Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout160-03 RESOLUTION• • RESOLUTION NO. 160-03 A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF GREG HOUSE FOR HIS LSD 02-29 SEQUOYAH COMMONS AS MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Greg House in LSD 02-29 (Sequoyah Commons) under all the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission with the following exceptions or changes: A. The developer will not be required to build or participate in the cost of building Center Street from Olive to Walnut B. The developer shall be required to improve Olive from Center to Spring up to the residential street standards which can be modified or altered by the discretion of the Director of Planning, Engineering and Code Compliance to avoid drainage problems and adverse impact to established homes along Olive Street. C. The Preliminary Plat is modified pursuant to the offer by Greg House (developer) to reduce the density from 39 dwelling units with 48 bedrooms to 26 units with 42 bedrooms (including the elimination of one building and the possible slight movement of another to provide more buffer to a neighbor's single family home). PASSED and APPROVED this the 215t day of October, 2003. APPROVED: B NAME OF FILE: CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Resolution No. 160-03 Document 1 10.21.03 Res. 160-03 2 10.1.03 Houses Development Co., LLC appeal copy of Itr to Gregory T. House copy of Itr to Sondra Smith copy of lir to Planning Commission copy of Itr to Greg House copy of vicinity map copy of minute of planning commission copy of memo to subdivision committee copy of Tree Preservation Plan Review Form copy of Landscape Review Form copy of Close Up View copy of One Mile View copy of memo to Mandy Bunch copy of memo to Mandy Bunch copy of plat review check list copy of Tree Preservation Plan Review Form copy of Landscape Review Form copy of memo to Conklin & Edwards copy of memo from fire marshal copy of memo to Edwards copy of fax sheet from Houses, Inc. copy of Itr to Sondra Smith copy of Itr to Planning Commission Itr to Sondra Smith Itr to Planning Commission copy of planning commission minutes copy of memo to planning commission 3 10.27.03 memo to Dawn Warrick Sequoyah Commons Plans booklet NOTES. 5 • /o/L'/°3 • /(0O HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO., L L C A Da -a9 217 NORTH EAST AVENUE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 TELEPHONE FAX (501)5219155 (501)5216199 October 1, 2003 Members of the City Council City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Sequoyah Commons LSD 02.29.10 Dear Members of the Fayetteville City Council, Houses Development Company, LLC has appealed the Planning Commission's decision on May 27, 2003 of Houses Development Company's Large Scale Development proposal (LSD 02.29.10). While Houses Development Company, L.L.C. (HDC), as owner of this property, is pleased that the Planning Commission approved much of the proposed project as submitted, the Planning Commission only addressed part of HDC's proposal with respect to offsite improvements. The Commission's approval of this LSD is subject to HDC providing a connection within the purported street right of way for Center Street between Olive and Walnut Streets. The Commission also recommended that the City Council approve a cost-sharing proposal by HDC that the City pay for 53% of said offsite improvements. However, the Planning Commission failed to consider HDC's alternative proposal to construct Olive Avenue as a residential street to service this new development as described in Section 1) of our May 6, 2003 letter to the Planning Commission (attached hereto) and as addressed at both the concept plat meeting and the meeting of May 27, 2003. The reason HDC made this alternative proposal was to provide a legal means of accessing and servicing this development in the event the City Council did not approve a cost sharing arrangement. However, subsequent to the May 27th meeting, the City staff has determined that no right of way exists for what has been for decades an erroneously platted unimproved portion of Center Street. Therefore, HDC would submit that its original plan for offsite improvements serving this LSD should be approved as previously requested. • • Attached also find a detailed description and illustrations of our proposed project, along with copies of the pertinent communications regarding the more than 2 year history of this submittal. Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter, and please contact me with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Gregory T. House for Houses Development Company, L.L.C. Enc. • FAYETTEVILLE TIIE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS • 113 W. Mountain Si. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479-575-8264 COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 13, 2003 Gregory T. House For Houses Development Company, LLC 217 North East Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dear Mr. House: In response to your letter received July 28, 2003, we have answered each of your four questions related to Sequoyah Commons large scale development below: 1. After the Planning Commission approval, Mrs. Jessie Bryant, a property owner in the City Addition brought her deed to the Planning Division and requested that we prove to her that the 15' of right-of-way shown on the City Atlas was officially dedicated to the City. The City hired WACO Title to research and to determine if the 15 feet of right-of- way had been dedicated to the City. That research led to the conclusion that there were "no recorded easements for right-of-way for Center Street (Please see attached Certificate from WACO). 