HomeMy WebLinkAbout194-03 RESOLUTIONRFSOI UTION NO.
•
194-03
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MASTER STREET PLAN RELOCATING CLIFFS BOULEVARD
AND REDUCING IT TO A COLLECTOR STREET BETWEEN
HIGHWAY 265 AND STARR DRIVE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby approves an amendment to the Master Street Plan by relocating Cliffs
Boulevard and reducing it to a Collector Street between Highway 265 and Starr
Drive as shown on Exhibit A.
PASSED and APPROVED on this the 16th day of December, 2003.
ATTEST:
By: jA
leykkot
Cl
S ISDRA SI, City , erk
By:
APPROVED:
DAN COODY, Mayor
/tM o3-079.ao 8.1
kt
STONE BRIDGE RD
P
yO
VAUGHAN RD
1
■
• II
II
1
t
dG 3GIS3311D
1
a
II
ff f lfl?Vi( o','a
g g 1 g e A R R y 9 i F 3'
p (y] Z ;
P P n n x x �� �n[i }� y y G �o
D D n T T (/1 Z , Cg
rrE€ i_
Z00 o
O N
n m0 g
n
r
73
•
•••
1
. 1
1
1
■
Z
0
m
X
03
00'63-£OWOV
v
0)
rt
cu
1
0
rt
v
3
0
3
r-.
STARR DR
�*
J
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item #
Date
•
Resolution No. 194-03
Document
NOTES:
1
11.14.03
memo to mayor & city council
draft resolution
copy of Jorgensen & Associates Itr
copy of 2. Master Street Plan
copy of planning commission minutes
map of Stone Mountain Subdivision
copy of Close Up View
copy of One Mile View
staff review form
2
12.22.03
memo to
Dawn Warrick
NOTES:
,ed -5.
• _ /L//GAJ.1
City Council lag of December 2, 2003 ifi/
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO 677/75 Maid
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services DirectoriT C
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator
Date: November 14, 2003
Subject: Master Street Plan amendent — Cliffs Boulevard Eastern Extension
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of a resolution amending the Master Street Plan to
remove Cliffs Boulevard eastern extention, a proposed minor arterial, from this policy'
document. This request was heard by the Planning Commission November 10, 2003 as a
part of the proposed Stone Mountain Subdivision preliminary plat. The plat identifies the
road in question as Stone Mountain Rd.
BACKGROUND
Cliffs Blvd., a proposed connection between Crossover Rd. and Starr Dr., has been
identified on the City's Master Street Plan for many years. Staff recommends removal of
this eastern extention of Cliffs Blvd. based on findings from the City of Fayetteville's
traffic analysis performed by Bucher, Willis and Ratliff and their recommendations
regarding the Master Street Plan. Approval of a preliminary plat is currently being
sought to begin the development process of an 82.74 acre tract which includes 8.19 acres
of park land and 112 residential lots.
DISCUSSION
The attached documents include a memo from the project representative for the proposed
development and a section from the traffic study conducted by Bucher, Willis and Ratliff
addressing the Master Street Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
1
T6lct -&. /4f' m�
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MASTER STREET PLAN RELOCATING CLIFFS BOULEVARD
AND REDUCING IT TO A COLLECTOR STREET BETWEEN
HIGHWAY 265 AND STARR DRIVE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby approves an amendment to the Master Street Plan by relocating Cliffs
Boulevard and reducing it to a Collector Street between Highway 265 and Starr
Drive as shown on Exhibit A.
PASSED and APPROVED on this the 16th day of December, 2003.
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
APPROVED:
PF
OS
DAN COODY, Mayor
•
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNUKIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYE1 IEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479)442-9127 • FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID JO :RGENSEN;P.E., P.L.S.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E.
October 22, 2003
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Planning Department
Re. Stone Mountain Subdivision Phase I - MSP Amendment
On behalf of the owner of the above mentioned project, we are also request ing an
amendment to the Master Street Plan for the minor arterial that is shown crossing this
property. We are proposing to change this street classification from a minor r arterial with
a 90' Right-of-way to a collector with a 70' Right-of-way. We are also pro posing to
move the street to the north and build it with this development. It would be= very difficult
for this street to function as a minor arterial due to the steep grades corning from
Highway 265 and the extremely steep grades east of this project. These steep grades
would limit the capacity of this road. It is our option that this road would n ever function
as a minor arterial whether or not the Right-of-way was dedicated.
Please call concerning any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
C'1.,, 4 e. -~4 -15d -
Christopher
Christopher 13 Brackett, P.E.
GRAI 0I:50::N • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASFEWATERSYS-TE_MS • LAND SURVEYING•
fits of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic arransptrrtation Study
C/i apter 2 - Mosier Street Plan
• 2. MASTER STREET PLAN
Key Findings:
This chapter of the report describes the proposed Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville.
