The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About160-03 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 • . • LSD01-29.00 Pate) 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. 9: Payment of parks fees in the amount of $14,625 (39 units @ $375) 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum four foot sidewalk along Olive. 11. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 12. 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 e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. 13. Additional conditions: a. b. c. Subdivision Committee Action: O Approval O Forwarded to P.C. Meeting Date: January 30, 2003 Comments: The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature Date K. IREPOR7s 2003LSCREPORTSLFEBRUARY 20031 LSD 02.29.00 SEQUOIA!! COMMONS DOC • LSD02-29.00 Page 4 Applicable Code Sections: §166.05 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT. 7. Miscellaneous Requirements. a. Comply with those requirements of §§ 166.03 through 166.04 of the Development regulations pertaining to streets, surface drainage system, water system, sanitary sewer systems; and, if the development is multifamily housing, said requirements pertaining to public parks; and install a sidewalk adjacent to all abutting streets or highways in accordance with City specifications for sidewalk construction. b. The developer may be required to install off -site improvements, where the need for such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed large scale development. For purposes of this section, an off -site improvement shall mean all, or any part of, a street, surface drainage system, water system, or sanitary sewer system, which is to be installed on property located outside the proposed large scale development. c. Any required off -site improvements shall be installed according to City standards. The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off -site improvements which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the large scale development. d. The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may refuse to approve a large scale development for any of the following reasons: (1). The development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section. (2). The proposed development would violate a City ordinance, a State statute, or a Federal statute. (3). The developer refuses to dedicate the street right-of-way, utility easements or drainage casements required by this chapter. (4). The proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this section, a "dangerous" traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern. (5). City water and sewer is not readily available to the property within the large scale development and the developer has made no provision for extending such service to the development. (6). The developer refuses to comply with subsection 7. b. and c. pertaining to required on -site and off site improvements. Cross Reference: Notifications and Public Hearings, Chapter 157; Appeals. Chapter 155. A: IREPORAVOOJLSCREPORTSIFEflRIJARY 2003USD 0229.OO.SEQUOEI /I COMdfOKS DOC . S • City of Fayetteville Tree Preservation Plan Review Form Project: Seguoyah Commons Developer: Houses Development Co. Location Address: South end of Olive Engineer: EB Landworks This form shall stand as a: OInitia] Review/Letter of Confirmation ✓Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council OFinal Administrative Determination* Submital requirements met: ✓Initial Review ✓Site Analysis Comments: Canopy measurements: % Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved Land Use R_2 %To be Preserved 20% Total Area of Site: Acres: 1.99 acres Existing Tree Canopy Preserved: Square Feet: 86.516 sf Acres: 0.42 Square Feet: 17.450 sf % of Total Site Area 20.17% Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: OYes ONo OOn-Site Mitigation OOff-Site Preservation OOff-Site Forestation OTree Fund Tree Preservation Criteria Met: OYes ONo (See back for criteria list and comments) Applicant's Plan: ✓Approved ODisapproved OConditionally Approved Reason(s) For Decision: Due to the�ef density of construction on site, remedial measures or mitigation may be assess after construction is complete. ✓Analysis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy: Acres: 1.99 Square Feet: 86.516 % of Total Site Area: 100% ,the Landscape Administrator, date/o5'-05 Criteria used by Landscape Administrator to evaluate Tree Preservation Plan: I. The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. 2. Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities. 3. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the tree or group of trees. 4. 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. 5. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of development on existing trees. Comments 6. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design. 7. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease, injury or hazard. Comments 8. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the property. Comments 9. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. 10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. Comments H. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives. 12T The effects of proposed Oh=Site Mitigation of Ofi Site Alternatives Comments 13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development design. Comments 14. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by state and federal regulations. 15. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the Applicant. Mn appeal maybe filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with Chapter 155 of the Unified Development Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator detenninations/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 Landscape Review Form Project: Sequovah Commons Location Address: South end of Olive Developer: Houses Development Co. Engineer: EB Landworks This project falls under the requirements of: ✓Off Street Parking Lot - Landscaping OCommercial Design Standards - Landscaping OBuffers between zones - Landscaping/Fence Landscape Plan Requirements: This information may be included with the site plan. A Preliminary Landscape Plan is required for Planning Commission review and the Final Landscape Plan is required prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Off Street Parking Lot - Landscaping Preliminary Final be O Landscape protection - wheel stops or curb ✓ ❑ Irrigation - automatic or hose bibs located 100' O.C. ✓ O Landscaping beds - must be in beds with edging indicated. ✓ O Type (species) of trees and shrubs must be indicated on plans. V O Size of plants at installation ❑ O Interior Landscaping - must be 4' into the limits of the parking lot Tree lawn - 10' min. width I tree per 15 spaces Tree Island -min. 8' width, 17'. length I tree per 12 spaces Tree Pit -6" by 6" min. 1 tree per 10 spaces V O Exterior - Along R.O.W. 15' adjacent to R.O.W exclusive for landscaping 1 tree per 30 L.F. Continuos planting of shrubs and ground cover / 50% evergreen ✓ O Exterior - Side and Rear 5' between property and parking lot to be left for landscaping. ❑ Soil Amendments - Notes must include that soil is amended and sod removed. ❑ Mulching - note must indicate mulching around trees and within landscape beds. ❑ Planting details per City of Fayetteville Landscape Manual Commercial Design Standards - Landscaping ❑ O 15' wide landscape strip required along Right-of-way ❑ O Trees required at 30' spacing along street I.O.W. Overlay District - Landscape Requirements ❑ O 25' landscape buffer required along street R.O.W. ❑ O Trees required at 30' spacing along street R.O.W., ❑ O 25% of the project is required to be left as landscaped/open space. Applicant's Plan: OApproved ODisapproved •✓Conditionally Approved Conditions for Approval: Reveiw the possability of placing a tree in the narking lot island east o building 4. ,the Landscape Administrator, date /..2,9_4 =G a 01,[.ri :[KiliiilLTi [� LSD02-29.00 SEQUOYAH COMMONS One Mlle View ire Overview ❑ P TI_I i - leulu''T ', — �.� �1 1 ants w'AL. ' �..•,.,„ C.7'. 4l I I ._ , I I�. (y.`2.•. flu Ft`'i f milli y.y _ of 1 �1'is :w,tS iIO c& etJ (. i, r.s^I -. •r'.!._,.._ SUBJECT PROPERTY - i __ ... _ �`N. d •.i I I 1 ' ,₹III •� J � �r {� 1 — . .4T Sc L:•"E itC - -11� �S t I� i 1 :.'.el.'gfiii T i YL"! — mil."4T '�.�I I CE:xl..4 ! r i I I• tea. r: 1_V�_TF py1-'-.' I_LL.I �.il i )Tw TT jJ I _'' ill.1 ? I . H.....- - TTWCT Legend Subject Property Boundary Mn, sn«r Plan ® LS002-29.00 ^��. Pta entry Area ', 'oa-r 0000% �I ¢low blrw aeMb .0.08 Ovellay Dlatr$m ^� VVMdY \.F L__I Gry Ltrdla .(•arcu =Oumde City •�.. 1Wo.k corn 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Iles • • Page 10J3 FAYETTEVILLE TILE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mandy Bunch FROM: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: In -House Plat Review Comments Project Name: LSD 02-29.00 The following is a review of project requirements concerning the project mentioned above: Submittal Requirements See Adequate Inadequate Comments a. Completed Application X b. Number of Required Plats X c. Adjoining Property Owners (labels) X d Property is a legal lot of record X e. Prelim. Grading & Drainage X Plan / Report f. Tree Preservation Plan / Info X g. Color Rendered Elevations NA (Main Facade, Signage) Comments: Split to vacation (15' UE) 2. Zoning Requirements See Adequate Inadequate Comments a. Use Allowable in Zoning District X b. Use Compliant with Lot Width X X c. Use Complaint with Lot Area X c. Density requirements met X d. Special Regulations necessitated by use. X Comments: Proposal is to construct Olive 91.51 feet into property to provide required frontage. See 3. Plat Requirements Adequate Inadequate Continents a. Adjacent Zoning X /1: 1(ISEPS1CO.tl.t fOMMMPLaNKINGIREPORT.SITF.Cl1 PL, r Rt..PORTS:00?aoCTOBER '002LLSD 0? -'9.00 Sl QUO)A!/ COAfAIO,\'.S DOG Page 2 of 3 b. Adjacent Property Owners X c. Plat Page X d. Layout of Adjoining Property (300') X e. Vicinity Map X f. Floodplain Reference X g. Contours X h. Legal Description(s) X j. Legend X k. R -O -W Dimensions from Centerlines X I. Easement Dimensions X m. Building height (additional setback) X o. Building Setbacks X p. Project Owner / Developer X q. Site Coverage Note X Comments: What is the bight of buldings '/. Additional setback over 20'. 4. Street Requirements ' Adequate Inadequate a. Master Street Plan Conformance X b. R -O -W Dedication X c. Curb Cuts (number & location) X d. Compliance with Design Standards X Comments: Street id longer than 500' ending in a cul-de-sac. See Comments 5. Parking and Driveway Requirements See Adequate Inadequate Comments a. Parking Spaces (number & ratio) X b. Parking Stall Dimensions X c. Traffic Flow Patterns X d. Internal Aisle Widths X e. Driveway Widths X f. Driveway Curb Radius X g. Adequate Throat Length X h. Adequate Distance Between Adjacent X Drives. i. Bike Racks Provided X j. Off street loading berths NA k. Front and side landscaping X I. Parking lot lighting X Comments: Fire needs 20' of ROW on both streets and drives. Explain lighting planned. 6. Other Requirements Adequate Inadequate a. Buffer Strip / Fencing / Screening NA See Comments H: iUSERSCOAIAIOA'Nl.AFAt,vGIRIPORJSITEClI FLIT REPORTS 100?IOCTORER 20021 LSD 02.29.1)0 SEOOO)'.Ull CO.V.VU,\'.S DOG • • Page 3 0J3 b. Indicate and Locate all Signs NA c. Written Description for any Waivers NA d. Overlay District Requirements NA e. Underground Utilities NA f. Commercial Design Standards NA Comments: All aisle will be fire lanes. In order for this project to continue in the current review cycle, all requested revisions and additional information must be added to the plat, to the elevations (if required) and to the diskette (if required). 37 copies of the revised plat including grading and tree preservation plan must be submitted to the Planning Division no later than November 6 @ 10:00 AM. Reminder: Developers of all preliminary plats and large scale developments are required by City ordinance to provide notification to all adjoining property owners of the upcoming public hearings (Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission meetings). Proof of said notification is required to be submitted with revisions; this project will not proceed to the next review level without proof of notification. 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 tree preservation areas. 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. H: tUSF.R51COd1.tIO.11PLbVNIA'GR7.PORT.S'TECH P1.: i r Rf.POR7S ?00 1OCrOBFR :001 V.SD 1)2.2900 SEQUO Li II C'O.ILt/O,5'.S DOC C FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 West Mountain Si. Fayetteville, AR 72701 ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 501-575-8206 To: Mandy Bunch Thru: Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator From: Matt Casey P.E., Staff Engineer Date: October 29, 2002 Re: "in-house" plat review comments (30 October 2002 Tech. Plat Meeting) Development: LSD 02-29.00 Sequoyah Commons, pp485 p. 1. Provide complete hydrographs in the drainage report. 2. Provide details for the outlet structure of the detention pond. 3. Remove the island proposed in the middle of the street. 4. Provide easements a minimum of 10' on each side of the proposed water and sewer lines. The shown casements do not meet this requirement. 5. Either extend the water main to be closer to the water meters or place the meters close to the main to avoid long service lines between the main and meter. 6. Show the location of the proposed silt fence on the grading plan. 7. Show the existing water and sewer on the grading plan. 8. Verify the width of the casement for the existing water lines. 9. All retaining walls over tour (4) feet in height shall he designed by a registered professional engineer, and shall be inspected by the design engineer. 10. All retaining walls over 30" in height shall have a safety railing installed that meets the requirements of the SBBC. II. The flow from the parking lot on the east side of the proposed detention pond needs to discharge through a pipe instead of dropping of the retaining wall. 12. According to § 169.06 of the Unified Development Ordinance, cuts adjacent to public rights -of -way shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet. However, since this grading includes the construction of the roadway, this will not apply to this situation. 13. Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements is required. At this time staff recommends that Olive St. be improved to meet the residential street standards including pavement, subbase, curb and gutter, and storm drainage from Spring St. to the proposed cul de sac. A second option that staff would consider is the extension of Center St. to provide frontage to the property. ce A 4A CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Public Works / Traffic Division Plat Review Check List PROJECT TITLE: SEQUOYAH COMMONS (between Olive & Fletcher, south of Spring) PROJECT TYPE: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED BY: Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks DATE: October 29, 2002 REVIEWED BY: Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent PHONE: 575-8228 Street names approved as submitted with the following comments or exceptions: None Street light locations approved with the following comments or exceptions: None Sight Distance Problems: None Other comments or recommendations: Do you meet all of the parking requirements? City of Fayetteville Tree Preservation Plan Review Form Project: Sequoyah Commons Developer: Houses Development Co. Location Address: South end of Olive Engineer: EB Landworks This form shall stand as a: Olnitial Review/Letter of Confirmation ✓Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council OFinal Administrative Determination` Submital requirements met: ✓Initial Review ✓Site Analysis Comments: Canopy measurements: % Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved Land Use R-2 %To be Preserved 20% Total Area of Site: Acres: 1.99 acres Square Feet: 86,516 sf OAnalysis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy: Acres: 1.99 Square Feet: 86.516 % of Total Site Area: 100% Existing Tree Canopy Preserved: Acres: 0.42 Square Feet: 18 515 % of Total Site Area 21 % Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: Oyes ONo O0n-Site Mitigation OOff-Site Preservation OOff-Site Forestation OTree Fund Tree Preservation Criteria Met: OYes ONo (See back for criteria list and comments) Applicant's Plan: OApproved ✓Disapproved OConditionally Approved Reason(s) For Decision: Tree Preservation cannot be counted within utility easements or areas too narrow to sustain a healthy canopy through construction. The tree preservation area along the south border is to he research to identify the utility easements existing for the Water line. The Preservation area along the north boundary is too narrow to sustain much canopy. Prior to approval I will need to review the type and amount of trees existing in these narrow areas. Signed: ,the Landscape Administrator, date' City of Fayetteville Landscape Review Form Project: Sequoyah Commons Location Address: South end of Olive Developer: Houses Development Co. Engineer: EB Landworks This project falls under the requirements of: ✓Off Street Parking Lot - Landscaping ❑Commercial Design Standards - Landscaping OBuffers between zones - Landscaping/Fence Landscape Plan Requirements: This information may be included with the site plan. A Preliminary Landscape Plan is required for Planning Commission review and the Final Landscape Plan is required prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Off Street Parking Lot - Landscaping Preliminary Final V O Landscape protection - wheel stops or curb V ❑ Irrigation - automatic or hose bibs located 100O.C. V O Landscaping beds - must be in beds with edging indicated. V O Type (species) of trees and shrubs must be indicated on plans. V ❑ Size of plants at installation ❑ O Interior Landscaping - must be 4' into the limits of the parking lot Tree lawn - 10' min. width I tree per 15 spaces Tree Island -min. 8' width, 17'. length I tree per 12 spaces Tree Pit - 6" by 6" min. I tree per 10 spaces V O Exterior - Along R.O.W. 15' adjacent to R.O.W exclusive for landscaping I tree per 30 L.F. Continuos planting of shrubs and.ground cover / 50% evergreen V O Exterior - Side and Rear 5' between property and parking lot to be left for landscaping. ❑ Soil Amendments - Notes must include that soil is amended and sod removed. ❑ Mulching - note must indicate mulching around trees and within landscape beds. ❑ Planting details per City of Fayetteville Landscape Manual Commercial Design Standards - Landscaping ❑ ❑ 15' wide landscape strip required along Right-of-way O O Trees required at 30' spacing along street R.O.W. Overlay District - Landscape Requirements ❑ O 25' landscape buffer required along street R.O.W. ❑ ❑ Trees required at 30' spacing along street R.O.W., ❑ ❑ 25% of the project is required to be left as landscaped/open space. Applicant's Plan: DApproved ❑Disapproved VConditionally Approved Conditions for Approval: Please confirm that the interior parking lot islands that are utilized for tree islands are a minimum of 8' by 17'. ,the Landscape Administrator, date/0 a9 -02 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY Or FAYEITEYILLE DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Tim Conklin, City Planner Sara Edwards, Associate Planner THRU: Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk Administrator FROM: Keith Shreve, Development Coordinator DATE: Friday, October 25, 2002 SUBJECT: PLAT REVIEW/SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE/PLANNING COMMISSION IN-HOUSE REVIEW on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 I have reviewed a large scale development/subdivision proposal submitted under the name of LSD 02 - 29.00, Large Scale Development, (Sequoyah Commons) submitted by: Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Gregg House Development Location: between Olive Ave. and Fletcher Ave. south of Spring Street. Plat Page #485 Zoning: R - 2 Acreage: 2.06 COMMENTS: Olive Avenue is a ????? residential street which requires a four foot sidewalk and a minimum of five feet of green space along one side of the street and wrapping a cul-de-sac. The sidewalk shall be continuous through driveways with a maximum of 2% cross slope and elevated 2% above top of curb. Remove lines representing curbs through the sidewalk section (in the driveway) from the drawing. On residential class streets where the sidewalk wraps around the cul-de-sac and ends, a ramp should be constructed at the ending/beginning point of the sidewalk (preferably at a lot line) and a corresponding ramp across the street. Detectable warnings are now required when constructing or altering curb ramps. A 24 in wide strip of detectable warning (truncated domes) should be installed at the bottom of a curb ramp to indicate the transition from the sidewalk to the street. All retaining walls shall be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the right of way. All retaining wall construction shall be on the building permit and have the approval of the City Engineer. New driveway approaches, access ramps or sidewalks constructed in the right of way shall be designed to meet Unified Development Ordinance Section 171.13 (a.k.a. Ord. #4005). Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete with a broom finish. Textured, stamped or exposed aggregate concrete is not allowed within the street right of way. An inspection is required orior to the concrete pour. One (1) bicycle parking racks are required per Ordinance # 4293. If you have questions or comments, please give me a call at 575-8291. Thank you. F AY ETTEVIL(A • FIRE y�I FAYEPtFEVILLE a DEPT 7llit}IS FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE THE C TY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS TO: PLANNING DIVISION FROM: FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU, FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE REF: HYDRANT SPACING PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS. DATE: /O OWNNEERR »ZZ_____ LOCATION/ADDRESS (�fi✓e oz�L 7/F/rr "SPRINKLED OCCUPANCIES SHALL HAVE A FIRE HYDRANT -IIN 100 FEET OF THE FDC (FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION).__ l ' COMMENTS: • • A1o"6 S ^ 1 _- �!cE35r O ` 7/ 8 B I ' N; t OFFICEAL_ -_ PHONE t/yU-3yYL MAIN OFFICE 115 SOUTH CHURCH ST. (501) 444-3448 / (501) 444-3449 `AX (501) 575-8272 SUBSTATION N.W.A. MALL (501) 575-8271 FAX (501) 5758272 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8264 TO: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner FROM: Kim J. Rogers, Parks Operations Coordinator DATE: October 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Plat Review Comments ♦s»ass«»»♦rr»►s««sa«►ra«•««»s♦aa««s«sa«s«r«»««a««s«s»srrr«ss♦»►r«a»•«««««♦rs«♦ Meeting Date: October 30, 2002 Item: LSD 02-29.00 ( 1040) Sequoyah Commons, pp 485 Park District: SW Zoned: R-2 Billing Name & Address: Greg House, Houses Incorporated, 217 N. East Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-521-9155 Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family @ .025 acre per unit = acres @ $470 per unit = $ Multi Family @ .02 acre per unit = acres @ $375 per unit = $ Mobile Home @ .015 acre per unit = acres @ $280 per unit = S COMMENTS: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted to accept money in lieu of land on October 7, 2002. Parks fees are assessed in the amount of S 14.625 for 39 multi units. PRAB Regular Mating Ms. Eads reported the Botanical Garden Society of the Ozarks would be conducting a Harvest Festival next week and were looking for volunteers to help with the event. Additionally, the organization is actively searching for more board members. Mr. Hatfield announced the grand opening celebration of East Mud Creek Trail will be October 10 from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. Several events will take place along with door prize awards. Parking is on Old Missouri Road behind Butterfield Trail Village. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board conducted a site tour of the following proposed developments: Development Name: ►\�// Engineer: Owner: Location: Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: 0.66 acres Money in Lieu Requirement: $12,375 Existing Parks and Acreage: Mt. Sequoyah Gardens (2.42 acres) Staff Recommendation: Money in Lieu of Land 1) The land dedication for park usage would be minimal. 2) The development is located across the street from Mt. Sequoyah Gardens Park. Sequoyah Commons EB LandWorks, Inc. Greg House Olive Avenue, South of Spring Street on Mt. Sequoyah SE 33 Multi Units 2 acres Mandy Bunch and Melissa Evans of EB LandWorks, Inc. met the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on site. MOTION: Mr. Marley moved to accept money in lieu of a land dedication to satisfy the park land dedication requirement for the proposed Sequoyah Commons development. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved unanimously 7-0-0. Park Land Dedication Development Name: Engineer: Owner: Location: Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Persimmon Place Subdivision Jorgensen & Associates, Dave Jorgensen Larry Gamott West of 1-540, South of Hwy. 16 on Persimmon St. SW 145 Single Units (buildable units) 59.6 acres 3.625 acres $68.150 October 7, 2002 / 3 $ROI1 H • FPX NO. : Rag. 13 2002 04:04=!1 P1 OCt • 2Z0o3 Houses, Inc: Phgnc (4/9) 1)1 ')1iS Fax (4If)) 571 61!4' C) AA- �J it fl t±It, Company Iri D1 Fax n 575 - 2257 Ucjtc/lime irD 4 2003 '}; 15 Total pages (including cover sheet) NOTES/COMMENTS Pn"1 Cow % AL CoAkt#A, RECEIVED JUN 042093 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM H • FAX N0. • Aug. 13 2002 04:04FM P2 HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO., L.L.C. TELEPHONE (501)52 L91S5 Sandra Smith, City Clerk City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re! Sequoyah Commons LSD 02.29.10 Dear Ms. Smith, 21 7 N7ORTH EA S / A VFNVE FA vC T rE V1! L E. AMKA NSA S 72 701 June 4, 2003 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 HOC 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. Sincere) Gregory T. House for Houses Development Company, L.L.C. Enc. rAA (501;52161 S's FROM H • RRX h0. • Pug. 13 2002 04:0SRf9 P3 May 6, 2003 Planning Commission City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 HOUSES i V ( ., • , C' RE SEQUOYAH COMMONS OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS AR CI IC Dear Members of the Planning Commission, 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 57%. Real Estate Development & Brokerage FROM : H FAX N0. • pug. 13 2002 04:05Fr1 ?4 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 HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO., L.IR cri`,gD TELEPHONE (501)5219155 Sandra Smith, City Clerk City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Sequoyah Commons LSD 02.29.10 Dear Ms. Smith, JUN O82003 217 NORTH EAST A VENUE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 CITY C;r,l1T:Pic VILLE CITYCLEFSOFFICE FAX (50I)521 6199 June 4, 2003 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. Sincerel Gregory T. House for Houses Development Company, L.L.C. Enc. !1." May 6, 2003 Planning Commission's City of Fayetteville H 0 U S ES 113 West Mountain Street JNCORPOR AT(U Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 117 North Can Avenue RE SEQUOYAH COMMONS OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Fapvecdlc. AR 71701 :e1cphonc: 479.5219155 IaC :r:dr. 47'&52 1.6199 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, 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 57%. Real Estate Development & Brokerage 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 Planning Commission• • May 27, 2003 Page 55 LSD 02-29.10: 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). Hoover: On to item number eight, LSD 02-29.10 for Sequoyah Commons submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks for the property at Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue. Warrick: This is a Large Scale Development for multi -family dwellings. The property contains approximately 2.06 acres, 39 dwelling units are proposed with 48 bedrooms. The property is located between Olive and Fletcher south of Spring Street. The applicant proposes to construct seven buildings as I said containing 39 dwelling units consisting of one and two bedroom town homes for a total of 48 bedrooms. Included with the development are proposed improvements to Olive Avenue and construction of a connection to Walnut via Center Street. Also, the construction of 56 parking spaces on site. Surrounding development and land use, primarily single-family homes and duplexes with R-2 zoning to the north and south. The subject property is zoned R-2 as well. To the cast is R -1 zoning and to the west is vacant zoned Industrial, 1-2. The applicant, as I mentioned is proposing 39 dwelling units on 2.06 acres. The density is approximately 19.2 units per acre in the R-2 zoning district 24 units per acre are permitted. Water and sewer are available to the site along Olive Avenue. No additional right of way for this project is necessary. Olive currently contains more than the standard right of way for this type of street. There is a 60' right of way existing. There is 30' of right of way existing for Center Street and 60' for Fletcher. Olive Avenue is proposed to be extended to Center Street along the west side of the subject property. With that Center Street will be extended within existing right of way to connect to Walnut. That would be to the east. The applicant will also be widening portions of Olive Street, which are currently narrower than 20' in width. Olive varies between 18' and 20'. Access is proposed by Olive Avenue, which is currently as I mentioned, between 18' and 20' in width. It is paved up approximately to the development where there is a gravel section. The applicant will be extending Olive Street the full width adjacent to the subject property. No Master Street Plans are being affected by this particular development. With regard to tree preservation the existing site is 100% covered in canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 21.25% which meets the requirement of 20% in this zoning district. The original proposal by this applicant went through the Large Scale review process was heard by staff and at the Subdivision Committee level. Staff at that time, at the time that it reached the Subdivision Committee, recommended the connection in the Center Street right of way to connect Olive to Walnut. At the April 28th Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 56 Planning Commission meeting the Commission reviewed a concept plat. The reason that that was brought forward was in order to provide some direction to the applicant with regard to street connections and off site improvements that may be necessary. The Planning Commission on April 28voted to require the extension of Center Street east to Olive. There is a typo in your report, that should read east instead of west. The construction of Olive Avenue along the entire western boundary of this project. The applicant is requesting that the city participate in a cost share for the construction of Center Street from the centerline of Olive to Walnut Street. There is a letter attached that addresses that issue. At the May 15`s Subdivision Committee meeting the Committee forwarded the Large Scale to the full Planning Commission subject to staff comments. We have had significant public comment on this particular project to include issues of density, traffic, parking, street improvements, sidewalks. You were provided one additional comment from a neighbor this evening. We also included minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting with this information for you. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development with several conditions and one additional condition that is not listed in your staff report that I need to add is the improvement of Olive to a 20' width north of the development to Spring Street. As I mentioned that is to make it a uniform 20' where in certain situations it is not quite wide enough right now to meet that 20' minimum. Conditions that staff is recommending include 1) Applicant shall improve Olive Street its full width adjacent to the proposed project with curb and gutter on each side. Sidewalks are to be constructed on the east side only in accordance with City standards. 2) Applicant shall provide a connection within existing street ROW for Center Street between Olive and Walnut Streets to include a 20' paved section. 3) Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which runs north/ south through the property. 4) A utility easement shall be granted a minimum of 10 feet on each side of all water and sewer lines to provide for maintenance of the line. 5) All buildings will be required to meet setbacks based on height. 6) Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, away from adjacent residential properties. There is a park fee in lieu of land dedication for this particular project in the amount of $15,327 which is $393 per unit for the 39 units proposed. Other conditions are listed in your report and are standard conditions for all Large Scale Developments. Just kind of in reference to the previous project and other Large Scales that we have seen. The question generally comes up as to what issues you as a Planning Commission have the ability to address for a Large Scale Development, in particular a residential Large Scale Development. Issues that you really can't address relate to density. The density has to do with the zoning district that is applied to the project, the uses that are permitted within that district are allowed by right as long as the development proposal meets the city's design and development criteria. Design standards, as you pointed out with the last project, the city• Planning Commission. • May 27, 2003 Page 57 does not have residential design standards. The uses, as I mentioned under zoning, the uses that are permitted on a particular piece of property go with the zoning that is applied to that property. Issues that you can and should address would include connectivity, the Master Street Plan and right of way dedications, one of the things that is required with a Large Scale Development is that it comply with the Master Street Plan and that any right of way necessary to meet the Master Street Plan standards is dedicated with that project. Grading and drainage, we talked a lot about that in the last item and compliance with the city's grading and drainage criteria is an issue that you are here to ensure. Utility extensions, any applicant with a Large Scale Development is required to provide utilities and to extend utilities to the project site. Parking, the number of parking spaces, the configuration and cross access are things that you can look at. Landscaping and screening where it is required by ordinance, tree preservation, which is a specific ordinance requirement, and the park land dedication or money in lieu ordinance requirements are things that the Planning Commission has control over. With that, I will answer any questions. Hoover: Dawn, on page 8.1 it looks like there is a typo. When you have down here the direction to the west the land use is vacant and it says 1-2, is that supposed to be R-2? Warrick: I believe that is R-2, it is vacant. It is R-2. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation now? Ilouse: Yes. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am Greg House speaking for the applicant, Flouse's Development Company. I thought I would give Mandy a bit of a break here. She is having to do double duty here this evening. After listening to Dawn's report I thought what I might begin with is to state that we are in agreement with all of the conditions that have been recommended by the Planning staff. However, in our presentation in a letter that I mailed to you all on May 6th and I brought up an issue that I want to bring up again and that is we can approach this application with options. The first option is ask for no variances or waivers of any kind, meets the UDO standard, the International Fire Code, and the Large Scale Development ordinance in its entirety. That is to allow us to construct Olive Street in front of our property and on out to Spring as a residential street to meet the traffic load that our development and the existing neighborhood would create. I point that out in paragraph one, or item one, of that letter. I am bringing that up so that the Planning Commission can see that there is a way to approve this project without having to grant a single variance. However, as the Planning staff has asked and has continually brought forth and as your Commission recommended in our last meeting, the issue of connectivity has come up Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 58 and the Planning staff wants us to connect to Walnut. That we don't object to however, we have submitted in our submittals that we think it is only fair that we pay the rational nexus portion of that. I guess I understand that that is actually part of your charge this evening to recommend that or not. That comes from something I just received from staff at about 1:30 this afternoon. That is pursuant to City Council Resolution 9496 city participation in street extension cost. In their report that is continued on page 8.2 the top part of that page, that paragraph says the city may participate in the construction of streets either adjacent to the development or on a street leading to a development if the need leading to such a development if the need for such improvement is not totally caused by the development in question. City staff has told us, I don't see it in writing here, that they agree that the burden that we create is only 43% of the total burden that the new portion of Center Street would bear. The next sentence of that ordinance goes on to say the appropriateness of any such cost sharing between the owner and developer and the city shall be determined by the Planning Commission based on city ordinances governing the cost sharing of streets. That is new to me. This is a constantly evolving process. I think that is something that Dawn may have left out that you are charged with this evening is to discuss that, especially in light of our last meeting. Warrick: You have a memo on page 8.9. House: The issues of drainage, the Master Street Plan, trees and green space and the right amount of right of way, I believe we have covered all of those and we have shown that we can meet all of those requirements and I will let Mandy elaborate further on those in a minute. I do want to mention that all of those requirements for approval of the development again can be met by dead ending in essence Olive with a hammer head turn around. I bring this up because what I am concerned about, and I heard this earlier this evening with another gentleman that was before your Commission, is that we take this on up to the City Council level, talk about cost sharing and then for some reason it gets denied and I am back to the drawing board again starting all over with the project. I just want to point out that we have continually submitted this as a two part application and I think that you may want to consider that so that all the issues can be brought forward regarding our application. I am available for questions as you go through the discussion. Thank you. Hoover: Mandy, do you have anymore to add to that? Bunch, M: Just very briefly. I just want to clarify some of the traffic issues. Based on our previous Planning Commission meeting things were brought up that streets did not appear to be at certain levels, etc. so I just want to kind of nail that out there. Staff, we have had several meetings on that level Planning Commission. • May 27, 2003 Page 59 and what the numbers that you are looking at today basically even include, previously we were talking about local streets and we were talking about 4,000 vehicles per day and everybody was in agreement that the streets as they exist and as they would be constructed with the waivers would not accommodate 4,000 vehicles per day. All of the calculations have been adjusted to look at Olive from Spring to the site frontage as a residential street. Which, regarding option number one, Greg's discussing lends to a total if you look at our entire traffic with the new generation numbers on a per unit basis, 420 total cars on Olive, which is within the realm of 300 to 500 vehicles per day that is allotted or assigned to the design service volume for a residential street in the Master Street Plan. 'Option number two which we are discussing with connectivity, the same cost share percentage has been calculated based on using Center as constructed with 20' in width asphalt with the waivers as a residential street and not as a local street. Either option being addressed can meet the city requirements. We have worked hard to address several issues with the property owners that live adjacent to this property and I know everyone is still not happy and I'm sure they want to talk about it. I want to stop and we are here for questions if you guys need anything. Hoover: Thank you Mandy. Before we go to public comment Dawn, would you just clarify the connectivity issue because I thought that that had already been decided. Warrick: The Planning Commission did vote on April 28th to have a connection to use the existing Center Street right of way to connect Olive to Walnut. That is what you sent back to your developer with regard to your determination on connectivity and requested that the Large Scale that came forward show that connection. The developers brought that forward and they do show that connection with this Large Scale Development. However, they are still requesting that options be made available. Staff is recommending the connection. We have been recommending the connection consistently since Subdivision Committee and we feel that it is appropriate to make that connection in this particular location. The grade of the Center Street right of way that we are considering is not excessive. It can he traveled, it can be walked, it can be driven currently. Utilizing that area we feel is an appropriate way to connect this particular project and to provide two means of access for the development as well as the existing houses on Olive Street. Hoover: prank you. Now I would like to open it up to public comment. I just want to remind you to keep your comments brief, to the point and relevant. You might start out organizing what your issues are up front so we can keep track easily. Davison: Good evening, my name is Sharon Davison, I do live in Fayetteville. Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 60 Actually I lived at 48 Olive 25 years ago right to where this man is trying to put in this development. I don't like being here, I'm missing my son's baseball game. When I run out the door to try to catch the end of it I do hope I don't hear that you all have made a bunch of excuses at the end and approved this when I can give you and you have a lot of reasons why not to approve it at this time. Number one is the very main reason that is given by you. Might I say, who needs the extra hired help? I believe Ms. Dawn did a wonderful pitch job for Mr. House and that in itself, shows my concern. Again, staff Hoover: Ms. Davison, I would appreciate you not attacking personal attacks, would you just stick to the project? Davison: It was a pitch thank you. I know a pitch when I hear one. Hoover: That is not necessary. Davison: That is what our city staff is doing by continually approving things that are not good for the citizens of the city and then they know that you will say we believe you brought this to us. I believe that most people did hear that. If you are familiar with this area and this situation you will know why I feel this way. First of all let's get to the main issue of the R-2 zoning. You have a reason tonight, and those of you that are new to the Commission, I would like that you check with the Council record of the past over year with this R-2 zoning problem, inappropriate R-2 zoning smack dab in the middle of 100% tree coverage. Have you seen those trees? 100% coverage. He is going to take 4 out of 5 of those trees out. I hope you can see that little part. We don't even have to talk about the yards that are given up, the people's drives, all of those things. Back to inappropriate R-2 zoning. We have discussed this in depth with our Council. We were promised by our Council a year ago to address this issue but they have been too busy dealing with things than to really address it. They did tell us. We have been told as a neighborhood and as individuals that that is an inappropriate area for R-2 zoning. Slope, grade, neighborhood, issues. It is supposed to be fixed so let's keep that in mind when you come to the end of this night and approve for no other good reason than his right because of R-2 zoning. That is very much in question in this particular area so I ask you all to consider that. Ok, we will run through a few things that are real legitimate reasons even whatever your opinions of the development for this particular property, for this particular project. Apartments, it is too dense. I also heard Ms. Warrick say the neighborhood is primarily single-family homes with some duplexes. His project will change the entire dynamics of the area. I live there. I could've brought my slide off pictures that we had for the wonderful intersection where Mr. Schmitt of Hometown Development wanted to put his apartments because it does happen. When we talk about Planning Commission • May 27, 2003 Page 61 road access think about winter. We are talking about almost 6 months of the year that Spring Street is almost unusable and Center Street is almost unusable. Just consider that, he is only talking about half a year that his project will be reached. You realize everyone will go down to Dickson, everyone will go down to Lafayette. I would like you to see the comer of Fletcher and Lafayette these days. Ok, so do we build the streets to make it safer? We can't put as many parking spaces on a property because we have to maximize our room density so we demand, and he makes demands doesn't he. He is sure telling you about how much he is going to pay to the penny of his part for the street. Excuse me, what do we as citizens, tax payers pay for our part for his indulgence? Thank you, he is not a man trying to build himself a home for his family. He is a man trying to make money at other's expense. Our infrastructure is not here to meet his needs. I would like to understand why we put in a sewer tax, we arc all waiting, it is all coming yet damn, we need a quarter of a million dollars for a lift station over there on Wedington. He talks about fire access. Excuse me, may I ask city staff, are we still on a hiring freeze? Hoover: Ms. Davison, will you please stay on one topic? Davison: It is, it is relative because he is bringing up all these things that he is meeting code. At this time we can't handle any of this. It is amazing. I would like to know how much money, and I think people that are listening to this when developer's say they are paying their share, their part, I think people need to really look at the numbers and understand what their part is and what you arc expected to give up. So, you have the right to put these projects off for a year. If everyone begs put him off this is why. Everything about it is wrong. Trust me, you do have, as our attorney has told you tonight, you can disapprove this right now because I beg to differ if staff says he will not create a dangerous traffic situation. Does his buildings get built before the roads get built? I am not sure I understand our order in a lot of this. So, here it is. You have a choice. He wants to do this, you don't have to let him. Why can we not let our infrastructure catch up? Why can we not check and see that this particular area your City Council has said is inappropriate for R-2 zoning and that they will address it? They said they would. Of course, where is it in writing? I would like you to remember that it is 100% canopy lot. I would like you to think about all the people that are going to have to give up space, yards, etc. to make it meet requirements. We can always meet requirements. Who is paying it on this end? I am sorry, it does get me upset and I try to still be polite but I would like to ask you to consider when again, you have the out here. You don't have to look at a group of upset neighborhoods, people and say our hands are tied. I know your hands aren't tied. I hope you discover that before you vote on this for this gentleman tonight because you have every right to either deny it or delay it and you have major reasons to do that. One of them specifically is dangerous traffic Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 62 situations. I have a child in school there. The bus can't even come up the hill to us. He has to go down to the bus because of this area in winter. There are not sidewalks. You heard him, he is not going to do one inch more than you make him. Please help us do the right thing tonight. I will stop. Hoover: Thank you Ms. Davison. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to speak to this Large Scale Development? Chadick: My name is Susan Chadick and I live at the corner of Olive and Spring Street. I just have to say that I cannot embrace this Large Scale Development. It is too big a change to the tradition of the residential neighborhood on the mountain. That tradition being single-family and duplexes. What this kind of development will do is impact the mountain and then there will be a chain reaction of changes and I am not so sure those are going to be predominantly good changes so that concerns me. All along you have heard me express concern about the parking issue. I am just still convinced that it is ludicrous to have 48 bedrooms with 56 on site parking when the rent for those bedrooms or those units are going to be between 4700 and $900. I just feel they are going to be more than one car per bedroom. Again, we have just got 56 on site parking places. We can approach this with options. We have gone to Mr. House and asked for a reduction in the number of units so that there could be more on site parking and so that we would eliminate some of the traffic. I realize he has done well in proposing a minimal in the density guidelines but I would like to see less. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Ms. Chadick. Is there any other member of the audience? Bryan: I am Holly Bryan, 107 N. Olive. Again, I would like to go on record as saying that I am totally against this Large Scale Development. I believe that it is truly incompatible with the single-family homes in this area and just as a side, several neighbors a year or so ago were seeking out the option of how to downzone and we were told by City Planning to wait until the hillside study was done, gather the data, and here we sit again waiting so that we can. In the family we have a large chunk that we want dowri zoned. There are several issues that you can stop this or delay this. Again, I have been pushing the safety and the traffic issues. The parking on site 56 spaces on site, I don't feel that is reasonable. Please keep in mind there will be no parking in the development itself in the lanes. Those will all be fire lanes so only the spots that are marked parking will be just 56 cars. There will be no parking on the street, in the cul-de-sac that is also a fire lane. I believe that maybe Mr. House has allowed for 4 or 6. spaces on the street but then there is a good chance what has happened in the 200 block of Olive with no parking on both sides. We could seek that out so then there would be no on street parking. As far as the Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 63 dangerous traffic situation, I do believe last Thursday you all mentioned how dangerous it can be when you came out and viewed the developmental site. I happened to look out my window as you all were departing from the development site and noticed that it was quite challenging for you to get that 16 passenger van turned around in the street. I think there were two or three people out directing the person driving how to back out of the driveway to get out back onto Spring Street. I don't see that by even widening Olive to 20' you are still, we are in the same predicament with the dangerous traffic situation which will also be compounded when you have a 20' wide Center Street. I really, we want to work and figure out a solution that will be acceptable to all of us. With the cost share on Center Street, I believe precedence has been already set with another Large Scale Development west of town where the developer paid 100% of his street. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe it was west of town, I don't know if it was a Lindsey property or one out off, well, it is on the west of town. I stay down here downtown. I know that developer did pay 100% so I think it is ludicrous for the cost share that Mr. I louse proposes. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Bryant: My name is Lois Bryant, I live at the comer of Center and Walnut and I will speak for your connectivity issue. As far as Center Street and that being a hght of way, there is no one in the City Administration that can tell me when Center Street was built, when the right of way was established, and if it was on private property when the street was built or what goes on with that. One thing too, in the winter we have a world of a time trying to get the city just to come out and salt Center Street and Spring Street so we can get down the hill and get to work. The best we ever get out of them is "Well, that is kind of dangerous for us to bring our trucks down there." Well, we have to drive down it. My dad and I during the winter months we salt and sand the comer of Center Street and Willow so we can make that comer so when we are coming down the hill we don't end up in the people down the street, in their yard. No consideration has been given to my dad about his property, none whatsoever. No one has spoke with us. Your supposed right of way that nobody is going to tell me when it existed or when it started, yes, it sits right smack dab in the middle of our property. You arc generating a financial issue for us if the right of way goes through then the next thing on the list is we will get a letter from the city that tells us we don't have the standard setback which generates a bill for us to move the house back. Why should we have to move our house back for 50 spaces or enough cars to come down through for a couple hundred cars? Why should we be generating at the rate housing construction is now a $40,000 to $60,000 bill to convenience a few people. Granted, this will convenience a few people because that would give people who own those empty lots there access to their property by Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 64 way of someone else paying for it but that is a detriment to us. One other thing that I will be to the point at because yes Center Street is only 19', 21' to the curbs and sidewalks, one other thing that I would ask that you look at is according to our deed and title we own lot 18, according to the deed Center Street sits on the outside of our property and our property line. This deed was set up, the original purpose was for the previous owner and this deed was done in 1936. Estes: Ms. Bryant, may I see your abstract and I will give it right back to you? Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the audience? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Mandy, would you like to address some of those issues? Bunch, M: The density issue I am sure that we will have further discussion about. I am not sure quite how to address that other than what we have already stated. The parking, we have provided as many parking stalls as we possibly can to meet all of the other city requirements. There are no other opportunities on site, which is why the additional parking was placed offsite on the street for visitors because of the concerns. The width of Olive not being adequate to turn around is very evident and I think that is something that the staff has considered with their recommendation to extend Center Street so that there is more than one way in and out for emergency and other traffic to access all the properties there, not just the one in question tonight. Also, with Ms. Bryant, part of the problem with Planning is a really good thing but part of the problem with planning is sometimes things are brought into consideration that aren't taken to the end. We have not had the opportunity and basically where we are tonight is does the Planning Commission approve this project based on all the requirements and the conditions that have been placed on it at this point in time. Once this is approved if it is maybe approved, we have to go into the exploratory phase. We have to do all the deed research on the right of way. We have to make sure that right of way is there. We have to look at a detailed design of the street to make sure that things are not taken out and things are not made into a situation worse than they were before. Again, that is part of the problem with us having to plan this issue without the details known at this point. We will have to address all of the adjacent property owner concerns when the street is constructed. I don't really have any other thing to add to that. I think that there will be questions than come out of your discussions. Hoover: Thank you Mandy. I have a question for staff. Dawn, can you comment on where the hillside study is or what the prediction is for that? Warrick: I don't know if I can give you a time frame. I know that it has been Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 65 initiated. Some data bases have been created. Some of the neighbors did do quite a bit of work to initiate a land use study for some of the target areas that were identified for the hillside review. This is stemming from a resolution that the City Council passed asking staff and the Planning Commission to review those properties within the city that are currently zoned for multi -family development that have a slope of 15% or greater. That is the subject that is being addressed. Our Long Range Planning Division is looking at that and we are having to work with existing resources within the Planning Division as well as within our GIS Division in order to get the appropriate mapping and.databasc work put together in order to bring something back to you. Unfortunately, I can't give you a time frame but I can say that that is still an ongoing project. Hoover: Then would you address on the right of way, we are not asking them to move their house? Warrick: No. Hoover: What are the consequences to the Bryant's property? Warrick: The existing structure sits where it has forever and the existing right of way is where it has been since the subdivision was platted. The street was never built. Therefore, it is right of way that exists as lines on paper. The house is certainly within a 25' setback from that right of way line and my assumption is that the house was built prior to 1970 when our current regulations went into affect requiring a 25' setback. That house is considered to be an existing legal, non -conforming structure. It will certainly remain as it is and can remain as it is and be repaired and maintained in that location without any requirements being placed on it to be removed or otherwise adjusted in any way. We treat it as an existing nonconformity and the city would not go in and require that the structure be relocated because the street was extended. In this situation the right of way location is not changing and that doesn't change any of the existing conditions except for the fact that there would be pavement within the right of way and a street connection up to Olive. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners? Bunch: Can we have Engineering or possibly the applicant give us an overview on the proposed grades of Center Street and of Olive Street for the newly constructed and how those grades compare to city standards? Bunch, M: Basically Center Street can be constructed even at a slope less than 15% based on the city's GIS information. If a city street has to go over 15% it has to be concrete. Currently on our plans on Olive we have a small portion past the site driveway that is 20% and that is something that we are Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 66 going to work to reduce but otherwise we will have to construct that in conformance with city requirements based on my discussions with staff after we submitted. That would have to go to concrete unless we could reduce that slope to 15% or less. Did that answer your question? Bunch: This is for Planning staff. Is there any difference between the 100 block and the 200 block of Olive as far as street width and allowed parking? I know we have had various comments. There has been considerable comment about the parking in the 200 block and also the 100 block and I noticed that both of them at different times of the year have people parking on the street. Is that allowed on a 20' street and is there any difference between the 100 and 200 block as far as regulations are concerned? Warrick: My understanding is that the neighbors have worked with our Transportation Division to limit or restrict parking on Olive north of Spring Street in that block. I am not real familiar with the situations but my understanding is that there are some no parking signs in that section of Olive Street. Bunch: Ok, what about the 100 block should this development be built would that be a similar situation? Are we creating a different standard for one group of people on one block and another standard for a group of people on a block to the south? Warrick: I am sure if the same issue were addressed and there were apartments on the block south of Spring Street our Transportation Division could look at that the same that they did the block north of Spring Street and determine where it might be appropriate to place no parking signs based on the traffic condition and safety concerns. Bunch: Thank you. Warrick: Without the development being in place I don't know that there is an issue. The residents do park on the street. They seem to either stagger or park on one side so that there is still a thru lane for traffic to pass. Bunch: And for emergency vehicles? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: Ok. Allen: I know that these buildings are town homes, I wondered if any of them would be for sale? Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 67 I -louse: Most likely, yes. It depends on how the numbers come out and whatever we end up with costs and offsite improvements. Allen: Based on the neighborhood compatibility and traffic concerns and safety concerns that I have I suggest that this development be put on hold until the hillside ordinance study is completed. Hoover: That is an interesting discussion item. Williams: That was your motion to table? Hoover: That is a discussion item, that's not a motion yet, I'm assuming that's not a motion yet is that correct? Allen: No, that is just my opinion. Estes: Dawn, the parking concerns me. How did we calculate the required number of parking spaces that is the standard 48 and the 3 ADA with the 56? Warrick: One space per bedroom is the requirement by ordinance. ADA spaces are required one every 25 spaces within a parking area and then bicycle racks are required one per every 25 parking spaces. Estes: Ok, thank you. Hoover: Commissioner Estes, were you done? Is there any response to Nancy's comments about perhaps waiting for the hillside ordinance? Estes: I would like to hear our City Attorney's opine and comment. Williams: When the issue was brought before the City Council there was in the original resolution actual contained a moratorium on development while the Planning Commission and the Planning staff looked at the possible rezonings of R-2 land that was on 15% slopes and especially they were looking at Mount Sequoyah because this was around about the time that the other development on Fletcher Street had been before you turned down and also before the City Council and was turned down there because of traffic safety issues. The City Council decided not to grant a moratorium. They removed the language from the resolution that would have had a moratorium on development while this was being studied. They intentionally did that from some comments from the City Council because they did not want to stop particular development and at that point it was known that Mr. House was looking at attempting to develop his property. I think the City Council went on record basically as saying that they wanted to have the hillside density studied but they did not want to stop Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 68 development at that point in time until the study was completed. Of course that was quite a while ago and hopefully the study will be moving forward. I know they have had one person in the Planning Department that was doing this was Shelli Rushing and as you know she left to assume another planning job in a sister city so I think that probably has slowed down this process a little bit and now I think we are closer to getting back up to full staff again. I don't know if we are even there yet. Warrick: It is actually more a matter of the GIS Division being able to accommodate our mapping needs. They are very overwhelmed with mapping requirements from City Council and other divisions as well and they are trying to get the information. We do need to get more staffing placed on this project but it is one of those items that is in our work program as a priority for this calendar year. Williams: I would be a little bit reluctant to put all potential developments on hold, all multi -family developments in 15% land on hold. The City Council potentially could do that and probably could do that without incurring substantial risks although there would be some risk for developers who are saying well you're denying me my development and going after the City for inverse condemnation. I think that would have to be a City Council decision. I don't think the Planning Commission itself should try to make such a decision. I think there would be some danger to the city if you decided to try to do that unilaterally and just say well we are not going to approve the development, we are going to put it on hold until the City Council has acted. There is nothing to prove that the City Council is going to take any action on rezoning. They are going to have a study done and then they will look at the study and decide what they want to do. They might decide to do nothing. We don't know what they are going to do. Since we also can't give you a definite time period when that can be done at this point in time we are in a little bit of a dangerous ground to stop consideration of a Large Scale Development that meets the other requirements of the ordinance, if you would determine that this meets the requirements of the ordinance. Just to wait for a study when we don't know when it is going to be done nor do we know what the results shall be. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Williams. Are there any other questions about that concern? Vaught: I do have a question on the cost share agreement and this might be for the City Attorney as well. It is my understanding that if we approve this here it still has to go before the City Council for the cost share section. Does it go for the whole thing or just the cost share portion of the ordinance? Williams: My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong Dawn, it's just the cost Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 69 share that you all can make a recommendation but the ultimate decision is up to the City Council on whether or not they want to participate in that. Is that the way you understand it? Warrick: I agree. The development approval is in the hands of the Planning Commission, or consideration is in the hands of the Planning Commission. Any cost share, any allocation of city funds requires the City Council to act on that. Typically the process is that the project is forwarded to the Street Committee of the City Council. They make a recommendation to the full City Council with regard to entering into a cost share on a particular project. The Planning Commission is asked to in this particular case determine if it is appropriate that a cost share be considered. Again, you don't have the ability, nor does staff have the ability to allocate funds. Estes: Dawn, one concern that I had when we saw this in an advisory capacity and which we discussed was the determination of whether Olive is a local street or a collector street, did we ever make that determination? Warrick: We have treated Olive as a residential street because of the section and the amount of traffic that it carries. A residential street is designed to carry between 300 and 500 vehicles per day and is typically a narrower street. Estes: What is the city standard for a residential street? Warrick: A residential street is a 24' street with curb and gutter, storm drain, sidewalks on one side. Olive doesn't meet that requirement. Estes: We're recommending, or staff is recommending, Center Street between Olive and Walnut be a 20' street? Warrick: In this particular situation we are trying to work within existing conditions. The right of way existing is 30', which is a narrow right of way for a residential street a 40' right of way is really necessary in order to meet the city's standards. Working within the existing conditions we're trying to get the amount of street that is consistent with many of the surrounding streets and that will provide a two way access to this development. No it will not be a standard street. It will meet the grade requirements, it will meet the width necessary in order to provide access for fire and emergency vehicles. Estes: What are we recommending for Olive? Warrick: For Olive Street, which is in a 60' right of way it has a width that varies between 18' and 20'. Our recommendation is that the developer provide a consistent 20' uniform street width from the development north to Spring Street. Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 70 Estes: Somewhere I got the notion that a standard residential street was 28' Warrick: A local street is 28'. Estes: Ok, a local street is 28' and a residential street is 24'. The reason that we are recommending that Olive be 20' and that Center be 20' is because we don't have the right of way, is that correct? Warrick: On Olive Street the right of way does exist. If Olive Street north of this development to Spring were widened out to either residential or local street standards the steep driveways that currently access the structures on Olive Street would be made more steep. I think that there would be more of an issue in dealing with existing conditions and trying to work around the infrastructure and improvements that people have made to that street. Estes: What troubles me is that we have a piece of property that is R-2, if we follow the ordinance and if we look at the applicant's compliance with the ordinance we fall into on that basis alone that the Large Scale Development is appropriate. Yet, if we look at it in a practical pragmatic sort of way it just doesn't seem like it is appropriate, it is just not appropriate. That is the quandary that I have. If you make a list of each of the ordinances and the applicant's compliance with each of the ordinances you pretty much have to check off all but about maybe one or two of them but then if you look pragmatically at what we're doing it sure isn't the best place to put this project but that is what we are being asked to do. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Bunch: I have a question for legal staff. Could you elaborate a little bit on creating a substandard street? I understand retrofitting Olive from the development north to Spring Street that that is a preexisting condition and basically any work that would be done there would be more of a maintenance issue. What sort of legal issues are we looking at creating a substandard street on Center? Williams: I don't think that we are creating a dangerous legal position for ourselves. It might be a policy issue that certainly the City Council should look at. Why would we not follow our own street standards that we require other developers to do. From a legal point of view you know we are protected from our own negligence by sovereign immunity so I think at worst someone could bring a cause and say that we were negligent in building a street that is too narrow. Of course you look throughout this area of Mount Sequoyah you will see lots of 20' and more narrow streets with no sidewalk and no curb and gutter. Basically once you get up on the mountain to Fletcher and Rogers, Oklahoma Way, Lighton Trail, that is Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 71 the way all of these streets are built and that is the way they were developed in the past before we had street standards. It is not out of tune with the regular neighborhood even though it does not match our current street standards. Of course normally it is the city's policy that it is going to follow all of the ordinances that it requires other people to follow when it does developments. Estes: Mr. Williams, I have a question regarding city resolution 9496. It is in our materials at the bottom of page 8.2 and the top of 8.3. In the third full paragraph about half way down it says "The developer's share shall he that cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the development. In no event shall the developer be responsible for less than the cost of a standard 31' local street." What does that mean? Plain reading of that to me means that the developer is responsible for 100% of the cost of the street until it goes to 31 plus something. Williams: I think that refers to, and of course 31' used to be what a local street standard was and that was reduced after this resolution was made. What that means is when a collector on the Master Street Plan would go through a developer's development and the city would determine that it needed to go ahead and have a collector built, the developer's cost would have to be the full cost for the 31' street and then the city would pick up at that point the extra 5' cost to make it a 36' wide collector. I think that is what that is referring to as opposed to this particular situation where this street is not actually even abutting Mr. House's land. Anthes: I guess I am a little concerned that someone with the city staff was disingenuous with the neighborhood in telling them to wait for a hillside study in order to take action. That was eluded to and I hope that is not what happened. Also, when I first went to this site after knowing that this Commission required connectivity I approached a drive through from the south part of Center and am very familiar with where Ms. Bryant's house sits. It is concerning me that we're looking at taking that street down it looks like it would go within 5' of the exterior wall of your home. That is not necessarily the nicest thing to do to somebody, long term residents of the neighborhood as I know you have been. My question of staff is if we are requiring connectivity as part of this project, and I know Mr. House is not being required to build the street west of Walnut Street, but assuming that that connection would then happen as a result of this loop happening, what provision is made within our design to alleviate the impact of running a street within that close of an existing property? What happens? Warrick: I am going to ask our engineer to address that. Casey: I'm not sure that I can fully answer that. We will have to look at the grades and the cross sections in the area where there have heen Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 72 improvements made. I believe there is a stone wall that runs east and west along the Bryant property and other landscaping and improvements. We might refer to Mr. Williams to see what the responsibility of the city is if improvements are made, private improvements are made within city right of way. Is the city required to replace those? Would that be at our expense or would that be something that the owner would have to take care of? Williams: I would think if it is within a city right of way it actually is city property even if someone else has placed it there. Occasionally someone will inadvertently place something within the right of way and usually it is not actually within the street itself and then often times we will see that we will make an exception and reduce the amount of setback so that it will not be within the right of way. If it was actually within the street area I don't know what the city could do. That has been supposedly property dedicated to the city and it is city property at that point in time until it would be vacated. If it was vacated then it would go back to the abutting property owners on both sides of what the dedicated street was. Until that happens it is city property and a city easement and a public easement to use that property and if someone would build something across it, it would be subject to be taken down I think with no compensation. Anthes: I beg the indulgence of the applicant because I realize this is off your site. I just have some questions about this procedure. I understand that Mr. Estes was looking at your deed and that your home was built somewhere around 1936 you were saying and we were saying that the street plats were done in the 1970's, is that correct? Warrick: No, current city regulations with regard to setbacks and .zoning were adopted in 1970. This portion of the city I'm guessing that this area of the subdivision was created and adopted by the city in the 1920's, maybe the early 1930's. Anthes: Per her comments about that no one has been able to show the Bryant's the exact right of way on a map, is that the case? Warrick: I have not had an opportunity to speak with the Bryants. I will be glad to sit down in the office and show our plat maps if that is necessary. I have not had that opportunity, I have not been asked the question. Hoover: Mandy, do you know the dimension from the right of way to their structure approximately? I know we saw a marker out there when we went on tour. Bunch, M: From all accounts I have heard it is 5' to 10' and just looking at it, it looks like that too. It is close. • Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 73 Ostner: Is that to the road bed or from the right of way? Five to ten feet from house to curb or from house to right of way? Bunch, M: I believe it is from the right of way. The right of way is 30', the street would be 20' centered within that. The reason Matt answered you the way he did is because of the grading in that area. It is kind of hard to say where the limits of construction would actually fall. Hoover: Flow much do you think that would be from the curb to the structure about? Bunch, M: Well it is 20' with no curbs so probably I5'. It is hard to guess at this point. Bunch: Matt, is there a water line within this same area and would that create a different offset to where it couldn't be centered because the City of Fayetteville's water line, what part of Center Street does that line up with? Casey: It generally runs along the north portion of the right of way. The roadway can be constructed over that line. Bunch: Ok, so the water line is not a reason to make the street not be centered on the right of way? Casey: That is