2. Section 166.05 C 7 of the Unified Development Code "Miscellaneous Requirements" requires new development to construct the onsite and offsite improvements requirements associated with the development. In order to implement the City's policy of connectivity, staff has recommended to the Planning Commission the on-site and off-site improvements that where shown on your Targe scale development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. This recommendation creates a second access for the development and follows the recorded plans for the original subdivision. This recommendation also acknowledges the fact that staff is recommending the off-site improvements and acquisition of additional right-of-way for Center Street in exchange for improvements (additional street right-of-way on Center, street improvements, underground drainage, sidewalks, street lights) to Fletcher Street and Center Street adjacent to the property. The plans to develop a traditional urban design based on lots and blocks in the Mt. Sequoyah area was established in 1891 with the City Addition and in 1888 with the Harrison Addition and has been followed in the developed areas. • • 3. Sec attached calculation by staff and acknowledged by your engineer, Mandy Bunch. 4. Staff recommends that we follow the recorded subdivision plats for this arca and will not modify its recommendation based on density or land use. The recorded subdivisions in this area represent good traditional urban design principals of building neighborhoods on a lot and block design regardless of the density or land use proposed. Overall, the principals we are trying to follow result in the creation of neighborhoods that provide street frontage and access to homes and apartments avoiding the development of isolated projects or structures with only one way in and out and separating the development from the overall neighborhood. Please let us know if you still intend to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission's decision to require the Center Street connection. If you have any additional questions or need more clarification regarding this letter, please Icts us know and we can set up a meeting to answer any additional questions you may have. Sincerely, l'im Conklin, AICP Dir. Community Planning and Engineering Services Dawn Warrick, AICP Zoning and Development Administrator • • HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO., L.L.C. 21 7 NUR 11.1 lrA'• l /1 VI N(/t FA Y1: 7'7FV/!i/. AI:!: Abp.; /1.': /2/01 TELEPHONE 1 AX (501)521.9155 5411511.6199 lune 4, 2003 Sandra Smith, City Clerk City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Sequoyah Commons LSD 02.29.10 Dear Ms. Smith, Please consider this a formal appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on May 27, 2003 of Houses Development Company's Large Scale Development proposal referred to above. While Houses Development Company, L.L.C. (HDC), as owner of this property, is pleased that the Planning Commission approved much of the proposed project as submitted, the Planning Commission only addressed part of HDC's proposal with respect to offsite improvements. The Commission's approval of this LSD is subject to HDC providing a connection within the existing street R.O.W. for Center Street between Olive and Walnut Streets. The Commission also recommended that the City Council approve a cost sharing proposal by HDC that the City pay for 53% of said offsite improvements. However, the Planning Commission failed to consider HDC's alternative proposal to construct Olive Avenue as a residential street to service this new development as described in Section 1) of our May 6, 2003 letter to the Planning Commission (attached hereto) and as addressed at both the concept plat meeting and the meeting of May 27, 2003. The reason HDC made this alternative proposal was to provide a legal means of accessing and servicing this development in the event the City Council did not approve a cost sharing arrangement. Therefore, as we discussed, I would propose that this appeal be scheduled for hearing following a hearing on the cost sharing issue as the necessity of our appeal might be rendered moot. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and please feel free to contact me if you require any further information. Enc. Sincere) Gregory T. House for Houses Development Company, L.L.C. • • May 6, 2003 Planning Commission City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE SEQUOYAH COMMONS OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Dear Members of the Planning Commission, HOUSES 217 •.,nL li.i.i Avcroir I-„,ii;,Olt Alt 72701 479521.91;; ...n.1,. 