Development of the Master Street Plan considers the function of each street (nobility and/or
access) and uses this functional assignment to create a functional hierarchy . Defining a
functional hierarchy is paramount in attaining a balance between arterial, collector, and local
streets, which is essential to maintaining the qual ity of life within the City as it grows. Based on
the functional assignment and functional hierarchy of Fayencville's city streets , the proposed
Master Street Plan recommends the following typical sections for arterial, colle ctor, and local
access streets:
• Principal arterial streets should generally provide two to three moving lanes in each
direction, plus auxiliary turn lanes. Four typical sections have beer -1 prepared for
princ ipal arterial streets: (1) Principal Arterial typical section (150 feesrigF-tt of way) with
a trail on one side and sidewalk on the other, (2) Principal Arterial typic'l section (150
feet right of way) with on -street bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk on the both sides,
(3) Constrained Principal Arterial typical section (110 feet right of way) with a trail on
one side and sidewalk on the other, and (4) Constrained Principal Arterial typical section
(1 10 feet right of way) with on -street bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk on the both
sides.
• The typical sections for a minor arterial street lie within a 90 feet right of way width.
This width would allow for (1) one moving traffic lane in each direction, a bicycle lane in
each direction, sidewalks on each side, room for utilities and green space, and sufficient
room to provide a center auxiliary tum lane, (2) one moving traffic lane in each direction,
o bicycle lane in each direction, sidewalks on each side, room for utilities and green
space, and sufficient room to provide a center landscaped median, (3) two moving traffic
Innes in each direction, sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities and g. reen space.
• The collector street typical section would lie within a 70 feet right of vvay and would
provide for (I) one lane of moving traffic in each direction and sufficient room for a
center turn lane with sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities and g seen space, (2)
one 1 5 feet lane of moving traffic in each direction and sufficient mourn for a center
landscaped median, with sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities armed green space,
(3) one lane of moving traffic in each direction, on -street bike lanes in .each direction,
with sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities and green space
• I'hc historic collector includes two 16 feet lanes and sidewalk on each side, within a 50
feel right of way.
• Several typical sections for local streets have been developed to me=et the special
demands for a variety of subdivision designs. Most local streets lie within a 50 feet right
of way width. Four typical sections have been provided to accommodate local streets: (1)
50 feet of right of way to include 24 feet of pavement with sidewalks and green space
cru•li side, (2) 50 feet of right of way 10 include 34 feet of pavement to include bike lanes
each side, with sidewalks and green space each side, (3) a new urbanism section with 50
frit of right of way, to include 30 feet of pavement for parking lanes e=ach side, with
Itnidsa_aped sidewalks each side (4) a new urbanism section with 60 feet o. f right of way,
N
4u4. i %4M.•Rn..•• 10-0 43 FusI Ripon EM
Bucher. Willis R Ratl f Corporation 3
•1v of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic digionsportation Study
Chapter 2 - hfdosser Street Plan
to i nclude 40 feet of pavement for parking lanes and bike lanes e ach side, with
landscaped sidewalks each side.
• The typical section for residential streets is set in a 40 feet right of way, and includes 22
feet of pavement with sidewalks on each side.
• 20 feet of right of way should be dedicated for alleys.
II is vital that the City protects the function of the major street system. There=fore, the study
recommend~ that the City adopts the Access Management Policies described i=t Chapter 7 to
preserve the function of the major street system.
INTRODUCTION
Public roadways have two primary purposes. They are intended to provide access to properties
within a community, and to carry traffic between properties within a community or between two
communities. These two functions are in competition with each other when providl ed on the same
roadway. An increase in the number of access points onto a roadway causes a_ corresponding
decrease in vehicle mobility and safety. As a result, a well managed street systemriaust include:
O Locisl streets, whose primary purpose is to provide access.
o Arterial streets, whose primary purpose is to provide mobility.
u Collector streets, whose primary purpose is to collect traffic from local streets and feed it
to arterial streets.
In reality. the street systems in most communities do not reflect this disti rction clearly.
Frequently. what are intended to be arterial streets degenerate into providing direct access to
properties. reducing both mobility and safety. At the other end of the continuum, streets that are
intended to provide direct property access sometimes end up carrying volumes of through traffic
for luck of nn adequate arterial street to fulfill that function, resulting in a dec lease of safety
through neighborhoods. The key to protecting emerging neighborhoods from future
encroachment of through traffic is to plan the transportation system to include 1 ocal, collector,
and arterial streets, and to protect the intended function of each through adhering to design
guidelines. These roadway design guidelines are most effective when implemented and
maintained on new construction.
N I INCTION AL ASSIGNMENT
The street system functions best when the intended purposes of arterial, collector, and local
sheets are protected, and when the overall street system includes the proper proportion of each
type of street . Too few arterial streets will result in excessive through traffic usingg collector and
local streets to pass through neighborhoods. In contrast direct access onto aster ial streets will
result in degradation of the arterial's function to move traffic, again causingdiversion of through
iml'lic unto cc,Ilector and local streets and through neighborhoods.