correct. Hoover: Are there other comments? Do we have a motion? Can I call for a motion a second time? I will call for a motion a third time. Williams: Let me advise the Planning Commission that there must be a motion. If you, I think your habit has been if there is not a motion it is denied. Then you would be denying a Large Scale Development with no reasons given. Please, you might want to deny it but give your reasons that you are denying it. Do not just sit mute and no one say anything because I guarantee you we lose if we deny this with no reasons given. Somebody needs to make a motion yes or no. Vaught: I have a question for staff I guess. The idea of finishing out Center is something you are recommending, would you recommend the project without that connection? Warrick: We brought this to the Planning Commission as a Concept Plat. The Planning Commission voted to connect. Staff is recommending the connection. The city has a policy of connectivity. We feel that it is important to have street connections and not to provide additional dead- Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 74 ends for conflicts in the future. Yes, staff is recommending the connection. I believe that it is important to be consistent with the Concept Plat that the Planning Commission heard in April recommending that Center Street be connected. Vaught: I think I agree with Commissioner Estes again on the fact that you look at this on density and so many issues that they are falling within the code. There are a few things that are a little more objective in our standard. I just don't know if we have the basis to turn it down. I guess that is what I would like to hear. Hoover: If we could get Mr. Williams to reiterate on what reasons can we turn down a Large Scale Development like this? Williams: If it is not meeting the requirements of our developmental ordinances, whether or not they are agreeing to do the infrastructure as required by our ordinances, whether it is creating or compounding a dangerous traffic situation, whether it has adequate water and sewage access. I think those are about the only things you can look at. If I could, let me answer Commissioner Vaught's question about connectivity and what was done before. There was a Concept Plat and it was asked of the Planning Commission about whether or not they favored connectivity down to Walnut Street. There are winners and losers in every decision you make. Of course the losers if you said no would be the people who lived on Olive Street who would then have all of this traffic run by their street. The losers if you said yes would be the Bryants who would then have half of this traffic run right by their house within 5' to 10' of their house. Keep in mind that Olive right now is a dead end street. In fact, I think that it would be extended to some extent but it already runs in this direction a bit of the way. The Planning Commission in April voted for connectivity. That wasn't a unanimous vote but I think there are only two people descended from that particular vote. Just as the City Council is not completely bound by what it did in passing the resolution, it is always the most recent resolution that controls, you are not absolutely bound on that decision. Nobody is, even if you voted for it. Even though there has been a lot of work done by staff and by Mr. House and his engineer based upon your decision that you made back on April 28a'. The other option would be to decide that the theory of connectivity that is supported in our 2020 Plan as correctly stated by our Planning staff is not an absolute requirement in every case, especially when he doesn't own the land down to Walnut Street. All his land that he owns is east of Olive Street so you are asking him to make a connection away from his property, not even adjoining his property. That is just another thing to consider. You considered it in April though, not all of you because not all of you were on it. That was a hard decision then and it is still a hard decision now. That is my only other comment on that. You are not absolutely bound on that Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 75 even though you made that decision just a month ago. Vaught: I have an additional question for staff. I noticed that there was a traffic study in our material that was done by an outside engineer. Have you guys done a traffic study and what is your take on the traffic situation I guess, your recommendation? Warrick: The traffic study was commissioned by the developer. It is included for your review. That traffic study indicates that either of the two options that the developer is considering, either a hammer head on Olive without the connection or the connection would provide a reasonable traffic flow for this development. I will let the developer's engineer address anything additional. Vaught: Is it staffs opinion that it does not create an excessively dangerous traffic situation? MOTION: Allen: Based on lacking neighborhood compatibility and traffic concerns and safety concerns I move for denial of LSD 02-29.10. Hoover: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Allen, is there a second? Estes: I voted no when this was before us before and I hope my reasons are stated in the motion and based on that I am going to second the motion. Hoover: Thank you. There is a second by Commissioner Estes. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny LSD 02-29.10 failed by a vote of 2-0-6 with Commissioners Church, Ostner, Vaught, Hoover, Anthes, and Bunch. Thomas: The motion fails two to six. Hoover: Thank you, so then do we need to do another motion? Williams: Yes. Nothing has been approved at this point. Hoover: Thank you. Seeing that, do I have a motion? Planning Commission • • May 27, 2003 Page 76 MOTION: Ostner: I agree this is a complicated issue. I cannot find the reason to vote against it though I have a lot of opinions. I believe with the case before us that the developer has satisfied our requirements. I would like to make a motion to approve LSD 02-29.10. Hoover: Subject to the conditions with the addition of number seven that improvement of Olive Street to a 20' width north to Spring? Ostner: Yes. Williams: Does that include your recommendation of the appropriateness of a cost share to the City Council? Ostner: It does. Hoover: Is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: Is there any more discussion? Anthes: A clarification. This is based on all of staff's recommendation so also the connection within the existing street right of way for Center Street as part of this motion? Ostner: Yes. That is number two. If anyone is interested, as was eluded to earlier, someone always loses. It is an unfortunate situation and I think we can mitigate it as best we can by making the street as narrow as we can for it to still safely operate. Hoover: Commissioner Vaught, did you include condition number two also? Vaught: Yes; based on staff's recommendation I think that that is the appropriate thing to do. They have obviously studied it and looked at it. Hoover: Ok. Is there anymore discussion? Estes: I will vote against the motion and I would like to explain my reasons why. I voted no on the issue of connectivity because I was not in favor of connectivity because of the hardship that results to existing land owners. Without connectivity it is my opinion that the project then creates or compounds a dangerous traffic situation and that is my reasoning for voting no on this motion. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 77 I loover: Thank you. Arc there any other comments? Bunch: I will reluctantly support the motion. This is very similar to the preceding item on our agenda. We have an unpopular issue but our rules and regulations have failed to legislate good taste, which is not our job. Requirements have been met and I feel that legally I feel that personally I am bound to vote in favor of it because I have worked with this all the way through and they have met the requirements and the problems with the requirements so I will reluctantly support it. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-29.10 was approved by a vote of 6-0-2 with Commissioners Allen and Estes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries six to two. Hoover: Thank you. Dawn, is there any other business? Warrick: No Ma'am, that is all. Hoover: We are adjourned. Thank you. Meeting Adjourned: 9:32 p.m. • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page! FAYETTEVILLE TILE CITY OF FA V ETf E VILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CDRRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P., Zoning & Development Administrator DATE: October 08, 2003 PC Meeting of October 13, 2003 113W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-5754264 Project: C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District (springwoods, pp 248) was submitted by Joe Tarvin, P.E. of EGIS Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Collins Haynes for property located on the southwest side of 1-540 and Arkansas Highway 112. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, in the Design Overlay District and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Planned Zoning District to allow for development of Residential and Commercial sites. Findings: The 289 -acre subject property is being reviewed as a proposal for a Commercial Planned Zoning District. The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a large lot subdivision within the Design Overlay District. The rezoning request, in conjunction with a development proposal, requires Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. The proposed nine (9) lots have been assigned Use Units and/or specific uses that are legally binding to each lot. Each of the larger lots will require further review in the form of a preliminary and final plat and/or large scale development review. More detailed comments regarding vehicular and pedestrian circulation, street improvements, buffers and screening, commercial design standards, and other typical review items will be provided with the future submittals for each of these lots. Numerous environmental concerns have been raised with the history of this particular site. The developer of the springwoods subdivision has indicated that the Audubon Society has particular interest in utilizing and preserving Lot #8, comprising approximately 124 acres, or 43% of the entire site. This particular lot is required to be preserved (or enhanced) in large part in its natural state, thereby retaining the wetlands, tree canopy, and grasslands currently existing. Any future development on this lot, as with the others, through Audubon or any other entity, is bound to these restrictions and must be reviewed for Code compliance through the City of Fayetteville. K' IReporM2003tPC RF.➢ORIS110-1i1C-PZD S➢nng„oodh1C.P7D 03-800 (epingvood) REVISED dac • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 2 Proposed Use Units: D C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District Lot No. Land Use Use Units Density Acreage 1 Commercial 12,13,14,15,16,17,25 n/a 47.73 2 Multi-Famil 26 18 DU/AC 26.36 3 Single Famil 8 2 DU/AC 25.53 4 Multi Family 26 4 DU/AC 10.70 5 Single Famil 8 2 DU/AC 32.28 6 Commercial 12,13,14,15,16,17,25 n/a 18.04 7 Commercial 12,13,14,15,16,17,25 n/a 5.17 8 Preservation Area 1 n/a 123.45 9 Lift Station 3" n/a 0.02 *Lot 8 (Audubon) Uses shall be further restricted as described in proposed uses of the" Wilson Spring Site" as stated by Audubon. **Lot 9 to be retained by the City of Fayetteville for the existing lift station. Necessary utility and access easements shall be provided to this lot with the Final Plat. (A) Unit 1. City-wide uses by right. (1) Description. Unit I consists of public uses, essential services, agricultural uses, open land uses, and similar uses which are subject to other public controls or which do not have significantly adverse effects on other permitted uses and are, therefore, permitted as uses of right in all districts. (2) Included uses. Public facilities of the types embraced within the recommendations of the General Plan. Agricultural, forestry, and fishery: •Field crop farms 'Fishery 'Forest -Fruit, tree, and vegetable farm Essential services located in 'Fire alarm box public right-of-way: -Fire hydrant •Passenger stop for bus 'Police alarm box -Sidewalk •Street, highway, and other thoroughfare 'Street signs, traffic signs, and signals •Utility mainline, local transformer and station, and similar facilities customarily located_in_public_right-of-way Recreation and related use: 'Arboretum K:IReporIsI20031PC REPOR7Sti0-I31C-PZD SpringwoodsC-PZD 03-8.00 (springrroods) REVISED.doc • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 3 •Historical marker •Park area 'Parkway 'Wildlife_preserve Water facilities: •Reservoir. open 'Watershed Conservation w flood control proed' Surrounding Land Use I Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Vacant pasture R -A, Residential Agricultural South Single family homes, horse farm, commercial lots R -A, Residential Agricultural C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial East 1-540, Landers Auto ark C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial West Single family lots, agricultural land RSF-4, Res. Single Family, 4 DU/acre RMF-24, Res. Multifamily 24 DU/acre Planning Area Right-of-way being dedicated: • Deane Solomon, Collector: 70 feet total, 35 feet from centerline • Shiloh Drive, Collector: 35 feet from centerline • Moore Lane, Local: 25 feet from centerline • Truckers Dr/Gypsum Dr, Collector: To be considered for a Master Street Plan Amendment by City Council as indicated • Technology Blvd, Collector: To be considered for a Master Street Plan Amendment by City Council as indicated Requests for Master Street Plan amendments will be considered as individual items on the agenda for City Council Street Improvements: No street improvements are proposed with the C-PZD and associated Preliminary Plat under review. Staff has made preliminary recommendations for street improvements to coincide with the development of each of the lots. Tree Preservation: It is the Landscape Administrator's understanding that most of the trees throughout the site will be preserved, and that as development occurs individual Tree Preservation Plans will be submitted for each large scale and residential subdivision. Background: The subject property was purchased by the City of Fayetteville in 1988. In the years following, water and sewer lines, a lift station and fiber optic cable were installed, in anticipation of a high- technology development site, which never occurred. The site contains a number of environmentally sensitive areas, including delineated wetlands, X:1Repornl20031PC REPOR7S 0-J3k:-PZD.Spnng'.00drlC-PZD 034.00 (spr/ngwwodr) REV!SED.dor • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 4 grasslands, stream corridors and associated floodplain, and habitat for the Arkansas Darter and numerous other wildlife species. These factors have presented both a challenge and an ecological asset to the development potential of the site. A total of 165 acres of the property is proposed to be developed in mixed -use residential and commercial uses, with the remaining 124 acres (43%) to be set aside permanently for greenspace. The Audubon Society has expressed interest in the conservation of this property and its significant wildlife habitat for the past two years, as potential for an environmental education center for northwest Arkansas (see attached). Responses from adjoining property owners all reflect "no objection" to the project as described, with one exception, which states "not enough commercial development." The proposed C-PZD was heard at Technical Plat Review on August 27, 2003 and at Subdivision Committee on October 02, 2003. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included: traffic circulation and connectivity, proposed use and compatibility, buffering and screening, and wildlife interface with residential uses. Recommendation: Forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning. Planning Commission approval of the proposed development subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district C-PZD 03-8.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. An ordinance creating this C-PZD shall be approved by City Council. A Final Plat is required to legalize the lot configuration and allow for the sale and/or development review of lots. 4. Requests for Master Street Plan amendments to Truckers Lane and Technology Blvd. require Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval prior to final approval of the C-PZD. Staff is in favor of these amendments. 5. On- and off -site street improvements shall be coordinated with lot development. Staff has provided preliminary recommendations with Technical Plat Review comments, which remain applicable. 6. Each respective lot designated in the C-PZD shall be reviewed by Preliminary Plat and/or Large Scale Development in accordance with City Code for future development, KtRepons120031PC REPOR7S110.131C-PZD SpringnnodsC-PZD 03-8.00 (springwoods) REVISED.doc C • C-PZD 03-8.00 Pose 5 requiring Planning Commission approval. Covenants to be filed with the final plat creating the springwoods subdivision shall address the uses and restrictions associated with these lots. 8. Draft covenants shall be further refined to include information required by § 166.06 and to address residential as well as commercial development standards at the time of final plat. Draft covenants for the springwoods C-PZD zoning district shall address the overall master plan and shall be filed with the final plat creating this 9 lot subdivision. 9. Setbacks, Height, and Building Area shall be determined and approved by the Fayetteville Planning Commission at the time of large scale development and/or subdivision approval. These standards shall apply to all lots and development within the individual tracts as shown on this plat. 10. All requirements as stated within Chapter 166 Development of the Unified Development Code shall apply to all future large scale developments and/or subdivisions within the springwoods C-PZD zoning district. 11. Flexibility provided within the PZD guidelines shall be applied to each development tract (large scale development and/or subdivision) as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission to allow alternative methods of design where it is consistent with the objectives of the springwoods C-PZD zoning district. Standard Conditions of Approval: 12. All utilities shall be placed underground. Any existing overhead electric lines under 12 kv shall be relocated underground at the developer's expense. 13. 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) 14. 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. 15. Tree Preservation Plans shall be required with the development of each individual lot. 16. Parks fees shall be assessed with the development of each individual residential lot. Coordination with Parks staff will be necessary to determine appropriate trail connections, corridors, and parkland dedication. 17. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards shall be required with the K. IRepornl2003tPC REPORMSi!0.!3IC-PZD Springwood$C-PZD 03.8.00 (springwoad&) REVISED dx • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 6 development of each individual lot. 18. No construction will be authorized without a floodplain development permit where required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Date: October 13, 2003 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 Findings associated with R-PZD 03-4.00 Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD). (B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines (1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications. FINDING: The proposal includes residential development and commercial development K:IReports120031PC REPOR7SiI0-I31C-PZD SpnngwoodsIC-PZD 03-8.00 (springwoods) REVISED.doe • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 7 that provide compatible uses with surrounding development. The General Plan 2020 designates the surrounding area as Multi -Use, Residential and Regional Commercial, which are compatible uses with those proposed. The Master Development Plan proposal sets aside 124 acres, 43% of the total 289 acres for permanent conservation to preserve the unique natural amenities of wetlands, wildlife habitat, grasslands and tree canopy. The proposed Audubon lot will provide a buffer along Clabber Creek and the tributary which run through the site from erosion and siltation. All lots are required to submit large scale development plans and/or preliminary plats for future development, providing a venue for more detailed review of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, screening, parking and landscaping requirements. All proposals will be required to comply with City ordinances, along with the covenants as proposed and filed of record for this PZD. (2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and landscaping shall be provided as set forth in §166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality (size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, berms and plant material to be used. FINDING: A detailed landscaping and screening plan, where appropriate, will be required with each development plan submitted, in accordance with current City Ordinances. (3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply: (a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of the projected future traffic volumes. (b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate relationship with one another. (c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different land uses. (d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system, providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development. (e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the planned zoning development and to adjacent areas. • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 8 (f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code. FINDING: Internal street circulation systems are to be designed to safely and adequately carry traffic into and out of the proposed planned zoning district, as well as be sensitive to safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and proper relationship of different land uses. Truckers Drive, a proposed Master Street Plan Collector, is proposed to be eliminated from crossing the wetland area, and instead stub out to the north property line, to connect to a future East-West Collector. Access from Truckers Drive to Lot 7 is also proposed. Technology Boulevard, an east -west future Collector is proposed to be removed from crossing the site to provide contiguous corridors of land for wildlife movement on Lot 8. Sidewalks and trails as• designated on the Master Street Plan and Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan will be coordinated with the developer of each lot to carry out the goals and policies of connectivity as adopted by City Council. (4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172 Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the respective use areas. FINDING: All proposed development within the PZD shall comply with Chapter 172 Parking and Loading where applicable. (5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this chapter of this code. FINDING: All proposed development within the PZD shall be reviewed and comply as necessary with the greenspace and buffer requirements as set forth by the Unified Development Code. Particular treatment of the interface between wildlife and human activity will be investigated. For those lots within the Design Overlay District boundary, all applicable ordinances within this boundary shall apply. (6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Sidewalks are to be constructed in conformance with current standards. (7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Street lights are to be installed in conformance with current standards. (8) Water. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Water service is to be provided in conformance with current standards • (9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03. • C-PZD 03-8.00 Pate 9 FINDING: Sewer service is to be provided in conformance with current standards (10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or private. (a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards of the City. (b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: (i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul- de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street. (ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below. (iii) All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer. (iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density served by a loop street shall be 80 units. (v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private street." (vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the other parties to the covenants. (vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for such cost. The protective covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private streets for purposes of providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 10 any other of the municipal functions. The protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be amended and shall not terminate without approval of the City Council. (viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The following standard shall be used: Paving Width o On -Street Parking) Dwelling One -Way Two -Way Units 1-20 14' 22' 21+ 14' 24' *Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is intended. (ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private streets within a PZD. (x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street. (xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic. FINDING: Public and private streets within this PZD shall be reviewed by staff and comply with all city ordinances at the time of development. Improvements to streets adjacent to the development has been recommended; specific recommendations by City staff will occur at the time of development review. (11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities. FINDING: N/A (12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The I S C-PZD 03-8.00 Page)! location of trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade levels. FINDING: The applicant is to comply with the requirements of Chapter 167, as determined by the Landscape Administrator, for all development within the PZD. (13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in § 166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for Commercial Structures. FINDING: For all proposed office and commercial structures within the C-PZD, the developer shall comply with appropriate ordinances with reference to Commercial Design Standards. Where applicable, commercial and office structures shall also comply with Design Overlay District requirements. The submitted draft of covenants addresses these structures to some degree, and a final draft shall be filed at the time of Final Plat. (14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant restrictions. FINDING: N/A (E) Revocation. (1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances: (a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed. (b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased development schedule as stated in the approved development plan. (c) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components. Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of each quarter, so that the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 12 spaces and public recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued. (2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted. (3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued issuance of building permits. (F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations. (1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads, parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building, lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally - owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a preliminary form. (2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the developer shall file with the plat a• declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are granted. (b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer. • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 13 (c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years. (d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes and other public assessments. (e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance assessment levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property. FINDING: The applicant has submitted a draft of covenants for the proposed PZD describing the responsibilities and maintenance of future open space and street systems. Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning District (A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. (2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. (4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or • commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. (5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the area; (6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. (7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 14 (8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities. (9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. (10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. FINDING: The proposal is for mixed -use planned development comprised of multifamily residential, single family residential, office and commercial uses with 43% of the site, at minimum, to be preserved as greenspace. The rezoning of the property to a planned zoning district may be deemed appropriate due to the provision of flexibility by providing a number of housing types and opportunities; compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; harmony in creating a mixture of land uses that serve one another; variety in providing housing, employment and recreational/educational activities to achieve an integration of economic and development opportunities; no negative impact on future land development in the area; provision of contiguous open space potentially providing educational and recreational activities at the community and regional levels; a maximum enhancement of existing natural features with the preservation of 124 acres of ecologically sensitive habitat; and a planning approach that incorporates mixed, yet harmonious development in the same area, consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. (B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each rezoning parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label, along with the designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development plan and development standards. FINDING: Staff has reviewed the proposed development with regard to findings necessary for rezoning requests. Those findings are attached to this report. An ordinance will be drafted in order to create this Planned Zoning District which will incorporate all conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission. Covenants provided by the developer will be included in the PZD ordinance. This ordinance will be forwarded to the City Council for approval.