479 521 6109 I am writing to discuss the off-site improvements made necessary by our project on Olive Street. Having debated this issue at length with the City Planning Staff and our civil and traffic engineers, we believe that the traffic and access issues for this project can be met in one of two ways: 1) Bring Olive into conformity as a residential street by improving Olive avenue from Spring Street to the Center Street right of way as follows: widen the existing street to 24' back of curb to back of curb, overlay the existing paving, construct the new portion adjacent to our property to 28' wide (to accommodate on street parking) install a 4' concrete sidewalk on one side of Olive Avenue and install storm drainage to code. The capacity for a residential street is 300 to 500 trips per day. The total load on Olive at completion is projected at 395 per day. With these improvements, our LSD proposal will meet every requirement of the law, including the Unified Development Ordinance and the International Fire Protection Code; 2) The alternative planning staff is requesting would be to leave Olive Avenue as is, (though making sure that it is at least 20' wide) improve Olive adjacent to our project, and build Center Street between Olive and Walnut, with the necessary waivers requested in our latest submittal. This portion of Center Street is desired by the City Planner for purposes of "connectivity.” Based upon the LSD Ordinance, our share of the costs for these improvements is limited to the "Rational Nexus" of need for the street being created by our project. In discussion with the City Planning Staff, we determined that the ratio of our project to the total units served by this new street would be approximately 43%. We should bear no more than 43% of the cost of the work to construct these improvements, and that the City of Fayetteville should provide the remaining 570/0. Real Esi'ic I )ccclnhlnenl 64 Birnkcraw.. • • We can be satisfied with either solution. The choice is yours: either allow us to improve Olive Avenue or allow us to pay our share of the Center Street construction. Respectfully Submitted, Gregory T. House for Houses, Incorporated • May 6. 2003 Mr. Greg House [louses Development Company 217 North East Avcnuc Fayetteville, Alt 72701 Re. Sequoyah Commons Apartrncnl Complex Revised Traffic Impact and Safety Study Faycttevillc, Arkansas Dear Mr. house: As you requested, we have prepared this revised letter report to document our findings regarding the referenced traffic study. Back round Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted a traffic impact study for a proposed residential apartment complex development located on the east side of Olive Avenue and south of Spring Sheet in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The site is proposed to consist of 39 apanment units and its location is shown below: I I _ IIS.: alt•''j' ,I li; IL<1 r li;t int( lil? .II. II I11 Th Vicinity Map Mr. Greg Itouse May 6, 2003 Page 2 of 5 This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a traffic cnginccring study undertaken to: n Evaluate existing traffic conditions in the vicinity. o Ascertain projected traffic c operating conditions on streets proposed to serve the site. Identify the effects on traffic operations resulting from existing traffic in combination with site -generated traffic associated with the development. u Evaluate proposed access to the site and make recommendations for mitigative improvements which may be necessary and appropriate to ensure minimum impact and acceptable traffic operations. o Evaluate traffic safely considerations in the vicinity of the site. In the following sections of this report there arc presented Traffic data, study methods, findings and recommendations of this traffic engineering investigation. The traffic engineering study is technical in nature. Analysis techniques employed arc those most commonly uscd in the traffic engineering profession. Certain data and calculations relative to traffic operational analysis are referenced in the report. This consultant and the City of Fayetteville conducted 24-hour Traffic counts at the locations depicted on Figure I, "Existing 24-Iiour Traffic Volumes" for the proposed apartment complex. Street System Olive Avenue is a two-way street that varies in width from 18 feet to 20 feet. Presently, Olive Avenue provides the only access to the site. This asphalt street is constructed without curh and gutter. There are no sidewalks and the speed limit is not posted near the site. Olive Avenue is classified as a local street in the City's Master Street Plan. Spring Street is a two-way street that varies in width frorn 20 feet to 22 feet. This asphalt street is constmctcd without curh and gutter. Spring Street is classified as a local street in the City's Master Street flan. E..ri.sung Traffic Volumes The existing two-way 24-hour traffic volumes for Spring Street and Olive Avenue in the vicinity of the site range from 136 vehicles per day to 1,711 vehicles per day. The existing two-way AM peak hour traffic volumes for Spring Street and Olive Avenue in the vicinity of the site range from 6 vehicles per hour to 104 vehicles per hour. 