., v,.t: I %V.I..kit ,.... 1 oa!or
,n.i Rn ,n aK
Bucher. Willis & Roar Corporation 4
lfiP of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic a unspeirtation Study
Chaper 2 - Manner Sired Plan
Since many existing streets in Fayetteville do not have a pure function of mobility only, or access
only, classification of the streets as a principal arterial, minor arterial, collector, or local street is
somewhat subjective. Several factors may be considered in determining the actual existing
function of each street.
o Greater existing traffic volumes on a street indicate a draw from a larger area within the
coin munity, and thus an arterial function.
❑ As the continuous length of a street increases, its potential to carry trarfrc through the
community also increases, and thus an arterial function.
❑ Streets that provide interchanges with the freeway system will moreoftert carry through
traffic, and thus function as an arterial.
o Streets that access major commercial developments, industrial areas, or a. university will
generally carry traffic originating elsewhere in the community, thus functioning as an
anerial.
General traffic volume guidelines assumed in assigning functions to the existing streets in
Fayetteville as pan of this Master Street Plan incl ude:
o Residential streets carry less than 300 vehicles per day.
o Local streets carry less than 2000 vehicles per day.
o Collector streets 2000 to 7000 vehicles per day.
o Minor arterial streets carry 7000 to 14,000 vehicles per day.
o Principal arterial streets carry greater than 14,000 vehicles per day.
It should he emphasized that these traffic volume ranges do not describe the capac ity of the street
to carry traffic, but only provide a general range of the magnitude of traffic volumes that might be
expected on a class of street. For instance, a minor arterial street, collector street, and local street
might physically carry the same traffic volume. Furthermore, traffic volume alone does not
determine or necessarily indicate the function of a street.
Whereas the traffic volume guidelines may be useful in classifying streets ace ording to their
existing function, traffic volumes alone are insufficient to address the long range function of
currently undeveloped streets. It is important that arterial and collector corridors be designated to
service future development of land beyond the urban fringe, even though significant traffic
volumes may not be present for many years. The future function of these co rridors will be
influenced by the continuous length of each corridor, and their access to the freeway system.
The master street plan also designates a number of streets as historic collector streets. These are
streets that r.nrry greater traffic volumes than might be expected on a typical local street, but lack
sufficient right of way to be widened and/or are constrained by historic development. While the
function of these streets may be a collector funct ion, it is impractical to consider reconstructing
them to the collector street typical section. Rather, as historic collector streets are considered for
improvement, it should be recognized that each h i storic collector street in Fayettev i Ile has its own
trrriytle cluancteristics and any improvement project should be carried out in the spirit of context
sensitive design, consistent with the smart growl h policy of identifying the unique demands for
neighborhood preservation. Consequently, a spec ial typical section for historic collector has not
hccn reconun ended.
"•p u]. 1•v6.pw.%,b OUW) Foul R.pon d r
Bucher. Willis et Rath r Corporation 5
�p of Fareneville, Arkansas Traffic aglanspo ration Study
Chapter 2 - Master Street Plan
Figure 2-1 depicts the proposed Master Street Plan for the year 2023. The plan designates the
future street network for major arterial. minor arterial, collector, and historic collector streets. It is
important that as the City expands, the intent of the plan be followed, so that an adequate balance
of arterial and collector streets with local streets is maintained.
,,..n • 4)-0141 Find Mann dot'
Bucher, Willis& Rad r Corporation 6
Planning Commissi, •
November 10, 2003
Page 5
ADM 03-29.00: Administrative Item (Cliffs Blvd. Eastern Extension) Master Street Plan
Amendment.
PPL 02-13.10: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain, pp. 488/489) was submitted by
Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bill Conner for property located South of Hyland Park and
east of Crossover Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family and contains
82.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 115 lots proposed.
Hoover: Item number two on the agenda is ADM 03-29.00 for Cliffs Blvd. eastern
extension.
Warrick: If I might request that we hear items two and three together, this is a Master
Street Plan amendment that is being brought forward because of the
Preliminary Plat, which is the following item.
Hoover: Great. That would be item two and then item three that we are going to hear
with it is PPL 02-13.10 for Stone Mountain submitted by Jorgensen &
Associates on behalf of Bill Conner. Suzanne?
Morgan: Thank you. Item two again, is an amendment of the adopted Master Street
Plan to relocate and change the destination of Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension, a
proposed minor arterial connecting Crossover Road and Starr Drive. Planning
staff recommends approval of a resolution to amend the Master Street Plan to
eliminate Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension, a proposed minor arterial from this
policy document. This request, will, as stated, be heard as part of the Stone
Mountain subdivision Preliminary Plat. For some background, Cliffs Blvd. is
a proposed connection between Crossover Road and Starr Drive that has been
identified on the Master Street Plan for several years. Staff recommends
removing this extension based on findings from the City of Fayetteville's
traffic analysis performed by BWR and their recommendations regarding the
Master Street Plan. Approval for a Preliminary Plat is currently being sought
and will go ahead and read staffs comments on the Preliminary Plat for
Stone Mountain. This was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of
Bill Conner for property located south of Hyland Park and east of Crossover
Road. The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 115
lots on 82.74 acres. Two lots are to be used for detention and one 8.19 acre lot
is proposed for park land dedication. The location of the proposed
subdivision extends east off of Crossover Rd to the border of the City and
Planning Area and is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family with 4 units per
acre. Land to the north, south, and west is zoned RSF-4 with Planning Area to
the east. All land is single-family residential in nature. Water and sewer will
be extended to serve this development. The applicant requests an amendment
to the Master Street Plan for the minor arterial (90') bisecting the property.