* (D) C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District (1) Purpose and intent. The C-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use developments containing any combination, including multiple combinations of commercial, office or residential uses in a carefully planned configuration in such a manner as to protect and enhance the availability of each independent use. The C-PZD is also intended to E • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 15 accommodate single use commercial developments that are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general commercial rezone. The legislative purposes, intent and application of this district include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) To encourage the clustering of commercial and office activities within areas specifically designated to accommodate such uses and to discourage the proliferation of commercial uses along major thoroughfares and noncommercial areas. (b) To provide for orderly development in order to minimize adverse impact on surrounding areas and on the general flow of traffic. (c) To encourage orderly and systematic commercial, office or mixed use development design or a combination thereof, providing for the rational placement of activities, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, access and egress, loading, landscaping and buffering strips. (d) To encourage commercial development which is consistent with the city's General Plan. (e) To accommodate larger scale suburban developments of mixed -uses in a harmonious relationship. FINDING: The proposal provides an effective relationship of different land uses within a single development, including single family residential, multifamily residential, open space, retail, commercial and office uses. The large lot subdivision identifies areas of potential land use in an orderly manner, encouraging commercial development which is consistent the with city's General Plan. As a PZD, the 289 -acre development, currently zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, better facilitates more appropriate mixed land uses in a harmonious relationship. (2) Permitted uses. Unit I City-wide uses by right Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating places Unit 14 Hotel, motel and amusement facilities Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping Unit 16 Shopping Goods • • C-PZD 03-8.00 Page 16 Unit 17 Trades and services Unit 18 Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 21 Warehousing and wholesale Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 29 Dance Halls FINDING: The proposal utilizes Unit 1 City-wide uses by right, Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities, Unit 8 Single-family dwellings, Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services, Unit 13 Eating places, Unit 14 Hotel, motel and amusement facilities, Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods, Unit 16 Shopping Goods, Unit 17 Trades and services, Unit 25 Professional Offices, and Use Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings, which are permitted uses in a C-PZD. (2) Conditions. (a) In no instance shall the commercial or office use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross leasable floor area within the development. (b) Residential uses must be appropriate to the design of the project. (c) Warehousing and light industrial uses shall have a gross area per use that does not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet and at least twenty percent (20%) of the floor area used for retail sales. FINDING: The proposed PZD is required to meet the minimum 51% commercial use within the development. *Required Findings for Rezoning Request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Industrial. Rezoning this property to C-PZD 03-8.00 is not consistent with the land use plan but is compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. S • C-PZD 03-&00 Page 17 Finding: The proposed zoning is not consistent with the General Plan 2020 which designates the site Industrial, as it is currently zoned. However, immediate surrounding areas are designated Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial and Residential on the General Plan, thereby giving the C-PZD a high degree of consistency with current land use planning objectives, principles and policies and with land use and zoning plans. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in that the site is currently zoned for industrial purposes, which is generally incompatible within the context of the environmentally sensitive habitat. Surrounding uses are mixed in nature and are compatible with the proposed commercial planned zoning district. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning will not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion, based on determinations made by the Fayetteville Police Department (see attached). The potential of employment and residential land uses in close proximity allows for increased multimodal transportation opportunities. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Based on Fayetteville Police Department findings, this increase in population will not alter the population density in a manner which undesirably increases the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities (see attached). 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. FAYETTEV&LE 1141 CITY OF FAYFITFVILLF, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Dawn Warrick Planning Division From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman City Clerk Division Date: October 27, 2003 Re: Res. No. 160-03 Attached is an executed copy of the above resolution, approved by the City Council on October 21, 2003, granting the appeal of Greg House for LSD 02-29, Sequoyah Commons. This resolution and attachments will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilmed. If anything else is needed please let the clerk's office know. /cbp attachments cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor S f I n 0 fl 0 x z O (flx 22 C1 C] C7 " G m w cns m b'4 ao 3 rs' C .. o o o ca F n o G w c a z N a n w^ -O 3 ≤. o n n ar v, a a' .» C b �O' ,.,, �. b o p r n mm c L] c� o w Q 0 » m VI v~�i '�u n. �•! C t v H g Q M n "', `G w 7 ac a o ._ m c o o m m 1� is c c c rc o= K. w o y b a, `wG M ... m 0. L 0 w `� m O C. O flrt S 7C' d O O m O^ S OrJ' A 0. O» o n c a s oc o -, -� w �e o F❑ �< o ,» O a c o v co FF m >o w RS w .. w m o n a wG fl n. a `� F m b ao O w o e= con p O O `! ?^ ° W �. ry w rn „W 7 Co CDE. a _ o a• o b H `A x O ,-• O o O (7 D .� A UQ 7 C 9-,0 < a A 'd 7c"O oCa- w n—^ y O 0]c m. 5 a m o' b C 0. o o .» m n a O O a . C'a m �,SO m w .fl C S CL w,t � C� v, b (<D (fin �- < a y S y b C3' `. cn th 'C n O to O w •Cy p a Q- ^. `� 'I, n C• O o cO.n n o n e o O 3 e t Qa o 3 n n a a o a w n c: `' cO.n ,7' O j. �. o a- w n- d OG n a vc' Ua .ryw '17 .+ O " :» = �' o °� --'-<C. K w • n • o �4 oaX-jd- ids 5 ESo °❑ —_ < v N 5 n K m n c7o � OC ,.+ n t" y f etbyC •S w s ?s o ac g o m °o ° n w a o m o vw v o+ c b n Sg.fl it w C O at A 3 S a S DD n c a w m a 3 cc .- £ n n F m u o n ° -- O O an Edt.. CCD n ts. A o v o 3 n n O � .. n n ; D G w OC S O OG' 0 w'S "a„n m a d e C< a y n w m o 7 n O O n C n CD O b n o R a M y n. 3 m c o 00 c o N o c a m o -a a. o n r n O C,r '" C n -' o 5 c w `� n 3 7 oaoc . n n. w n N rn " .7 r w ,'� d OG n o n w < E f a n o ff tic c .. N ^ , -. n Z m c m ti n ry m qty H O QQQp V O o m n C C O a m O O O vNi O < C CL C- ww w a 00 a N H n r v, o n n D. A r n. N ti �. .7 O - C G n n' � C+ S 0o n �j s�vq p' n r T O Q. O p� 'J GO 20 H X m x7 0 3 F o o sag SC . o ° D o a. w_ n n c c nSca" <o ' n an 03Da m ° "ow o n ✓r �p x �' A O N la S a• -� Q O C Cn ^ n �. cpCK �y �'�7 D <y a a r= o a C 7' Nv moo ar cwi n on^ < n o v 7 0 a -^ w ^ Oc w '' •e o ° u -u; m n d 0 2 n O p `y - y' n ? < �. .M+ �' -DaOgO O i1 aM -^i w `•^ O' OG •< C n v, A O" OC ID O (9 0 a 3 •'-� O n C. .r. Ca "cc D.� .A-� �. M •7 n W ^. W d ,(i", N. h iN� .�A. W �°. D• G n' 'D 'G C y C^D CD Or, �i C m A " D ° .» —' � N =r < c S cc w ff A . >" n " °. OC sn O N Ot v: °: N• a ° n oO o o F 4 n O a O C i p 0C n I-. . O w o t<o n i c o• N o x • G b CD m ''�" w� F '. C: .. i7 ,+. O' Q• S A -, tM .» „ cco cD a < " " n >r o �. m o• A m �. p < w �, n cc (~D C' (D a O 'C7 n' d .Gw-. 0 F O❑ 3 cc^ O' m A '-'� O:: C c n 7 m `.1 C N b N n a s rL• n 8 n A e o b w n o 0C �. n S C c �_' C d'a a CD a C <, (► "" n a 'a �. Ga C. ^�. O T .+ e' O a¢ n a OG C �-A ^' w a p w tD 00 r O ° ¶11 p N„ N n O D .» :° C' w a O O 7 Pt Co ,.. ti : o 9' V -+, - c°7 7 G n Ory » d? ^ O G• O wr S m w O .Y OG Q' w n wcC cc Oc y C OC A� • vC A N w A O a n O (9 O O N C) w 'O tn H �' O u n 8 w (C ? '.< t,,, p• N y CD a m C n K �. G co N o c m w m— n ccD a nr• -? • . b O < o c '-e 70 m p -' O- Oc v W w w & = ^ O `<� s Oc •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• «'? a on ° O. f a cm's C (� o C ..i m �• r r. w .'I a a o o w <zati' a° G o o a (.Ot' w 3 c0...C o O c9 0p _ OG O Q• D^ �' O w vii Z ID OC. p COS C> D .C �' P » �-7 C'- Q- -tti �. (C tYD fr'' ,. • 3 n • C7p O .y a C �ti^^i]� O. f. O C9 coo O ° O n' rOyn m ^' D lr. � Jl .'1 M VI n'1 .z w Y, a O a "'1 < '�• (� 1� r'Ti ° rf C� m e y m P o m � o a m <s a Q o- _ r " e=.' " tt + m C. ^ �. .J w '.% ry y H N y 2 r rii l i �/ T IM n' Y. I" < Y .'j ✓ �' Til �' Vl v iO y �i V ri a ° c < Ln r " o �» O <° y eaet�' ❑ " c o n p c w? c cfs C o cd,a H a c c a ' o n_ — ao° Y ('1 a n b S o rwo 9 Q 0 o = A oc A w m P 0 n n m o G ,O,y m w m E 0 w a n F D N r H m n r a w o'er m o 2 c m a A w a O C. wE < E ii �. o N `� 5' a • a o r. o co o k o m a a w m S-I b °c w °os m is o c m a c p o C f cEn Ct `C, o a m m g m p w° y m r o _ r j "- °O B a (J `�;4 y -i m p o cs n O w 9 o OOO i8 w y O? 7 m m .m+ G 0 j' '�' n. w d 0. �' n (0 m E Q- _ w y ci,x n H • • • • • • — O O ccc oo fq' = /�^ D �• p °{ rno L -t I oy ° CJTh '� o_ o w w E oc fn O � -� X Q O rn y .. 4'.+ CL ro a o 00. °c c c f = ° tEs CD o' �. 0 ^ ° o = O a- o f° m n ens o »1 n E CD ac o ≤. . N 5' a m �s a c u y a E F �. . w b r CD F. F x a. u o a y C r o • w m CD w a O —g r' �'. .9 O y ° cr ° a w C .b o - O �' D. m O m y m ° pa to CD y r m y {i f 7 w m a 0. —' O O O 0 0 C O H3 w a a c c TM 0. ° O `< N V M O fJ �� w O < .-. j n � a d ;n I 2 " pq ° 0. ' F O C CA 'r1 O c.. c CD C 9 ' — . , • O m a H Oct C, �. n j r fl n °a 00 p a m a < Z n d > > a, U CL a r 1 LAI = 4 • ..tea:.- mss oil � 1.. e t — _ __11 r� s° w I I "t? a I -' r Ti • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I • • ll a .l Ihl` T �� ,. i IV '. '1 fl a /' (' JfFr 2' , Y ,ham—Fi- --'1 „ j, p . 1. '\ o t Hi;it 5 1 I A - lei Y' IS y Ji IO i 1, • 111. �1 r�-/4, ti- • -� ♦- ' . s , 'v'1 1 - �I -te ti 1 . .I'-ai. . .�. 1 ' ' ,-___ i`'� l n k _ i . \ ., '✓_ rr •I JI F //FFF111 '-(..\ -c-. N. r -I C. • • •I •1 ,ark } # t fi,� .: .. ri � { E i �V`;J♦S�1 .I. � SI •�.. fii{ii{ 1' {{{1_lo- ��K`+J� ks��! r v v, ♦\:: .,_ \'J-.'<n.J}S"\ -T.rKt �. 'i S..Y I `�'r' r•I: r�Fr af-/'�i(�� Oar. ♦r �, t • -.1 ' ' 1 j, t -j . 9,y'f, •/#fin : S:1:3E.:1 rn/, r ; t 11 �'l la IFf � ,t �, w y1C y ` l t 4 I f3; j S - i •� 1 _ IT�'S .i.. Mfr �11r 1♦t•i'�. r ; 4 . j1 \l J'1', •]M`S`'Sb•'?t�rrr...; �i [, � �.g�l V"fi�, ��T��Nf%�,$`T;�I ij♦ �ll �� +� � tl �/ � ' it Ir .L„�i� I am~ 1 { I �.•1 1 t �t Z 'i{T� � -` •3__ r/[ ["'WrJ/"+fi ,gyp �..)FD •. I�i lsf�` 7,il �y t.•y /... Nf:t�4(�I # t r 1'aq� �Ir i`^ ' ! hh(r� ,y1� `' *• SSII q L -}( _ iil`++y}}}fkL...11LLL '�. Ily�dV �' 2 l� i 4'./�Vp•v~�',/Iw(~}'.lAialy;li.I.latftF.11f'r4iJ{�lV�LYrvll�TIV_ ~C r nr _ •fl�lr iris n, "! lrli."ris %rir -f;If+}•(¢iil�r'+R ✓•l3J-. i.Sr.GAti r. - '�•a• n Pear-YrrA I' �/'Iw J.S:iCn i Si....l !' ' .$�. �L [.�.-- ` in r ti i +� ♦. .. 1 -Y; ♦ l\� .r�!^"+i ` � .4 �♦L � �M/.� y r. ' -S+ ^4ift4�i .. ♦.1 ,• `TS `•fIKrM�''�j `'', .�1.'yy� JJ f •, d 1 - • <T R l ♦�♦1.. >W..�%Si^A�-'!�f��YiS� f♦Tf i r. .` Sri ♦'� � 'l�I.�iVi" 1 `�a1;t.i S♦i$fiFM4 "�i `r1 >y�-` `�i' ^ .f • •1 • • : !c. A e -•~i / 11 r Y_1 l'i-1!, .LZ -'- &9\ 11\ • ' ___.., .•• err` , n1 1+'f uV_lt•� { i f�f '>`^'f /7�1 tiR aie'..?TCR(��tt.1t) • •( R ♦�•ir�r)JF�'y{+�'' YI j ye�lf P ,_ ^ ,Y t�i rff{'/��I♦IIY�•/[�•'./yFS4S a'III 3,AM1�33 �41j��}- yn�1 �qr.f♦'` 1!� !1 Y�1..1 r> «t • i .., 'I° a !� v�li{ '��'i• ]JI Y` .��. _ 1J.„!Tip____/C: ~��Zr: �t ifi •� it l ~��(� 4'Rr .1�i�AJit j ,',I ��"T'.ir.C W�q 1 1. r >{''�'S. A�j.:.'-wT. r!;f )t �'` 1p ..♦11 Lr 4;F1 5� Li;^rt - xr `('n'ysij' ._.y�l;'t,[.t�� F Lr�Ut�• TG`,1 )•ry ~' YJ- 1 r•, R\ ''ivs. .. r/N'{ jp3.� r:'f. ♦+,f i 1 t�� 1l��iLl Ly {t~1�i 7•'�` i i,Ar 4 ' ♦ �e i�f=xW �'NR-T'��i r)I'f}�(`I' t<i+f��wNi4 �iIR.'�3+r `c./�kl\^`�li> `..i� Y 1 : • L:\ y(�' ! 'r'i73rr 9 q)1 r Y jl(yl�� .1C +-?♦Y� 1.'I II / �� `tRG{tJJr♦ 1 /{^�: ♦ _ �jiJs., •• , ` v .a�..,li L 1 ' J'I'y- Ir�^• 11l n'] jK� lli 1 ndn 1. I 7I ]]Cll •' rr 1{ Jci' ' • )I �1j •i �a.- )fry z` V`` ltll\, }♦�I ( F / f 1 vj(�liiTTH l / r)T' , �' ! '1� O •r�-'4 < /t' 4'.'("I _;,t. t "; r r• + �t rE�,r3A�� I,�♦ ♦r y� ].JL'K r•R•ly ri' �'� i ltll ' 1,. Lb4, jJ��yT`f j ♦ vI '}•'Ifi74i` tL n' y1f1 . �}...I: t(�.l,}II♦��'S�ny3�1( 1�'�'d—" Y. �'�•.' I• 1 F il''fy R,l{ , �I,��yF�-p��+ brit i �I .}i�f Y}. j `, �� (r4 '�� •� I ".t1� 1I947tiin,f . •,', ��191 l;Il:Ye•y, 'all ♦ �ptV rh Yf A � le .14 YI'U }[ Ii1• . tiY. f i(tgn t ) •°�, 'T f -r1 !1! t2 .] i • 4b rr �1 a♦C.f1 nl, 777•'~_• n ��r ♦ !�i 1j • d � J �rgrfYl � . RYrs(. li .y i J'y r:I•�r—v----1�_rff� j It'�1-i l ' ' 'f i1 �♦':ft '1 F�/�"�fn 1 - '� �. A` 1 rv'r �'r .,t ,J}�r Gi f. y� W. •l� tVl � 1r��'i.� t • )� �IG , r' 1 �J ["Y 4S°Jy yli ,t*� jy�� l Y r , r .; ,•Ifl {i'r•! S j�yi (.- + r�Yf.I1K.( �♦,It>X 1/'f� �I ��_ �� /, i4a S��)'.,J {1♦%� ]'tl�lli.i `` l-..4�3�>� _ i♦%114�r I� � AG}y1R tr:- ;i.. 3 y'♦itiT(4 S�kt(t'b '{t 1.y I 1• din 1} �l}•• , r F'tr S. -Z �'f j}'I 1rL Ff dt . .. •S a -1' H) 1' S i" 4 YtiVir 1 f i'�C f l K`_^�i —r ;j'{,�CfrpY� r { t S+� .y Illrr! �'pR ..♦ - { n .I:. In•j'',(4l ] ;.. frltJf'; jl'trr) F •[tt •• i'yfiyLLIi J n41� '-4 ��: .+ '1::Al'.YY14��'Sijf+.t W�. .::}f .r`+r�9yr �tV i., ]r�-fla''-ri�'!�``v1S, �' �'t'�a1• IV. /!. )/1. .l JL ♦\ 11 A'1: n r v J � .Yt I. �-l+�i YIi'.lY /I v.l • Y.a ! C1 t ♦,G'. lt��r �1.! 6tio '7ltur_Ytid ITIT'pP�i"�!?(�I♦'wtl r•- _p die 3" try"1`tf. 't haw�aaaa*+� T '�..7. { �. 3♦�{ ' .1: `, I/ 'r rf . ' f4M M1$f y'It .f ) rG i: t)� ''�% 4. /. r. ,h F 414 n . r fn ' 14,.- , i n 1 c.�'• i i t s ',. *�f. ��.•.. J~4��:>f.L'r T ! rt4i. Ate:. Y �.` ".�~ • ♦ I M1`i� 1 R]1 Vim}"w• .i n rn i hN •1 •1 •••.....•••.••...1••......••...••..........• >n `` • , ' f \ 1 � l , n c r I F s r i III ( r,, j r' \ 1 j Yr YI' Z il. iI 'vHt. ++ 151 , 1 F. .' . C i j"tom -♦ . • ' - �. y r _ ,— ;f I f... 1 r �• H .tLI I t' S yy, ' r• L I i pj. ` y I. `I•. L l .: .I 1 _ HI r ilia` �.' 1J �l �_ I .. t fly+ , . ₹- ' ', - Vii, -• •f `7 a ' • • - 1d I 1 N [j[^H ' - 'S': -. - - .-. - 'H - . '' ' - ,_• :, -' - ... I i( _ l-•/( {mil S � f � , A . ne 1 , !' Y y l4 - ` r/ ♦ - 1. `�i IR� _ _,-) •� •. ' 1 v c v �.M 1- yak 11a ♦ �1I r 1 F 'U .� ♦ I1S�_ Sri I •fl{l .. , _ > *r:/ , l•1 / l irk - I 3 .J rrr�� i/ 1, , �'J (± In • ,. I: flr♦'•+,1,41,r .< \\I l/Jf /1/��✓�. �r '�� i ♦ ' i �. r � ` as $ � ✓�+ ! �rll=l)+��J�/tl��/11.. •�•�.YI��T {.�® :3 I --J �CF(. �. I r•/l •G, • Ix ••�I, SI'ft 11• J) • +� % .'yam L.,e ..Y ./� ly inr r.+Y .1 r �„� �, /✓� Il. '' Jf /I �! I It LYE ! ,�.} >'. r nIi} •• •- )- ♦: . w>� r, '! i ` '!'rte L r+ I. „ - !' f f; I• :c,:&r S •u :Y rJ`1 ' ? ra!! r11 itsgP 1! • :' r it I'S:`17•Y'�='�♦tr;•'rLr:. _ j ��.ftJ ` (� •+a•.+•I t♦ ..^..r� ♦+i•.11= i✓ y' =!' t`r �Ir� `.!•� w Ii. !; _. __ [ i. • . �.Ji: .tnj }?�1,It{�Ji •\ tJ ,r� 1. , 'JV 1 _ J 1/ , ♦I a 1 [ V'•Yt V(+ ..t-^ I IJ'j-w.�lY tl- (•r 1• I* • Q ___ IO. I I a t i) • fl a 1 a A`♦. ♦ Irl7 • �iY� � tom{ ��\ •}l L- ^ Y y'.. Jrlv .,: • p�. .I ]1 a• >.•t�•i ` l`�^`.Q<i! y \ 'r ♦^••• i•� 1 Gam• F K• C ' _ i_j ♦ n��:]�n��.�• 1 t + �'.\ �S \ I? +.' jt , 1 _?rte--y[�•'�- •i •, fir♦ 1 I.> >��,,SSy \� \ ".. • t ' • • �— 1 ` (.�.��1 y, ��_+`i� �}- � t :. /'i-t • • .� 1 ♦t 'r.• 'rr\�t1nlA,l yri\�i,' \�, 11��''��\\jy ♦ r J• ..- q 1 LEI YI_I tll �,.I •^S :� Q� �wA ♦� - • � 11 ,• a\ I � ter. ..•. .• I I - n zz ❑ C n r as • • • ..L- \ { tn ,, iY , t, r1y f<•a - 1011 t. . t 11 Z I SC Mil _ --r,•r,: ♦. }� '' ,ems• ` �]•,• ;ce;`; c' .•',2 t•1 \�,� \� ti.yu S• � 1 1'f, .r V y•.♦, ., 11... 41 •. •1 Y •1 � v )1.. j � •i• •1G��.i �l ��I• Y .� 1 •.. i, OJ.I r', qi} ~ill may. !� •7® �S, - ;Ik; __.ro • . -- .TIai.._jr. it cn = n c C On _ � s fln 00 BT7 a c 0 V C sl • n