'The existing two-way PM peak hour traffic volumes for Spring Street and Olive Avenue in the vicinity of the site range from 5 vehicles per hour to 167 vchicics per hour. Trip Generation and Site Traffic Projections The Trip Generation, an Informational Report, 1998, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Software (Version 4 by Microtrans), were utilized in calculating the magnitude of traffic volumes expected to he generated by the proposal residential land use of this development. These arc reliable sources for This information and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. 259 16 8 3 17 Mr. Greg Ilouse May 6. 2001 Page 3 of S i Using selected trip generation rates, calculations were made as a pan of this study to provide a reliable estimate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be associated with the development :Is proposed Applying the appropriate trip generation rates to the land use proposed for the development makes these calculations. Results of this calculation arc summarized on Table I . "Trip Generation Summary ._ 39 Unit Apartment Complex." below. PROPOSED • LAND USE ,: • APPROXIMATE LTE SIZL CODt Apartment Comply, 39 UN6 220 24-HOUR TWO-WAY WEEKDAY • VOLUME TOTAL ENTERING ♦ EXITING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME ENTER EXIT 24 AM PEAK HOUR .r VOLUME , ENTCR ExEn 20 'Fable I - Trip Generation Sununary •• 39 Unit Apartment Complex These calculations indicate that approximately 259 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday arc projected to be generated by the proposed apartments land use on this site. Of this total, approximately 20 vchicic trips arc estimated during the adjacent street AM peak hour and approximately 24 vehicles arc estimated during the adjacent street PM peak hour. Improvement Scenarios Two strcct improvement scenarios arc under consideration as a part of this development • • Construct Olive Avenue 10 a 24 foot width with curb and gutter on both sides from Spring Street to the north properly line of the site. Construct Olive Avcnuc to a 20 foot width plus an 8 foot wide parking Linc with curb and gutter on cast side of street from the north property line to 50 feel past site driveway and construct a hammerhead turnaround. Construct Olive Avcnuc lo a 20 foot width with an 8 foot wide parking Ianc along the site frontage with curb and gutter on cast side of street and improve Olive Avcnuc to a 20 foot width with no curb and gutter from the north property line to Spring Street. Construct Center Street a 20 fool width with no curb and gutter from Olive Avenue to Walnut Avenue. Service Volume The City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan indicates the "service volume"for a local street of less than 4,000 vehicles per day. Local streets provide the second lowest level of traffic flow and service. They provide access to abutting land uses and provide connections to higher order street classification. They are not intendcd to provide for through traffic movements. Generally, the "service volume" of a street is a measure of its ability to accommodate a certain magnitude of moving vchicics. The "service volumes" arc not measures of capacity (which value would be greater) but represent a normal volume that can he cxpcctcd nn a given type of street. Capacity calculations accounting for a street width as narrow as 18 feet yield results that indicate no discernible dif fecncc in street capacity compared to the new street standard width of 28 feet for local streets. Mr. Circg House May 6.2003 Page 4 of 5 Contrary to the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan, City staff has determined that Olive Avenue and Center Street will he considered residential streets (Service Volume 300-500 vehicles per day) for the purposes of this study. .4nalnis and Findings TrafficVolumes- II was assumed the "worst case" condition of all traffic that is projected to be generated by a 39 unit apartment complex for a typical weekday (259 trips) would he combined with the existing traffic of the highest volume local street depicted on Figure 1, "Existing 24-Ilour'1rafftc Volumes." This sum was compared to the "service volume" specified in the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan for local streets. 'fhc highest two- way, 24-hour existing traffic volume on Spring Street (a local street classification) of 1,711 vehicles per day combined with the 259 vehicles per day projected to be generated by the apartment contplex equals 1,970 vehicles per day. This comhined volume of 1,970 vehicles per day is Icss than the 4,000 vehicle per day service volume expected for local streets. Additionally, it was assumed the "worst case" condition of all traffic that is projected to he generated by the apartment complex for a typical weekday would be combined with the existing traffic of the highest volume residential street (Olive Avenue) depicted on Figure 1, "Existing 24-11our Traffic Volumes." This sum was compared to the "service volume" specified in the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan for residential streets. The highest two-way, 24-hour existing traffic volume on Olive Avenue from Spring Street to the site of 136 vehicles per day whcn combined with the 259 vehicles per day projected to be generated by the apartment complex equals 395 vehicles per day. The combined volurne of 395 vehicles per day is in the range of 300-500 vehicles per day service volume expected for residential streets. li is concluded that the existing street system surrounding the site has adequate reserve "service volume" to satisfactorily serve the additional traffic projected to be generated by Ole site without discernable impact. } Sight distance - The site access drive should be designed to provide sight distance for exiting traffic to comply with City requirements and regulations. The sight distance at the intersection of Olive Avenue and Spring Street for northbound traffic will not be affected by the construction of the apartment complex. The small number of additional vehicles will have no significant impact regarding sight distance al this intersection. Topography - The construction of this apartment complex will comply with City regulations regarding topography on-site. The access to the street system will not alter the existing topography of the street. •:• Turning radii - Turning radii exiting the site driveway onto Olive Avenue meet all City regulations. The taming radii al the intersection of Olive Avenue and Spring Street appear to adequately serve the existing traffic volumes. Since the additional number of vehicles added to the existing traffic volume al this intersection by this development is srnall, no improvements to turning radii are recommended. + Curbing - As shown on the site plan submitted for this project, curb and gutter is proposed to he constructed coincident with the street improvements adjacent to the site. Curbing Mr (;reg Itous S May 6, 2003 Page 5 of 5 • constructed as a part of street improvements is generally constructed to address drainage issues and not safcty concerns. •: Traffic accidents - Traffic accident data for the previous twclvc months was tcvicwcd for the following intersections: Olive Avenue and Spring Street Olive Avcnuc and Dickson Street 1'Ietchcr Avcnuc and Spring Street Only one accident was rcponed during the previous twelve months at the intersection of Spring Street and Flctchcr Avcnuc Because the accident history at intersections near the site is limited, no future projections were made for tralTic accidents. The very small increase in traffic volumes generated by the site is not expected to adversely affect the favorable accident history. Pedestrian Safety — The traffic accident data did not indicate that pedestrians were a factor in the only reported accident at Fletcher Avenue and Spring Strcct. Since no changes are being made regarding sight distances and increase in traffic volumes arc very small, no pedestrian safety issues arc anticipated as a result of this development. Sidewalks arc proposed to be constructed adjacent to the site coincident with street improvements. Conc(usinns As a result of this study, we conclude that for either of the improvement scenarios that this small residential development generates low traffic volumes and our analysis indicates resulting traffic volumes are well within the range expected on local and residential streets. We sec no adverse effects to: Traffic operations . Sight distance • Vehicle and pedestrian safety. please advise if you have questions or need additional information regarding this natter. Sincerely, PETERS & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS, INC. Ernest J. Peters. P.E. President P.O. BOX 21638 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72221 (501) 225-0500 FAX: (501) 225-0602 • • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS n m z A 3f1N3AV 3N10 aNd 133b1S SNOkNk03 HVl.Of1O3S H Z N 1 rn OUVE AVE. FLETCHER AVE. 9f l -r 0 1 NIHON COL(ECEI PLb Planning Commission• March 24, 2003 Page 10 discussion of the connectivity. Am I wrong in that Tim? Conklin: The primary issue is access which is when we met with Mr. House, concerns about spending a lot of money designing and engineering a street connection. Also, as I thought I stated earlier, has presented a concept design which has moved some buildings and added some parking and my understanding is it has been seven buildings, 39 units, that really hasn't changed. Once again, there may be some other issues that we will discuss this evening. Aviles: I think the concept plat is rather as a favor to the developer because if your plan had been submitted without the street connection it likely would've been disapproved on that basis. That being the main point we will be discussing that in detail this evening. I believe Tim, at agenda session, said that you have met other ordinance requirements regarding density and so forth as they exist in R-2 zoning. The traffic is an issue that we will be discussing. Conklin: That is correct. With regard to the density issue, that is a zoning issue. This is zoned R-2 so it is really not something that should be discussed as part of this development. What we are discussing is access to the development and other development ordinances. The primary issue that we have been discussing with the applicant is with regard to what is appropriate for access to this site should there be a street connection, should Olive Street be extended. You are within an historic platted area. Rights of way exist. Connections may be possible if you complete out the grid system. Staff recommended looking at how to develop some of this connectivity, street connections in areas that were not very steep like you see in other areas Center Street going north up to Fletcher, staff did not recommend that at this time. Center Street south of Olive to Walnut from my observation out there, it does look like vehicles have traveled a gravel drive in the past so it is possible to drive on it today. 1 would like to note that it would require a variation in our minimum street standards in order to make this connection. The larger policy issue that 1 have discussed with Mr. House and his engineer is this arca is zoned R-2. We are seeing increased density being built in this area If this area is increased from two units per acre to 20 units per acre what kind of street network do we need in the future? What type of connectivity do we need in the future? We have an existing grid pattem, right of way that was recorded and platted. Do we as a city complete that grid pattem and make those connections with the idea that this may develop with multi -family as we are seeing, this may develop as single-family regardless of whether it is multi -family or single-family, urban design principles traditional houses are along streets. Do you want to complete the street network? With regard to the overall design, once again, modifications have been made with regard to building location placement and parking. Planning Commission • March 24, 2003 Page 11 • Aviles: Those are in conformance with city ordinances. What 1 would like to do is to focus our discussion this evening in terms of the discussion. I think that we have a large issue in front of us in terms of offsite improvements and what Houses Incorporated is willing to do with regard to cost sharing on that and that the access is the issue that we need to address on this if we are meeting the other ordinances and design standards, lets not waste everybody's time. We have got a lot of people here tonight Can I see a show of hands if you are here with the public to address us on this concept plat. We are going to hear from everyone. I would like to be very clear on what I am asking the applicant and the public to address. That is the offsite improvements, the access to the site, and the implications for cost sharing. Since we have a lengthy agenda tonight and this only number four of fourteen if you could keep your comments short, to the point, and try to avoid repetition we would certainly appreciate that. Mr. House would you like to continue with your presentation? Ilouse: Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. I understand and it will cut my presentation down considerably. To paraphrase, we are talking about offsite improvements, access to the site, and the cost sharing. First let me begin by stating that the plan that we submitted originally as part of the Large Scale Development process was submitted meeting all of the requirement of the UDO, city street standards and international fire code. That plan is the plan without connectivity to Center Street. Let me say that again, the plan that we submitted meets all of the requirements of the UDO, the city street standards, and the international fire code. That is why we feel it is not necessary to connect to Center Street from a legal perspective. If the city feels that it is necessary for other policy considerations like what is going to happen on the hill in the future, we are not opposed to that. The question is how do we pay for it. Is it incumbent upon our company to have to pay for the development of a street that is not adjacent to this property, that is not necessary for the development of this property because the rest of the hill is going to get developed in the future. While 1 agree it may help ease the burden of some traffic out on Olive because a connection to Center Street would theoretically provide another access, many property owners would benefit from that besides ours. 1 understand there is a theory called rational nexus, which is hard for me to get my hands around and I am a lawyer. I have asked my engineer to do a rational nexus study to determine what share should be ours, how the improvement of Center Street would benefit our project. Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks in conjunction with a traffic study by Ernie Peters out of Little Rock have come up with an estimate and a percentage that they deem is the amount of benefit to our property by the improvement to Center Street. It is amazingly enough, a pretty small number. That was submitted in the packet that we gave the Planning staff the first of last week. Hopefully it is in your packet. It would be a letter Planning Commissioi. March 24, 2003 Page 12 S from EB Landworks to Tim Conklin dated March 17ih if I can direct your attention to it. In that letter Ms. Bunch talks about how much her estimate is of cost, vehicle trips per day, and what the percentage of our impact would be and it is fairly minimal, something around 2%. This is supported by a study by Ernie Peters that did a traffic analysis and the whole report is probably in your file as well. This is based on Olive being a local street and the city street standards define a local street as two 10' lanes. Olive, as it exists, is 18' to 20' wide so it has two 10' traffic lanes. We have proposed in our submittal to make sure Olive is 20' wide for those areas that it is not to meet the local street standards. Supposedly somebody has figured out that that takes 4,000 trips per day. Mr. Peters has stated after his study in conjunction with some city studies for this area, that our trips are going to be approximately 297, let's call it 300 trips per day on Olive so as you can see it is not huge just going in and out of Olive without even going out Center Street. The impact of the traffic that we are going to create on Olive is less than 10% of the allowed traffic as it exists. Basically, rather than belabor you with all of the stuff that we have already submitted, we have made our argument in all of the stuff that we submitted that access to the site is reasonable as it is but we are willing to help pay for Center is that is determined necessary. The offsite improvements, we have already submitted that we would do a new street from the existing portion of Olive to Center. Our original plan was to just have a cul-de-sac at the entrance to our property but in the spirit of compromise with the Planning Department we agreed to pave all of Olive so that the potential of connectivity could be done now or in the future. I guess I will ask to see if anyone as any questions. If that is all that we are talking about, I can talk about density and having met with the neighbors and all of our agreements with the neighbors and all of that. Aviles: We are just going to limit the discussion to access and your participation in offsite improvements. Should you be required to extend the street, have you come up with a figure that you would be willing to participate in for that? House: We have submitted that it is 2% of the total cost and the estimates are it is going to cost approximately $100,000, I think the real number is $94,000. I guess we would have to put some sort of cap on it in the event that it cost $300,000 but that is what we have submitted based on the engineering. That is for the Center portion. We will already have quite a bit of money in the rest of Olive but that is for the Center Street portion. Aviles: Thanks Mr. House. I see that there are members of the public that would like to address us. Come on up, tell us your name, where you live, and give us the benefit of your opinion. As 1 said, if you could keep it to the point of access we would appreciate that. • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE • LSD02-29.00 Pare I 113 W. Mountain SI. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8260 TO: FROM: THRU: DATE: Subdivision Committee Members Sara Edwards, Associate Planner Tim Conklin, City Planner, A.1.C.P. Matt Casey, Staff Engineer January 30, 2003 Project: LSD 02-29.00 (1040): Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Findings: Proposal: The construction of 7 buildings with a total of 39 dwelling units. Parking: Required- 48 Proposed: 51 Existing Development: Vacant Surrounding Zoning: North: R-2 South: R-2 East: R-1 West: R-2 Surrounding Land Use: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential vacant Mixture of duplex and single family vacant Water: Available along Olive Sewer: Available along Olive Right-of-way being dedicated: No additional right-of-way dedication required. There is currently K. iREPOR7S1200JlSCREPOR731FEBRUARY 20031/SO 02-29.00 SEQUOYAH COMMONS. DOC • • ISD02-29.00 Paye 2 60 feet of right-of-way for Olive, 30 feet of right-of-way for Center, and 60 feet of right-of-way for Fletcher existing. Street Improvements Proposed: Olive is proposed to be improved adjacent to the site only. Access: Access is proposed by means of Olive Avenue which is substandard both in width and in surfacing. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: None Tree Preservation: Existing: 100% Preserved: 20.17% Recommendation: Forward to the full Planning Commission Conditions to Address / Discuss: Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements and required access. Olive is currently substandard. It is only 18 feet wide and does not meet state fire code. With the allowance of on street parking two-way traffic cannot be accommodated. The pavement and subbase is failing and can likely not accommodate construction traffic. The site has access to Fletcher but no access point is proposed. Right-of-way for Center exists adjacent to the site and south to Walnut. Staff is recommending the construction of Center Street and Olive Street to the southeast corner of the site with waivers from the minimum street standards. 2. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveway. 3. Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which runs north/ south through the property. 4. A 10 foot utility easement shall be granted on both sides of the existing 30 foot water line, which is required for maintenance of the line. 5. All buildings will be required to meet setbacks based on height. 6. Lighting shall not reflect onto adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to installation. Standard Conditions of Approval: 7. 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) 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) X RREPOR7S10031SCREPOR7SIFE13RUAR)200311.51)01-19 00 SEQUOCIH COMMONS DOC