The request is to relocate this planned road further south as Stone Mountain
Drive at a lesser dedication of 70', a collector road. All other streets will have
50' of right of way. For tree preservation, existing is 33.94%, Required
canopy is 25.0%, Preserved canopy proposed is 24.88% and Mitigation
Planning Commissiotil
November 10, 2003
Page 6
•
required is $3,150 to the Tree Escrow Account. Parkland dedication for 112
single-family lots is 2.68 acres and the owners have proposed a dedication of
8.19 acres leaving a banking credit of 5.51 acres for the southeast park
quadrant. Staff recommends approval of PPL 02-13.10 with the following
conditions: 1) Add a note to the plat stating the existing private drive shall be
removed prior to Final Plat approval. 2) Payment into the Tree Escrow
Account in the amount of $3,150. 3) All street names shall be approved by
the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 4) Any outstanding issues with the legal description
shall be resolved prior to final plat approval. 5) Necessary property line
adjustments to the east of the project boundary and to lot 51 shall be approved
prior to Final Plat. 6) If any water pressure problems arise that might impact
this proposed subdivision or the adjacent residents preventative actions shall
be addressed and resolved through an approved water system design. 7)
Planning Commission determination of waiver request for Stone Mountain
Drive to be constructed at a 14% grade for approximately 1400 feet. City
street standards allow for a 10% grade with an allowance up to 15% for 300
feet. Staff is in support of this request due to the connectivity Stone Mountain
Drive provides to the east on Crossover Road. 8) Planning Commission
determination of the proposed Master Street Plan Amendment to relocate the
planned minor arterial Cliffs Boulevard to the proposed location of Stone
Mountain Drive and to reduce the street classification from a minor arterial to
a collector street. Staff recommends removal of the Cliffs Boulevard eastern
extension. The proposed revision to the Master Street Plan based on the
recent traffic study performed by Bucher, Willis and Ratliff does not include
the construction of the minor arterial in this location due to unsuitable
topography. 9) The developer shall comply with all conditions of the Parks
and Recreation Board. All conditions as noted in the attached Memo dated
October 29, 2003 are applicable and shall be considered, by reference, as part
of the official Conditions of Approval. Items ten through fourteen arc
standard conditions of approval.
Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward?
Brackett: Good evening, my name is Chris Brackett, 1 am with Jorgensen & Associates
representing the owner tonight. We are in agreement with all of the
conditions of approval and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
Hoover: At this time will ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to
address this ADM 03-29.00 for the amendment to the Master Street Plan or if
you have comments about PPL 02-13.10.
Earff: Good evening, my name is Jeff Earff, I live at 2711 Woodcliff Road which is
in Hyland Park which is north of the proposed development. The first thing I
would like to comment on is the change to the Master Street Plan. I just
wanted to remind you all that a few years ago the city spent about $460,000
upgrading Cliffs Blvd. as part of a cost share so that would go from two lane
Planning Cornmissice
November 10, 2003 •
Page 7
Hoover
Earff:
Hoover:
Warrick:
Casey:
to a four lane road. That is back when this connector to Mr. Conner's property
was proposed to be a minor arterial. Also, I wanted to point out that the recent
traffic and transportation study indicated that a signal was proposed for Cliffs
and Crossover, Hwy. 265. It seems to me that it would be better use of that
signal if it was four way rather than three way. If you move the road then that
traffic signal will only benefit traffic going into and out of the Cliffs. Just a
couple of other things, conceming construction traffic, presently there is a
driveway that comes up from that proposed development into Hyland Park on
Cliffside Road and 1 would like to see a condition that would indicate
construction traffic can not come through the Hyland Park subdivision. That
was talked about previously when the homeowners got together about a year
or two ago. Also, the issue of water pressure, I know it is unclear at this point
what the resolution of that situation is going to be. My understanding is that it
could potentially be a water tower in Hyland Park or perhaps using pumps or
something like that. My question is will there be any grading and excavating
until that issue is resolved? If you approve what's before you tonight does the
developer has to wait for that issue to be resolved for the water pressure? My
understanding is that the reason for the delay was the issue concerning water
pressure. Does anyone have an answer for me?
Jeff, we do things differently from Council. We take public comment and
then they will answer questions.
Ok, I'm done. Thanks for your time.
Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Master
Street Plan amendment and the Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, 1 will bring it
back to the Commission. Staff, would you answer two of Jeff's questions?
One is confirm that there is no Hyland Park connection, you might just talk a
little bit about that and then we will get to the water pressure issue.
We arc going to tag team this because it has a lot to do with Engineering as
well. With regard to the access through Hyland Park for construction traffic.
That is not noted as a construction entrance on this plat. It is probably very
reasonable for that not to be utilized for construction traffic. The streets in
Hyland Park are quite curvy and steep in areas and it is not the most direct
route to get construction vehicles in and out of this proposed development.
Typically where people are able to construct construction entrances to projects
are in locations that entrances will be permanent in those projects once they
are built out. I am going to ask Matt to address the water pressure questions.
As some of you may know, this came through last year and started the process
and was withdrawn at the time because of water concerns. Currently the City
of Fayetteville has hired McGoodwin, Williams and Yates to perform a
Master Water Study. They are preparing a water model which we can analyze
this area and plug in this subdivision and the number of lots that are going to
be in this arca and see the effect that it is going to have on this neighborhood.
Planning Commission.
November 10, 2003
Page 8
We have been waiting on that, the study is almost complete and so we have
allowed the applicant to proceed with this process knowing that there are
going to be offsite improvements required for improving the water situation if
it negatively effects any of the neighboring developments. There have been
several options thrown out there over the past year including a water tank,
pumps, rerouting a line and creating a high pressure line instead of the
existing low pressure line along Hwy. 265. Those items will be worked out
during the construction review after the water model is received and we are
able to analyze that to see what needs to be done. At this time the applicant is
aware that the improvements will need to be made and we will determine
what those are at this time. I do assure you we will not approve any
construction plans that will negatively effect the Hyland Park water situation.
Shackelford: A follow up question with Matt, just to be specific, no construction, grading or
anything is going to be permitted on this until that is resolved?
Casey: We will see the construction plans submitted as a whole. I will not issue a
grading permit without the water design situation worked out.
Shackelford: It is a little confusing. If you look at number six it talks about preventive
actions shall be addressed if there is a problem. What you are saying is the
study that you are doing will be able to show if there is a problem before
construction starts?
Casey:
Shackel ford:
Hoover:
Bunch:
Hoover:
Shackelford:
Yes Sir.
Thank you very much.
I was wondering if we could have a report from Subdivision. Were there
important issues that we should be looking at on this Preliminary Plat, has it
evolved or anything that you would like to share?
Basically, what we addressed at Subdivision was the waiver request for the
grades on the road from Hwy. 265 into this subdivision and we also discussed
the pros and cons of a connection north into the Hyland Park area and also
looked at the eastern extensions of the Master Street Plan. Those are basically
the items that we discussed.
Thank you.
Staff, maybe you can help me out a little bit. As 1 drove around and looked at
this property I was thinking about the waiver request for the grading on the
road. 1 think we call for 10% grade with allowance for 15%. 1 not only drove
around this property but I drove around Hyland Park and Lovers Lane and
some of the older properties in that area. Can you tell us an idea of the grades
of those roads in the subdivisions? Arc they greater than, equal to, Tess than
what is being proposed here?
Planning Commissior-
November 10, 2003
Page 9
Casey:
Shackelford:
Casey:
Shackelford:
Hoover:
Warrick:
•
I'm sorry, I'm not able to answer that without the plans we have on file for
those subdivisions.
Ok. Have the restrictions on grading changed or have they been in place for
quite some time?
I believe those were adopted in 1996.
Thank you.
In general, why did the traffic consultants recommend that we do not extend
Cliffs Blvd.? I guess one thing is I'm confused on which part is Cliffs and
which part is Stone.
I don't know that we arc going to find any definitive specific answer with
them addressing this particular segment of the street. The map that is up for
your display is the proposed Master Street Plan developed by BWR with the
current Traffic and Transportation Study that is being considered. It is not
adopted, which is why we are looking at an amendment to the Master Street
Plan that is on the books right now. If you will reference your vicinity map on
your plat, the applicant has overlaid the city's Master Street Plan on that so
you will get an idea of where this project is in relation to the existing adopted
Master Street Plan street. This proposed eastern extension of the Cliffs is
actually not a four way intersection. This particular property does not intersect
Hwy. 265 in the vicinity of Cliffs Blvd. It intersects north of that. The closest
we could get is not a four way intersection. As 1 said, it is offset to the north.
The proposed street through the development is offset again from what is on
the plans. Keep in mind that the Master Street Plan is not an engineered
study, it is a policy document and it is a guide. Our current Master Street Plan
indicates there is a desire to have a larger street connecting Crossover east to
Starr Drive. The proposed Master Street Plan that BWR has brought forward
has actually eliminated quite a few of the higher level streets that we currently
indicate on our plan. My understanding in that is the number of streets that
are located on our currently adopted Master Street Plan as higher level streets
is unrealistic that they will actually be all built out to those levels that streets
not indicated as collectors or arterials on the Master Street Plan can very well
function and carry similar, if not the same, loads of traffic as local streets.
