from back of curb, 59' with turn lane
Right of Way: At least 90'
Multi -use Trail: Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Tree Planting Areas Two, at least 10' wide
i 90'-0"
Minimum
Minor Arterial
Exhibit "C"
Minor Arterial Section
rayettevllle, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-4