There was a determination somewhere through the committee process and the
review, 1 know that staff met many times with the consultants for this traffic
and transportation study and it has been through several public hearings,
through that process it was determined that this particular stretch of collector
street, minor arterial street, should be eliminated from that plan. 1 can't give
you an exact reason. There is a lot of grade in this area, a lot of steep slopes
and it is very reasonable to expect that that was partly to blame, partly a
reason for them eliminating the street. Fayetteville is a hilly city and we have
a lot of grade.
Planning Commissio.
November 10, 2003
Page 10
Hoover:
Warrick:
Allen:
Warrick:
Allen:
Casey:
Allen:
Casey:
Brackett:
•
•
You are saying they eliminated several streets but they don't reference item
5.3.A is our reason for this one.
No, we included in your packet with item number two materials out of the text
document that they submitted to compare with this map.
1 wondered if there had been many comments from neighbors about the traffic
impact for this area
In this round of review we have not heard much from the neighbors.
However, when this project was originally brought forward in the spring of
2002 there were several neighborhood meetings with the Hyland Park
neighborhood association because originally there was a contemplation for a
street connection in the location of the existing drive that comes off Cliffside
Drive into the subject property. It was determined that that would change the
character of that neighborhood significantly that that property was platted as a
single family residential lot, as were the lots around it and it was not desirable
to the neighbors to have a street connection into Hyland Park into Cliffside
Drive where it adjoins this property.
I guess I would like to have a clearer understanding about condition number
six because it seems to me like the possible ways that the problem could be
alleviated if they find that there is a water pressure problem could certainly
have a significantly different impact on the area.
I'm sorry, I didn't fully understand your question.
Well, if there is a water tower up there that seems to me like an eye sorer or
some people might be concerned about that. I just wanted a better
understanding of the ways that water pressurc problems could be eliminated.
I know the different methods that have been discussed, the top option was the
tower. It has been discussed already. 1 know there has been some opposition
to that but that would be the best way to increase the water pressure and also
give additional capacity in the area. The other options that I'm aware of,
unfortunately 1 wasn't involved in the review process last year when the
majority of these were discussed, were some line changes out on Hwy. 265
that would convert the pressure of the line that will serve this development
from one tank to the other so it will change the pressure and the other option
that has been discussed is adding some pumps along that line to increase the
pressure in this area as well. Those are the three that I know have been
discussed. Chris Brackett may have some more information on that.
There are not any detailed plans because we are waiting on the detailed study
that the city is conducting. Those are the three options that we have before us
now. There may be others but we will not know them until we actually know
Planning Commissior.
November 10, 2003
Page 11
•
exactly what the pressure problem is. It is our understanding currently that
they don't believe that there is adequate pressure to serve this subdivision.
We understand that we will have to provide adequate pressure for this
subdivision to be able to continue and the owner understands that. As far as
how it is done, right now it is our understanding that the city is not prepared to
go forward with any kind of tower. Our understanding is that we will be
fixing the problem for this subdivision. We won't be fixing the problem for
the entire area. We are prepared to spend the money to fix the problem for
this subdivision.
Allen: Will the method that you use be up to you?
Brackett. Anything that we do will have to be approved by the city. The method that
we believe, we've had discussions with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates and
the last method that was discussed that we were a part of were booster pumps
which is nothing more than a pump station. It is not a tower or anything of
that nature. Like I said, we can't really go any further than dust discussions or
what the possibilities are because we don't know exactly what the problem is.
Shackelford:
It seems like every meeting that we are here we talk about connectivity.
Every subdivision that we approve we stub out for connectivity. What makes
this different? Can you walk me through the process of the decision to not
require this to tie into the existing neighborhoods and why this is different
than the normal deal that we look at?
Warrick: I don't believe that this is different because this particular project is
connecting to Hwy. 265 and Stonebridge Road and has two future connections
to the east and a future phase. That is the kind of connectivity that we look for
in any development is to identify where an existing piece of property, when
developed, can connect and where possible future connections would lead if
there are adjacent undeveloped tracts of land that we believe will come
through the review process at some point in time. We don't even expect those
adjacent properties to come through in the near future even. Like I said, we
have got connections from this particular project in three directions. The fact
that there is an empty lot in a single family subdivision north of this, we did
not feel that that merited a street. Like said before, it does change what the
expectations were as far as those people who purchased lots and built in the
Hyland Park subdivision when they felt there was a single family lot in that
location. It was and is used for access purposes but it is not a public street. It
is a private access drive. The change in the character of that would be
significant to what everyone expected when they moved into that area which
is primarily single family homes with a large equestrian farm south of it. That
is why we did not feel that this connection was critical. It was not the desire
of the neighbors o the north to have this connection. They arc truly the ones
who would benefit the most if they chose to have a connection in that location
because Hyland Park is a one way in and one way out subdivision. That was
really the process that we went through in realizing whether or not it was
Planning Commissio•
November 10, 2003
Page 12
•
appropriate. We felt that through the connections that were being achieved on
the property we were meeting our mandate, if you will, for providing
connectivity for future developments.
Shackelford: Thank you very much.
Hoover: I would like to focus on the Master Street Plan amendment issue. Do we have
some discussion about that? I'm curious if we are recommending eliminating
it from the Master Street Plan, why are we showing it on the vicinity map a
road connecting?
Warrick. The applicant's request was to downgrade and relocate this street. Staff's
recommendation is just to eliminate it from the Master Street Plan and allow it
to be a local street. It is identified currently, there is a minor arterial identified
currently connecting Crossover and Starr Drive. The applicant is proposing to
relocate that slightly and to downgrade it to a collector street status. In
reviewing their request to amend the Master Street Plan we looked to the
study that the city commissioned recently for traffic and transportation study
for the city. In that, the recommendation is not to have a higher level street,
collector or above, in this location. Staff is recommending that it just be
utilized as a local street and not be identified as a higher level street on the
Master Street Plan.
Hoover: Is that what this says? Maybe I'm misreading it. It just says here eliminate
Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension as a proposed minor arterial.
Warrick. This would not be the Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension. Due to the location of it,
it would not be reasonable for it to be named Cliffs Blvd. because it is offset
to the north. It does not intersection Cliffs Blvd. on the opposite side of Hwy.
265.
Hoover: This street is called Stone Mountain.
Anthes: On the Master Street Plan as it shows now it would actually connect across
Hwy. 265. Two questions of staff. is there indeed a signal proposed at that
intersection and what are the physical reasons on that site that we would like
to shift that road to the north?
Warrick. We don't have the ability with this subdivision to connect in that location. The
property owner doesn't own the property and we don't have control of the
property. I am not aware of signalization being on the city's capital
improvement program for this particular site.
Williams: Of course that is Hwy. 265 so the state would have to approve any traffic
signal that we would ask them to install.
Anthes: I guess that's why I'm still confused. It doesn't appear that the connection to
Planning Commissioi,
November 10, 2003
Page 13
•
Crossover Road is on this applicant's property either at this current location or
at the north location, is that true or am I reading this map wrong? It appears to
me from this map that the current Master Street Plan connection across
Crossover Road or the new configuration located to the north, neither of those
are on the applicant's property, is that true?
Warrick: That is true.
Anthes: If that is the case, why are we showing this thing shifted north misaligned
with the intersection?
Warrick. Again, our Master Street Plan is a policy document and a guide. It is a line on
the map and it is not an exact engineered location for a future street.
Anthes: I understand that but if it is a line on the map and it currently connects across
and makes a four way intersection with Cliffs Drive and we had to physically
take a pen or a pencil and move it up, what was the reason for that?
Warrick: The location of an opportunity for a development that would provide a
connection.
Anthes: I thought you said they didn't own either location?
Warrick: I must not have understood you, I'm sorry. The area that is highlighted on
your vicinity map that is in dark gray is the project site.
Anthes: Ok, so they do own the northernmost and that is the reason for the shift is
because we have an opportunity to connect to Hwy. 265. That's all 1 have for
now.
Ostner: My question Ms. Warrick, 1 wish I could ask BWR why they don't think we
should have any connection across this area, the big drawing wherever it went.
Do you know why? I know the grades are steep but there is just so much from
Mission to Huntsville and from Starr to Hwy. 265 is nothing but local streets
that don't have to connect by policy?
Warrick: How do you mean by policy they don't have to connect because we do have a
policy of connectivity.
Ostner: We do but as a Master Street Plan policy we are saying no.
Warrick: The Master Street Plan identifies higher level streets. It doesn't mean that
local streets would not serve a purpose of getting people from one place to
another. We do, as I said, have a policy of connectivity. Keep in mind, this is
a policy document, this is a recommendation. This is your plan. Please
understand that we are just making a recommendation here. If you don't wish
to change the Master Street Plan that is fine. We are making a
Planning Cornmissio•
November 10, 2003
Page 14
•
recommendation based on the study by transportation engineers and we need
to rely on somebody to provide us with guidance. That is the information that
is current that is available to us right now. Mr. Earff handed me this
information, it is out of the traffic and transportation study, I made a statement
with regard to signalization not being on the city's capital improvement plan.
It is not but it is recommended in the city's traffic and transportation study for
future improvements. I just wanted to clear that up. I didn't want to misstate
anything but it is not in a capital projects list.
Ostner: Is that signal for a normal four way intersection?
Warrick: It is a table in the document. 1t is certainly not an engineered project.
Hoover: Do 1 have this correctly then that it would show up on the Master Street Plan
if it is a collector or a higher level street. That does not exclude us connecting
over to Starr Blvd. at a later date whenever that property is developed because
of our connectivity ordinance or policy?
Warrick: That is correct.
Hoover: The only reason it is not on the Master Street Plan is they still can be
recommending it in theory but they don't recommend that it be a higher level
street?
Warrick: Correct.
Hoover: Does everybody understand?
Allen: Finally, yes.
Hoover: Is there any other discussion on this item or would someone like to make a
motion?
Shackelford:
Hoover:
Bunch: 1 will second.
Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there more discussion? Seeing none,
Renee?
I will go ahead and get it on the table. With what you just said was exactly
what direction I was going when 1 talked about the connectivity of this
subdivision. 1 think it is a lot more realistic to think that there will be
connectivity through here as this property develops in neighborhood streets
than there ever will seeing a minor arterial or a collector street built across this
property. With that, I am going to support staff's recommendation and make a
motion to approve ADM 03-29.00.
•
I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second?
Planning Co nmissioI
November 10, 2003
Page 15
•
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-29.00 was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero.
•
cn
x
0
w
>
P4
h
•
H
PL
w
z
0•
z
U
3
S
R
3
'd
s
4
A
PPL02-13.10
Close. Up View
STONE MOUNTAIN SUB DIVISION
.x»11111111111111,..
:III111111111»IIIiIIII11:J1111111111111
11111111»»11111111111:111111»111111
�:l:::.
II11111 !l
Overview
IY
I X1.1 I;
l -J I./ F:
. 1 1 I
I. <t
y.AGI..
l \ {I
I ..
4.
Lsubject Propertr,..,
PPL02-13.100000 o
00000000
Streets
Existing
'`�•;� Planned
BULB
0 250 500
Planning Amster Street Plan
�� Freeway/Expresser
Overlay Distri
•Th„.i Principal Arsenal
City Limits rex., Minor Anerty
IOutside City s Collector
1.000
•••••• Historic COIIeckw
1.500 2.000
Feel
•
PPL02-13.10
One Mile View
STONE MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION
1. RSF-4,•
F=4 gsF.kSF•4.
ESF-04e
aaR �
muse, i
4awk
;SF4..
pl } .A
iRSF-C 1
gl QSF.'
• ..
RSF-4
•ssa,
•µ!YALE
i.
.,7 7 �l : Q
....• -011
AS RDS
SUBJECT PROPERTY
s
�
In
In
1
In Sr
MF:24'�
RSF-4 RSF-4IRMF-2
-O• 1
P.1 RMF+24R3/4*-12
• RMF. 4RSF-a
C-
RSF-4
13.1
-1C-1
-ORS
RS
MF•2
C-2
— .,i _ ... _ ..._..___.
•
`*aA 'SLAWS .ST.
'RSF-4 1' l i ' C+--.
1 1 I
RSE-4otHr..: R_A : RMF -4 Rg.
' . r s0a R -A _ORSF-a'
C-2 r 'tC R_q•
1— _ RSF-4 RSF- • .
C-2 in . C-1 �-� -- E-7 RMf- - ... l F S).1
RSF.4 961RS F4
RSF.
R -S
C-2 RSP•4
)verview
51
II
,/
i •
i
RAN 1= R -Ai— R -S
FrAR-So 1.1 -+-
'•.rR-
Ro'''5 •R
R -O
a
Legend
PPt02-13 ID
, ono,
sonagoveriay District
Streets
Streets
- Elates)
Et11:1; Funned
Master Street Plan
Master Street Plan Maw mew
Freeway/Expressway — — Caeca
PnnoDal Meru! • • • • Hsbc Cdrt r
Planll c ke,
1111 Cilytrm
I Wueecay
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
0.75
1
Miles
STAFF IEW FORM - NON-FINANCIAL COIGATION
AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: December 2, 2003
FROM:
Dawn Warrick
Name
Planning CP&E
Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: Resolution approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
ADM 03-29.00 was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bill Conner for
property located south of Hyland Park and east of Crossover Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential
Single-family, four units per acre and contains approximately 82.74 acres. The request is to amend the Master
Street Plan to eliminate the eastern extension of Cliffs Boulevard, a proposed minor arterial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
Di ision Head
City Attorney
Department Director
Finance & Internal Services Dir.
/
Chief inistrativ- Officer
Mayor
ate
Date
f t -I 7-Q3
Date
/l6-lq_D
Date
d
ate
Received in Mayor's Office
Cross Reference:
Previous Ord/Res#:
Orig. Contract Date:
Orig. Contract Number.
New Item:
/40//V/0.3
Date
Yes No
•
FAYETTEVILLE
TNT CITY OF FAYETTEVIIIE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division
1
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman CY\
City Clerk Division
Date: December 22, 2003
Re: Res. No. 194-03
Attached please find an executed copy of the above referenced ordinance passed by the City
Council, December 16, 2003, approving relocating Cliffs Boulevard and amending the Master
Street Plan.
The resolution will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilmed. If anything else is needed
please let the city clerk's office know.
/cbp
Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor
John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering