The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About150-07 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 150-07 A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 07-2574 FOR LIBERTY BANK BY MODIFYING CONDITION #3 AND ALLOWING THE BANKS REQUESTED CURB CUT ON JOYCE BLVD. WHEREAS, on July 23rd, 2007, the Fayetteville Planning Commission approved LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank) after denying the bank's request for a curb cut on Joyce Blvd.; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2007, the property owner/developer properly appealed this decision to the Fayetteville City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 determines that the Liberty Bank's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the bank's request (by a 4 to 4 vote) for a curb cut on Joyce Blvd. should be granted such that LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank) is amended by modifying Condition of Approval #3 to allow a two way in and right turn only exit curb cut on Joyce Blvd. as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. LSD 07-2574 remains fully approved with this one modification. PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of August, 2007. APPROVED. By: DA COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: U-• G\S Y O c • � • • :FAYETTEVILLE; 2. %9J'9 MNs: Jam'`:evsNixtu SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer Added aI 7/30ri J July 24, 2007 City Clerk City of Fayetteville City Administration Building 113 West Mountain Street Room 308 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE: Liberty Bank of Fayetteville CTS Job No. 071019-00 Dear Sir or Madam: x/7/07 0 479.636.48381 479 631 6224 4265 W7167 ISO 1-1/45.1)5 79i Crofton Tull Sparks L1berty www.craftontullsparks.com architecture 1 engineering Birmingham Connay Little Rock Oklahema City Rogers Russellville Tusa Wichita I am writing this letter on behalf of my client Liberty Bank to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2007 for project LSD 07-2574 condition of approval number 3. The Planning Commission did not approve item 3 (which was to allow a curb cut onto Joyce Boulevard) on a 4 to 4 split vote. The decision to deny this access was based on the opinion that adequate access was being provided for and per city code item 166.05, 7, d, iv which states a development can be denied based on 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. We demonstrated with empirical sight specific data that this was not the case and that in fact the turning movements for this drive off of Joyce would be as safe as the proposed signalized intersection at Joyce and Vantage. It should be noted that neither the staff nor the planning commissioners had any data to contradict our findings. Secondly it was the commission's position that adequate access was being provided by a dedicated drive off of Vantage Drive and a private drive directly north of our site. In actuality, this is incorrect. After analyzing these drives it was determined that during the peak pm hour, when most of the customers will be visiting the bank, Vantage Drive southbound traffic will back up so far that both drives will be blocked by waiting traffic and it will be nearly impossible to enter the bank site except at the mercy of the opposing traffic. It should also be noted that our curb cut request onto Joyce Boulevard does not require any waivers or variances and fully complies with the City of Fayetteville codes and ordinances. I have attached a drawing showing the curb cut that we are asking for as well as the numerical data showing the operation of the curb cut on Joyce Street. We also showed in our opinion what will happen to the drive off Vantage Drive during the pm peak hour. In addition I will show two videos to model at the council meeting the traffic patterns with and without the curb cut onto Joyce Boulevard. If you should have any questions concerning this request please feel free to contact me at 479- 636-4838. Respectfully, Grafton, Tull, Sparks &�Assoociates, Inc. eW/ Cede: L• Daniel P. Ellis, P.E., CPESC Vice President iruiVrdl 111 I r I I I 1 1 RECEIVED JUL 262007 CITY OF FAYETTFVI-Lk CRY CLERK'S Of Fier z cn0 s o z U O U • ul • K ti w 0 W � � w G O K a i Q a wossiodsllNuoial mmm P&9' 1£9'6L/:%V4 8t9t 9C9'6LI 9SLZL W &Lebo?' OW 0410S'lae4S %L4 106 s pods Ilnj uoyoio utitcbS Jia 1 hJ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 07-2574 FOR LIBERTY BANK BY MODIFYING CONDITION #3 AND ALLOWING THE BANK'S REQUESTED CURB CUT ON JOYCE BLVD. WHEREAS, on July 23rd, 2007, the Fayetteville Planning Commission approved LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank) after denying the bank's request for a curb cut on Joyce Blvd.; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2007, the property owner/developer properly appealed this decision to the Fayetteville City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 determines that the Liberty Bank's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the bank's request (by a 4 to 4 vote) for a curb cut on Joyce Blvd. should be granted such that LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank) is amended by modifying Condition of Approval #3 to allow a two way in and right turn only exit curb cut on Joyce Blvd. as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. LSD 07-2574 remains fully approved with this one modification. PASSED and APPROVED this 7`h day of August, 2007. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer a a LIBERTY BANK FAYETTEVILLE, AR bW ------------ _ spy Crofton Tull Sparks e 901 N. 0• Street Suite 200 Rogers. AR 22756 4]9.636.1838 F?az 09.6314221 www.crofontulsporkscom architecture 1 engineering EXHIBIT I A 0o(44 RR4 6( w Sea ms.. 7///n ALDERMAN AGENDA REQUEST FORM ez 8/7/g7 FOR: COUNCIL MEETING OF August 07, 2007 :64.1Zcl 3(SD 07 -esi57i/ FROM: Bobby Ferrell ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT: LSD 07-2574 Liberty Bank Large Scale Development - Appeal for a curb cut An appeal filed by the property owner's representative to contest the decision by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2007 to affirm a condition of approval of the subject large scale development requiring the removal of a curb cut from Joyce Blvd. APPROVED FOR AGENDA: Alderman Bobby Ferrell 4/Z7 Date p�. sl.o3 Date • City Council Meeting of August 07, 2007 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning8 Date: July 30, 2007 Subject: Large Scale Development for Liberty Bank (LSD 07-2574) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal of the condition of approval #3 for LSD 07-2574 Liberty Bank, approved by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2007, and recommends the large scale develoment approval be affirmed as approved, with all conditions. BACKGROUND The subject property contains approximately 2.68 acres and is located at the northwest corner of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive, just east and south of the Bellafont development. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story bank building containing a total 21,613 square feet with 76 parking spaces. The Planning Commission approved the large scale development subject to conditions of approval. The applicant is appealing condition of approval #3, which reads as follows: #3: Planning Commission determination of curb -cuts and appropriate locations. Staff is not supportive of the proposed curb -cut onto Joyce Boulevard, finding that the additional turning movements created by the requested curb -cut will increase the potential for traffic conflicts on a highly traveled and high speed principal arterial street. As noted in Figure No. 8 in the submitted traffic study, a high number of vehicle turning movements will be created by the proposed curb -cut that will likely conflict with through traffic on Joyce and east bound traffic attempting to utilize the turning lane to access Vantage Drive. Sufcient access to serve the proposed development was planned and is available to the property via Vantage Drive (a Collector Street), which is signalized, and a private drive that connects from Vantage Drive to another signalized intersection at the entrance to Bellafont at Joyce Blvd. Please reference additional information submitted by the Engineering Division (memo dated July 19, 2007), along with the articles of reference. The Planning Commission determined in favor of staff's recommendation. Staff recommended approval of the subject development proposal, however recommended denial of a direct curb -cut onto Joyce Boulevard. Staff finds that safe and adequate access is being provided to the property at three other points, and that the proposed 2 -lane access to Joyce Blvd. would create a dangerous traffic condition in proximity to two planned and funded traffic signals, one of which is now operational. City Council Meeting of August 07, 2007 Agenda Item Number The proximity of the signals, with multiple turning movements, a vertical and horizontal curve in the road that reduces visibility, and traffic on Joyce Blvd. lead staff to the conclusion that the direct access to the Vantage/Joyce signal and indirect access to the Bellafont drive/Joyce signal achieves a high level of access to the subject property, and recommends removal of the access point to Joyce Blvd. The property has direct access to Vantage Drive to the east and to a private drive to the north, which was planned for shared access to this bank when the Bellafont development was approved. It is staffs opinion that an additional curb -cut in this location will contribute to a decrease in traffic safety for motorists and pedestrians in the area and will contribute to the degradation of the function of the principal arterial. It has been substantiated that poor access management results in a greater increase in traffic congestion and traffic accidents, as has recently been discussed pertaining to College Avenue. Please reference the attached supplemental materials within the staff report for more information. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 in favor of this project, with all conditions as recommended by staff, including the removal of the curb -cut to Joyce Blvd. Commissioners cited traffic safety as the primary reason for denying the curb cut. A previous vote to retain the curb -cut failed with a 4-4-0 vote. BUDGET IMPACT None. July 24, 2007 City Clerk City of Fayetteville City Administration Building 113 West Mountain Street Room 308 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE: Liberty Bank of Fayetteville CTS Job No. 071019-00 Dear Sir or Madam: I*0 Grafton Tull Sparks achiledure 1 engineering farmingliam Canny Lille Rod Mauna Gay Fluters Russellville TUG Wichita I am writing this letter on behalf of my client Liberty Bank to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2007 for project LSD 07-2574 condition of approval number 3. The Planning Commission did not approve item 3 (which was to allow a curb cut onto Joyce Boulevard) on a 4 to 4 split vote. The decision to deny this access was based on the opinion that adequate access was being provided for and per city code item 166.05, 7, d, iv which states a development can be denied based on "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. We demonstrated with empirical sight specific data that this was not the case and that in fact the turning movements for this drive off of Joyce would be as safe as the proposed signalized intersection at Joyce and Vantage. It should be noted that neither the staff nor the planning commissioners had any data to contradict our findings. Secondly it was the commission's position that adequate access was being provided by a dedicated drive off of Vantage Drive and a private drive directly north of our site. In actuality, this is incorrect. After analyzing these drives it was determined that during the peak pm hour, when most of the customers will be visiting the bank, Vantage Drive southbound traffic will back up so far that both drives will be blocked by waiting traffic and it will be nearly impossible to enter the bank site except at the mercy of the opposing traffic. It should also be noted that our curb cut request onto Joyce Boulevard does not require any waivers or variances and fully complies with the City of Fayetteville codes and ordinances. I have attached a drawing showing the curb cut that we are asking for as well as the numerical data showing the operation of the curb cut on Joyce Street. We also showed in our opinion what will happen to the drive off Vantage Drive during the pm peak hour. In addition I will show two videos to model at the council meeting the traffic patterns with and without the curb cut onto Joyce Boulevard. If you should have any questions concerning this request please feel free to contact me at 479- 636-4838. Respectfully, (Grafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. Daniel P. Ellis, P.E., CPESC Vice President RECEIVED JUL 26MT CITY OF FAYc1'YLt CRY CLERK'S Off iCr rnllio111111r1111 LIiliLill11111ii11i ill .1111.1111111;1H11tii 11111111111.1.1.11! ililil11il1 il:llli Id] 1.11.1 Iill ill i!iIll! 11111III! 11111 19' 1 • • I I uJ I ____ say wo>andsyyuoHornen.., Mir IE9'6L9:%Y3 13C9S, Wirjai 9SE% 'CMD0a (I� OIWS'1661S.L/'N 196 s)Iiodg pnl uo}JDJ3 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479-575-8206 ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Members Glenn E. Newman, Jr., P.E., Staff Engineer July 19, 2007 Liberty Bank Access Management At the June 25th Planning Commission Meeting, engineering staff was asked to evaluate the "safety" of allowing a direct driveway access to Joyce Street for the Liberty Bank Project. Addresses Left Turn Movements: Based on research, left -turns are involved in a high proportion of crashes for access drives (47% ingress & 27% egress) as shown on the attached exhibit. The left turn maneuvers involve a heavier driver work Load which increases the decision making process and possible driver error. Therefore, minimizing left -tum movements or reducing the driver work load can be effective in improving safety. This can be accomplished at a signalized intersection with a protected left tum arrow which is available at the comer of the property at Vantage and Joyce Street and/or at the intersection of Bellafont and Joyce Street (which provides internal connectivity to this site.) With the two signalized intersections within immediate proximity of this development, we recommend that the access point be denied for reasons stated above. Addresses Access onto Arterial Roadways: Access Management is the second reason for recommendation for denial of the driveway request. According to research, the cumulative affect of commercial driveways on to a roadway decreases the volume capacity and increases accidents on the thoroughfare. The lack of adequate access management and the proliferation of driveways is the greatest single factor behind the functional deterioration of arterial roadways. Joyce Street is classified as a principle arterial which primary purpose is to facilitate the movement of traffic, not access. With the anticipation of future development in the area and increase traffic volume on Joyce Street, we recommend that the three other points of access be used to service the site rather than contributing to decreasing the capacity of the principle arterial with another driveway when adequate safe access is readily available. Addresses the Traffic Study Provided: We have reviewed the latest Addendum to the traffic study prepared by Peters and Associates and acknowledge they have increased the traffic volumes to reflect the 2006 Bellefont Traffic Study prepared by Carter and Burgess. The report only includes trip generation numbers and level of service for the proposed access points. The report does NOT address the specific question asked by the planning commissioners regarding safety. Therefore for reasons stated above, the Engineering Division does not support the proposed direct access to Joyce Boulevard. As a side note. The Bellafont Site Access Study recommends improving traffic flow along Joyce by relieving existing congestion and delays: One recommendation is to Realign/Combine/Eliminate drives and streets near the intersection of the frontage road to help eliminate conflicts. 16% 27% 10% CZ% a—an 47% Percentage of Driveway Crashes by Movement Source. Reference (2) Figure 2 er 1998 19 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MATERIALS SUPPLEMENT ACCESS 111ANAGEMF.NT WORKSHOP Little RocA.:I rhuusuc 1'R11.1 N TR.4A'.S'PORT 1 TIO,S' RESE I RC!/ CENTER FOR 4. PRESERVING THE FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY OF THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM The link between an efficient transportation system and economic activity and land use is greatly recognized even though the linkage may not be well understood- The roadway system must provide both access to property and movement of goods and people. Traffic engineers have long recognized that the elimination of unexpected events, slmnlifiratnn f rnnflirt arms and the se .aration of decision • s ints /I 11- • • • • 0 k Since access management reduces the complexity of traffic conflicts as well as increases the spacing of events to which the driver must respond, it will result in improved traffic operations and reduced accident expenence. Various research efforts have explored the general relationships between accidents and medial and marginal access control. 4.1 The Failure to Manage Access Results in High Crash Rates and Highway Obsolescence The Failure to Manage Access is the Major Cause of Highway Obsolescence With a notable exception of freeways, urban arterials and lughways m the developing urban fringe commonly experience a deterioration in their ability to accommodate traffic in a safe and efficient manner as travel demand increases. This problem results from the requirement that the facility must serve the conflicting functions of providing for land access and vehicular movements. Solomon (2) reflected the observations of many engineers and planners when he stated: "When conventional highways are constricted on new rights-of-way, initially there are few commercial driveways and the safety record is good. As the highways get older, the traffic volume builds up, roadside businesses develop, more and more commercial dnveways are cut, and the accident rate gradually increases." Solomon concludes: "This demonstrates the importance of maintaining control of access when either two-lane or multi -lane highways are ether intersections or driveways alone will also increase the accident rate. Intersections should be restricted to those November 1998 16 ACCESS MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP CENTER FOR Little Rod', : Irl.mrun URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RCN essential for the highway, and the right (direct) access from abutting businesses should be severely limited." McGuirk (3) further established the fact that accidents at access drives increase as both through -lane traffic volumes and driveway volumes increase. The problem has also been recognized in the following quote from the State Highway Access Code of Colorado (4): The tack of adequate access management on the highway system and the proliferation of driveways and other access approaches is a major contributor to highway accidents and the greatest single factor behind the functional deterioration of highways in the state As new access approaches are constructed and traffic signals erected, the speeds and capacity of the highway decrease, and congestion hazards to the traveling motorist increase." Effective Access Management • Reduces crashes by as much as 50% • Increases capacity 23-45% • Extends life of the highway • Consistent treatment of applicants for access permits • Protects investment in abutting property • Reduces travel time and delay by 40-60% • Decreases fuel consumption by 35% • Reduces vehicular emissions • Reduces transportation costs Effective management of access location, control and design can result in : Improvement of the safety, public health and welfare — 50% or more of the traffic crashes on urban arterials are access related. Ng • Increase of capacity and reduction in congestion by controlling left and right turns, lateral friction, and speed of access and egress. Capacity can be increased by 25 - 45% with access control. 17 November 1998 ACCESS N1ANACE11ENT ROItKSHOP CENTER 1118 Little Roct.: I rbmnm CRR: f % TR.I:''SPORT.1 TIU.\' RESE:1 Rt it • Extension of the functional life of existing highways, by preserving or increasing their capacity, reducing the need for new capital construction to meet increasing system demands. • Assurance of consistent and equitable treatment for all applicants for access permits. • Protection of the economic viability of abutting properties and private investments in arterial comdors — congestion, delays and unsafe conditions will drive prospective clients and shoppers to other less congested locations. • Reduction of travel time and delay, by 40-60% as a result of fewer stops, and smoother traffic flow. • Decrease in the amount of energy consumption by 35-50%, due to reduced stops and fewer deceleration and acceleration cycles. • Reduction of the amount of vehicle emissions by reducing stops, deceleration and acceleration. • Reduced costs of travelers, commercial shipments and services. November 1998 18 ACCESS $]AN.AGEMENT WORKSHOP CENTER FOR Little Rock,ArAmssas URBAN T24 SPORT.AT(O.YRESEARCH 4.2 Left -Turns are Involved in a High Proportion of Crashes Nearly three-fourths of the crashes which are access dnve related involve left -turns. As illustrated in Figure 2, nearly one-half (47%) involve left - turn ingress maneuvers. Another 27% involve the left -turn egress maneuver. The left -tum maneuvers, especially left -tum ingress, involve a heavy driver work load which increases the difficulty of a driver seemg a pedestrian or bicyclist about to cross the access drive. Consequently, those access management techniques which mtnimi7e left -turns or reduce the driver work load can be expected to be especially effective m improving safety. Percentage of Driveway Crashes by Movement Source: Reference (2) Fi r November 1998 19 ACCESS MANAGEMENT \1'ORKSHOP CENTER FOR Little Ruch.: 11/1 ama s 1 RB I;'V TR I N'SPORTI TIO.\' RE.tiE: I RC11 5. WHO BENEFITS FROM ACCESS MANAGEMENT? Who Benefits from Access Management? • Motorists • Pedestrians and Bicyclists • Bus Riders • Property Owners • General Public Motorists • Fewer crashes • Reduce travel time • Reduce travel delay • Lower fuel consumption Pedestrians and Bicyclists • Fewer driveways mean fewer conflicts with vehicles • Pedestrian refuge in median • Fewer pedestrian and cyclist deaths and injuries Bus Riders • Reduce travel time • Improved schedule reliability Property Owners • Preserves pnvate investment • Limits through traffic in residential areas November 1998 20 General Public • Helps stabilize land use patterns • Encourages coordination of land use and transportation decisions • Preserves the public investment in major thoroughfares • Fewer deaths and injuries resulting from vehicular crashes and vehicular — pedestrian/cyclist crashes • Reduced loss in property damage • Reduce vehicular emissions • Supports and helps maintain livable communities 21 November 1998 Chapter 9 Driveway Location Exhibit 74 JOINT AND CROSS ACCESS PROVIDES DRIVERS WITH BETTER LEFT TURN ABILITY Getting people to signals for left turns across high volume roads is critical! Exhibit 75 DRIVEWAY LENGTH Interconnected developments give customers and deliveries more options, especially for safe left turns. It is easier to provide cross and joint access if it is planned at the beginning of a development process. At that time you will have the ability to layout access systems and allow good separation between these accesses. Many local governments have already addressed these issues in their land development regulations by providing requirements for joint and cross access with large neighboring developments and small corner out parcels. There are some challenges associated with joint and cross access in retrofit situations. In these situations you are usually dealing with a group of small shallow land parcels where joint access has never been considered in the past. One of the major problems associated with producing new joint and cross access is that the cross access points are often close to the driveway entrances. This proximity may prevent having adequate driveway depth (See Chapter 6 Driveway length). In retrofit situations you should consider the volume of traffic using these driveway entrances and exits and the volume of traffic crossing close by to determine whether these situations with a relatively shallow driveway depth will cause an internal traffic circulation difficulty. Signing and landscaping may also help in these tighter situations on cross access in retrofit situations. FDOT Driveway Handbook March 2005 a '�ttMie ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner • Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: July 1�l8x007 Updated July 25, 2007 PC Meeting of July 23, 2007 125W Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 :phone: (479) 575-8267 LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (LIBERTY BANK, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for 21,613 s.f. bank with associated parking. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Findings: Background: The subject development proposal was heard by the Subdivision Committee on May 31, 2007. The request was tabled by the Subdivision Committee to allow the applicant additional time to work with City staff regarding a landscape waiver along the east property line and a proposed 4 -lane access onto Joyce Boulevard. Since the previous review, the applicant has revised the site plan to provide all required landscaping and has modified the curb -cut onto Joyce Blvd. to restrict left turns out of the development. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the project again on June 11, 2007. The discussion centered on the appropriateness of the curb -cut onto Joyce Boulevard and was forwarded to the full Planning Commission by a vote of 3-0-0. Staff has included minutes from both Subdivision Committee meetings. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on June 25, 2007 and the appropriateness of the curb -cut onto Joyce Boulevard was discussed at length. Additionally, the Planning Commission requested an updated landscape plan that considered the large drainage feature on the southeast comer of the property. Ultimately, the proposal was tabled to allow the applicant time to update the traffic study based on comments voiced by the Planning Commissioners, and to specifically address safety issues with the proposed access to Joyce Blvd. An updated landscape plan and traffic study has been submitted for review. Staff has included minutes from the Planning Commission meeting along with a memo from the Engineering Division describing staffs rationale for its recommendation to remove the curb -cut from Joyce Blvd. Property: The subject property contains approximately 2.68 acres and is located at the northwest comer of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive, just east of the Bellafont development. Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a two-story bank building containing a total 21,613 square feet with 76 parking spaces, which meets city codes for parking ratios. IC: Reports 120071PC Reports107-23-O7ILSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank Joyce,).doc Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Bellafont C-3 South Bank C-2 East Post Office R -O West Bellafont C-2 Right-of-way Dedication: Right-of-way shall be dedicated 55' from centerline for Joyce Boulevard (Principal Arterial) and 35' from centerline for Vantage Drive (Collector Street). Street Improvements: A 6' sidewalk is to be constructed along Vantage Drive and a 10' sidewalk/trail is to be constructed along Joyce Boulevard. Water/Sewer: The site is currently served by water and sewer. Tree Preservation: Existing Canopy: 0.0% Preserved Canopy: 0.0% Required Canopy: 0.0% Mitigation: Not required Access/Connectivity: The subject property has a high level of access and street connectivity (reference Bellafont Master Plan). Access is currently proposed as follows: 1) One access from Vantage Drive, a Collector Street to the east; 2) Two access drives from the private street constructed as part of Bellafont to the north; and 3) a I -lane ingress and 1 -lane egress from Joyce Boulevard. Staff is supportive of all access points as proposed, with the exception of the access to Joyce Blvd. In 2004, when the subject tract was split out from a larger property, staff expressed concerns with the access to the property, and stated that with development, access to both Vantage and Joyce would need to be evaluated to ensure safe access and traffic movements north and west of the future signalized intersection of Vantage and Joyce. Additionally, during the master plan development of Bellafont, a large mixed -use development to the west, north and east of this property, access to the Liberty Bank site was planned by way of the private drive to the north, in an effort to reduce or eliminate additional curb -cuts to Joyce Blvd., a Principal Arterial. At this time, staff finds that the proposed 2 -lane access to Joyce Blvd. would create a dangerous traffic condition in proximity to two planned and funded traffic signals, on of which is now operational. The proximity of the signals, with multiple turning movements, a vertical and horizontal curve in the road that reduces visibility, and traffic on Joyce Blvd. lead staff to the conclusion that the direct access to the Vantage/Joyce signal and indirect access to Bellafont drive/Joyce signal achieves a high level of access to the subject property, and recommends removal of the access point to Joyce Blvd. It is staffs opinion that an additional curb -cut in this location will decrease traffic safety for motorists and pedestrians in the area. Traffic Study: The traffic study performed for the subject development was undertaken to evaluate existing vehicular traffic flow and traffic volume, and to determine the impact of the traffic generated by the development on current conditions with respect to ingress and egress. These quantitative measurements were then used to calculate the level of service for pre- and post -development. However, the level of service is not an assessment of traffic safety. Staff finds that the level of service is adequate with the removal of the left-hand turn out of the development; however, staffs concerns are with traffic safety in terms of traffic volume, traffic speeds, visibility of vehicles entering and existing Joyce Blvd., the potential for vehicular conflicts within the center turn lane in close proximity to a signalized intersection, and the potential for vehicular/pedestrian conflicts along the 10' wide multi -use trail. K:IReporrs120071PC Reportsl07-23-071LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank_Joyce) The original traffic study did not take into consideration additional traffic created by approved developments in the vicinity of the subject property. Accordingly, the applicant has resubmitted the traffic study with traffic generation data that was provided by a previous traffic study conducted as part of the Bellafont development. When comparing the original and the updated projected traffic conditions, it is apparent that the level of service has decreased. This is not solely due to the vehicle trips expected from the proposed development, but rather the overall increase in vehicle trips produced by multiple developments in the area. As the areas along Joyce Boulevard continue to develop and the City's population continues to grow, the level of service along Joyce Boulevard will continue to decrease. In staffs opinion, effective access management practices will increase capacity and ultimately prolong the life of our road systems. As noted with the previous traffic study conducted for this area, one recommendation made by that traffic engineer to improve traffic flow along Joyce Blvd. is to realign/combine/eliminate drives and streets near the frontage road intersection to help eliminate conflicts. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of LSD 07-2574 with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Staff recommends approval of the proposed elevations, finding that the elevations submitted meet the criteria set forth for commercial design standards. 6/25/07: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS. 7/23/07: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS. 2. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends that a 10' sidewalk be constructed at the Master Street Plan right-of-way along Joyce Boulevard and a 6' sidewalk along Vantage Drive. The sidewalk along Vantage Drive shall be located within a pedestrian access easement as it is located outside of the right-of-way to match the sidewalk constructed as part of the Bellafont development. 6/25/07: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 7/23/07: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS. Planning Commission determination of curb -cuts and appropriate locations. Staff is not supportive of the proposed curb -cut onto Joyce Boulevard, finding that the additional turning movements created by the requested curb -cut will increase the potential for traffic conflicts on a highly traveled and high speed principal arterial street. As noted in Figure No. 8 in the submitted traffic study, a high number of vehicle turning movements will be created by the proposed curb -cut that will likely conflict with through traffic on Joyce and east bound traffic attempting to utilize the turning lane to access Vantage Drive. Sufficient access to serve the proposed development was planned and is available to the property via Vantage Drive (a Collector Street), which will soon be signalized, and a private drive that connects from Vantage Drive to another signalized intersection at the entrance to Bellafont at Joyce Blvd. Please reference additional information submitted by the Engineering Division (memo dated K:IReports 120071PC Reports 107-23-071LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank_Joyce).doc July 19, 2007), along with the articles of reference. 6/25/07: ITEM TABLED. NO DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 7/23/07: THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CURB -CUT ONTO JOYCE BLVD. FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4-4-0. 4. The project is located within Mud Creek bridge assessment area. Based on the rational nexus calculation, the developer shall be responsible for paying $50,232.00 to the City of Fayetteville for delayed off -site improvements for the construction of a bridge over Mud Creek prior to building permit approval. See attached memo from Engineering Department. 5. The applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner (City of Fayetteville) to construct off -site improvements. 6. The signs for the Liberty Bank and Bellafont developments shall be removed from the property owned by the City of Fayetteville and shall be relocated to each of the respective properties, as off -site signs are prohibited in the City of Fayetteville. Real estate signs are limited to 8 sq. ft. for residential office zoning districts and 32 sq. ft. for commercial zoning districts, and shall be located at least 10' from the street. 7. Street lights are required at every intersection and with maximum separation of one per 300' on all surrounding streets and shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 55' from centerline for Joyce Blvd. and 35' from centerline for Vantage Dr. shall be dedicated by easement plat. 9. Large scale development approval does not assure sign permit approval. All proposed signs shall be permitted separately from the large scale development proposal by a Sign Permit application and Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Additionally, all flags shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 174 Signs prior to installation. 10. All water/landscape features shall be reviewed for compliance with building setbacks if applicable and location in relation to utility lines and easements. 11. The following revision shall be made to the site plan prior to building permit: a. Update the parking table to reflect a total of 78 parking stalls. b. Update the parking table to reflect a parking ratio of I space/200 sq. ft. of bank area and I space/300 sq. ft. of office area, as referenced in the traffic study. c. Shift the tree islands on the east and west sides of the property, so that there are no more than 12 consecutive spaces. 12. Show all utilities and easements on the landscape plan and take into consideration the location of the street/parking lot lights. 13. At the time of construction drawings the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. K:lReports120071PC Reports 107-23-071/SD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank Joyce). doe 14. The applicant shall comply with and/or address all comments listed in the attached memos from the Engineering Division, prior to revisions submittal for Planning Commission. 15. The applicant shall comply with and/or address all comments listed in the attached memos from the Urban Forester, prior to revision submittal for Planning Commission Standard conditions of approval: 16. 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). 17. 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. 18. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut -sheets are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street. The trash enclosures shall be constructed with materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building. A detail of the proposed screening shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building permit. Any additional dumpsters located on site shall be screened from the right-of-way 20. All mechanical/utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened using materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this requirement. 21. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size, type, number, etc. Any proposed signs shall be permitted by a separate sign permit application prior to installation. 22. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 23. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 24. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscaping is to be submitted to the Landscape Administrator for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area and K: IReports120071PC Reportsi07-23-071LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank_Joyce).doc all utility easements. d. Project Disk with all final revisions e. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans including tree preservation measures submitted to the Landscape Administrator. f. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 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. Additional conditions: Planning Commission Action: 4 Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled Meeting Date: July 23, 2007 Motion: Graves Second: Myers Vote: 8-0-0 (Motion to approve as recommended by staff) 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: IReportsl20071PC Reports07-23-071SO07-2574 (Liberty Bank_Joyce).doc FAYETTEVILLE TILE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 West Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 479-575-8206 To: Jesse Fulcher, Planner Date: June 12, 2007 From: Glenn E. Newman, Jr., P.E., Staff Engineer Re: Plat Review Comments (June 14, 2007 Subdivision Committee Meeting) Development: Liberty Bank of Arkansas — LSD — 07-2574 Engineer: Crafton, Tull, Sparks, & Associates 1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets and drainage). Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements, and all proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. 2. A floodplain development permit is required for any work done within the 100-yr floodplain. 3. Elevation certificates will be required prior to building permit for each of the structures. 4. Prior to building permit, bonds in the amount of 150% of the construction cost for all public improvements will need to be submitted. 5. This project is located in the assessment area for the future bridge over Mud Creek. 6. Provide a pedestrian access easement for the sidewalk located along Vantage Drive 7. Remove driveway access from Joyce Street. 8. If the driveway access from Joyce is not eliminated, the runoff must be captured before entering the right of way or the capacity and spread of the downstream inlets must be analyzed. Downstream improvements maybe required. 9. Remove the proposed water feature from the proposed 20 ft UE along Joyce. 10. Remove truncated domes and ramps from driveway approaches. 11. Construct all driveways to City of Fayetteville's Commercial Driveway Standards. The sidewalk shall be continuous through driveways with a maximum of 2% cross slope and elevated 2% above top of theoretical curb. Remove lines representing curbs through the sidewalk section (in the driveway) from the drawing. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete with a broom finish. 12. Provide a drainage easement for the existing drainage ditch on the southeast corner of the property. 13. Provide written pemlission from the property owner to the west to grade within 5 ft of the property line. Engineering Comments Page 1 of 2 14. Any retaining wall more than four feet in height shall be designed by a registered professional engineer and shall be field inspected by the design engineer. 15. Provide a minimum 20 ft Utility Easement for the proposed water main along Vantage, a least 10 ft from the water line. 16. Sanitary sewer service for commercial buildings and/or 4 plex or greater shall connect to the sanitary sewer main with a manhole. 17. Do not cross the existing drainage channel at the south east corner of the property to make the sanitary sewer service. Connect to the new sanitary sewer system north of the west driveway in the Bellafont Development (Manhole 1 B elev 1205.16) as shown on the attached drawing. 18. Add an inlet in place of the 4 ft flume and pipe through rather than over the retaining 19. Inlet and pipe sizing will be reviewed at the time construction drawings are submitted. Engineering Comments Page 2 of 2 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479-575-8206 ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Glenn E. Newman, Jr., P.E., Staff Engineer DATE: May 30, 2007 SUBJECT: Liberty Bank Bridge Assessment The following is the Engineering Division's cost estimate for the Mud Creek Bridge assessment: BRIDGE OVER MUD CREEK: The following is a rational nexus calculation for this offsite improvement: Approximate Vantage Road Bridge dimensions: Length —150 L.F.; Width — 56'; Surface Area of Decking — 8,400 s.f. Projected Traffic from development — 2,467 (From Traffic Study) Assume 33% of vehicle trips will use the intersection of Vantage/Joyce — 822 vpd Assume 33% of vehicles using this intersection will use the bridge — 274 vpd Collector Street traffic capacity = 6,000 vpd % Traffic from development =4.6% Mud Creek Bridge Costs: 8,400 s.f.($130.00/s.f.) = $1,092,000 Liberty Bank Percentage of Costs: 0.046($1,092,000.00) =$50.232.00 F From: Brian Pugh To: Fulcher, Jesse; Garner, Andrew Date: 6/13/07 4:01 PM Subject: Subdivision Committee 6-14-07 LSD 07-2574 (Liberty Bank of Arkansas) - Dumpster enclosure location okay, but cannot determine size ) of enclosure. Please make enclosure 15' wide and 12' deep and note on plans. Brian Pugh Waste Reduction Coordinator Fayetteville Solid Waste and Recycling 479-718-7685 479-444-3478 Fax 1 • . . 1 , 1 1 I • . I 1 . . . . 1 . • I S'' '',� ! x 't^' v �'.7'; c:.A�'i,'# ,�* c . ° � �'�{n �." VQ m°R 1 Z -pe. �i 9 m f ) Y w A: rA+r'�^A°'�✓ar N.. '•N.G.✓.M'A+—A Y'a-V.3 fl K9M`Rh =%�'� �4 es��+be�--.t 4 S(,Y ae�o yh fkn%'it� k i315i �' t.t., }'t. �i .4{ry ®� fl ®- Ci'' V x r S" !!^ > > T fYe 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1landscaping 2 5`. " � e ° ' •'•" T"' + v we (s m�a� � d r _ a ..`. .. .. t'',. � .� '- .. ..I ft, .., .',, .. . .. ... �{'i✓. �v. 4..S° ,..... .. _i. 'e� Ft ,..uYc� ... ,E fig. � ' fl-tifl 1 .. •...•, ....• . fl- ' 1 1 , ' I 1•1 1 1 1 I 1 ii - fl 1 1, 1 11 1 ' 1 NA 1 deciduous or evergreen tree/ 3000 square feet NA 4 large shrubs (3 gal) or small trees / 3000 square feet NA 6 shrubs or grasses (1 gal) / 3000 square feet NA Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified NA 50% of facility planted with grass or grass like plants Conditions of Approval: i. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscape is to be submitted to the Urban Forester for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Under the new Landscape Regulations Chapter 177, street trees must be bonded for a 3 year period. This bond is for the maintenance of the trees. This amount must be deposited with the City before issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Taye vl - ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of July 23, 2007 PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE To: Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester Date: July 19, 2OO7 Subject: Technical Plat Review Comments 113W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3470 ITEM #: LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (Liberty Bank of Arkansas) TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 1. A Tree Preservation Waiver has been submitted for this project as there are no trees on the site. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVH.LE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephoue:(479)575-9267 PLANNING DIVISION Faa(479)575-8202 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN WAIVER FORM Location: 5 r Verification Submitted: Signed by the Landscape Administrator: Date: Tree Mitigation Base Density/Off Site Alternatives Febnmry 2004 Page 20 Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. Crafton, lull, Sparks & Associat'es, Inc. architects, engineers, landscape architects, interior designers & surveyors government ■ public works • parks &recreation • A ril 18 2007 residential ■ P commercial• transportation ■ Planning Commission: industrial City of Fayetteville =mss • pintual 125 W. Mountain Street education ■ Fayetteville, AR 72701 health ■ Dear Planning Commission: This letter is to accompany the Large Scale Development application for the proposed Liberty Bank of Arkansas, located at the North West comer of Joyce Blvd. and Vantage Dr. in Fayetteville. This large scale development shall include the construction of a 21,613 S.F. bank and associated drives and parking area as well as a drive thru teller area. The area of the site is approximately 2.68 acres, all of which shall be disturbed during construction. For further details on the proposed development please refer to the Large Scale Development Plans and Drainage Report. O 0 ti C 0 N r^i www.craftontullsparks.com Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. architects, engineers, landscape architects, interior designers & surveyors government ■ J® public works • parks & recreation • residential commercial • transportation • industrial sports • spiritual U June 6, 2007 education ■ health ■ City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (Liberty Bank of Arkansas) The above referenced project has been modified since the previous submittal to the City of Fayetteville. As a result of modifications made, a waiver for the landscape buffer is no longer necessary. Efforts were made to reduce the size of the parking lot so as to not encroach on the required landscape buffer. Presently all Landscape Buffers are present as required. Recent modification to the Liberty Bank also included redesigning of the entrance drive 3 onto Joyce Blvd. Upon reviewing the results of the Traffic Study performed by Peter & — Associates, it was determined that a left out turn onto Joyce Blvd. might have a negative r effect on the flowing of traffic on Joyce. Therefore, modifications were made to the entrance to remove the left -out turn. All other entrances and exits were shown to have a high level of service to deal efficiently with traffic volumes on Joyce Blvd. Sincerely, o M tthew J. Castor Civil Engineer, E.I., CPESC C N N 0 0 -a z 0 A v Z3 S ^r Ct ro V. m N 0 0 www.craftontullsparks.corn SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 31, 2007 Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 9 of 10 LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for a 21,613 s.f bank with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described the request for the bank facility, and noted that there were two primary issues on the project to be discussed and decided. First, a greenspace waiver along Vantage Drive is being requested for a portion of the site. Staff is not recommending in favor of the waiver request, finding there are several options that should be pursued by the applicant to reduce or eliminate the need for the waiver request. These options were described. Secondly, staff is not supportive of the access to Joyce Blvd. as proposed. Reasons for this recommendation are outlined in the staff report; adequate access is provided to this site through three other points, and the increased turning movements onto and from Joyce in close proximity to Vantage is not advisable. Staff recommended forwarding the project to the full Planning Commission with these comments and recommendations. No public comment was presented. Matt Castor (applicant) presented the project for the applicant. Castor noted the access is central to the design of the site, and sets it apart from other banks. Castor described the traffic study that was conducted, which found levels of service A and B for most turning movements from the driveway, with the exception of the left -out, which was an F. Castor cited a traffic concern if the driveway was removed, because of excessive stacking from the drive -through. Castor offered to remove the left - out, and proposed to reduce the two-lane entrance to a one -lane entrance. The entry is the main focal point, and it is crucial to have access onto Joyce for the project. With regard to the landscape waiver, Castor discussed the circular design of the project reduces the ability to reduce parking stall width or length. Currently the project is at 39% greenspace, and enhancements to the area with benches, walkways, and a bio-retention facility is planned. He also questioned if the money -in -lieu assessment for Mud Creek Bridge was a negotiable fee. Howard Hamilton (applicant), president of Liberty Bank, stated the entrance is critical to the bank to set it apart, and is important for aesthetic reasons. Sarah Patterson, Urban Forester, stated she would like the opportunity to work with the applicant to see a reduced waiver or no waiver at all. Matt Casey, Asst. City Engineer, explained the assessment for the Mud Creek Bridge, and that there was a memo explaining the methodology in the Committee's packet. The same methodology was used for other projects in the immediate area for Mud Creek Bridge. Commissioner Trumbo asked if the assessment was negotiable. Casey replied that the assessment is a recommendation to the Planning Commission for this project's Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 10of10 share of the Mud Creek Bridge, and the actual determination is entirely up to the Commission. Commissioner Trumbo stated that in his years of service on the Planning Commission, he had not seen an assessment such as this negotiated. Hamilton asked if the amount was set by ordinance, or if it is a recommendation by staff. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, reiterated that the amount is a recommendation by staff to the Planning Commission, based on the established methodology. Pate further discussed the adjacent Bellafont development, which was required to pay for traffic signals, and improve all streets adjacent to Liberty Bank, including Vantage and Joyce, for which this project would normally be responsible. Commissioner Graves stated he was more inclined to table the project. The offer by the developer to reduce the entry onto Joyce could result in a different recommendation by staff, who would need sufficient time to review it. Additional time would also allow the developer and staff to get together regarding the landscape issues and options there. Pate stated that staff had actually sat down with the developer to discuss various options, and in consultation with the City Engineer and other staff, did not think staff could support Joyce Boulevard access for this project with the turning movements at the close traffic signal, more than sufficient access to other streets with less chance of conflict, and other issues concerning traffic safety. Commissioner Ostner stated he agreed with staffon the curb cut issue, and discussed his concerns. Commissioner Graves stated he appreciated staffs "on the fly" recommendation and comments, and is not prepared to recommend against staff's recommendation based on the information presented. He stated he is not prepared to make a finding against staffs recommendation if the project goes forward to the full Planning Commission. Castor discussed peak hour traffic and how stacking in the turn lane would function properly with the proposed access to Joyce Boulevard. Commissioner Trumbo discussed his experiences in West Fayetteville, near Steamboat Drive and Colorado Drive, and how there were no additional curb cuts onto Wedington in that vicinity. In his opinion, the traffic backs up because there is not enough access, and he disagrees with how it works, because traffic will cut across parking lots to get to other places. Trumbo stated he is not as concerned with access as others, and is not opposed to the curb cut. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to table the project. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion, and Commissioner Trumbo concurred. The motion to table passed 3-0. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 10.30 AM. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 2007 Subdivision Committee June 14, 2007 Page 2 of 11 Old Business: LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for a 21,613 s.f. bank with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described the request for the bank facility, and noted that changes had been made from the previous meeting at which this item was discussed. The landscape waiver was not longer requested, for modifications had been made to the site plan to meet regulations. Secondly, the access drive onto Joyce Blvd. had been modified to remove the left egress potential, and now has a separated entrance drive for left -in, right -in, and right -out turning movements. Staff is not supportive of the access to Joyce Blvd. as proposed. Reasons for this recommendation are outlined in the staff report; adequate access is provided to this site through three other points, and the increased turning movements onto and from Joyce in close proximity to Vantage is not advisable. Staff recommended forwarding the project to the full Planning Commission with these comments and recommendations. No public comment was presented. James Parks (applicant) stated that he understood there was not a lot of support for the entry from Joyce Blvd., but asked to move forward to the full Planning Commission for a determination. Howard Hamilton (applicant), president of Liberty Bank, stated the entrance is critical to the bank for aesthetics and appearance of the bank for the customers. He does not want customers to approach the bank from the back. Additionally, stacking onto Vantage Drive from cars in the drive-thru lanes was seen as a potential problem. He stated the development is doing a lot of things that aren't required, such as rain gardens and landscaping the city property at the comer of Vantage and Joyce. Commissioner Graves stated he was on the previous Subdivision Committee that reviewed this project, and the amendments the applicants said they would make have been made. The project was tabled due to the curb cut on Joyce Blvd. and the landscape waiver. The applicant has removed the left -out lane, and decreased the number of lanes going in. His stated concern was that the Committee has a traffic study stating the curb cut will work and a staff recommendation to the contrary. There is no objective traffic information presented by staff. Additionally, if the only way in is from Vantage or the rear, this seems to conflict with the drive-thru as designed. Graves' inclination is to support the applicant, based on the traffic study. The only thing that was an issue at the last meeting was this item. Graves stated he was in favor of staffs calculations on the bridge assessment. Commissioner Bryant asked about the culvert she saw on -site, if it is to be removed or landscaped with the project. She also commented that it is now down to the curb cut, and she is in favor of forwarding the project to the full Planning Commission for a review. Subdivision Committee June 14, 2007 Page 3 of l l Commissioner Lack asked if the full turn lane on Joyce existed in front of the bank, and how far the curb cut is from Vantage. Parks answered 220 feet, with stacking of 209 feet. Commissioner Lack asked the applicant if he looked at removing the left turn in, for a right -in, right -out only movement, to keep people from crossing traffic. The issue is stacking for the turn onto Vantage conflicting with stacking for the turn into the bank site. Parks stated that 209 feet of stacking is plenty of room. Hamilton stated the traffic study said it would not be an issue. Commissioner Lack asked Engineering staff to comment on the stacking, whether it was adequate or not. Matt Casey, Asst. City Engineer, stated that the standard stacking distance is 100 feet, and that distance increases with volume of traffic. The 209 feet should be sufficient. Commissioner Lack stated that answer made him more comfortable. He is not completely sold on the idea, but more comfortable with it. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the request with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff, but finding in favor of the proposed curb cut onto Joyce. Commissioner Bryant seconded the motion. Commissioner Lack concurred, the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 25, 2007 Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 12 of 21 New Business: LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for a 21,613 s.f. bank with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described the issues with access that has been the subject of much discussion with this project. Safety concerns were not addressed with the traffic study, only levels of service. Staff is concerned with the addition of this curb cut to a heavily traveled street, when direct access to two signalized intersections is available to this site. Staff recommended approval of the project as presented, with the exception of the Joyce Blvd. curb cut. Staff is in favor of Commercial Design Standards, and described the street improvements, bridge assessment and all other conditions as described in the staff report. Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, advised no there were no disagreements with the traffic study and concurred with traffic safety concerns with the proposed curb cut. No public comment was received. James Parks (applicant) with CTSA advised there was proven to be plenty of stacking distance, an additional 10-15' for left turn movements into Liberty. Additionally, the project would be beautifying the comer. Howard Hamilton (applicant) with Liberty Bank stated that Subdivision comments were significant. The traffic study indicated no problem with turning movements. He stated an example of how side streets can create even more issues. Additionally, drive-thru lanes are located on the back side of the building. The nice entry sets apart this bank from others; accessibility and visibility to front sets them apart. Commissioner Graves stated he saw this twice at Subdivision Committee. At the first meeting, the development allowed a left turn onto Joyce, and other waivers were discussed. At the second meeting, the applicant had removed the left turn onto Joyce. In the interim, the applicants had gotten a traffic study. Stacking was the primary concern at the second meeting by staff. Engineering said stacking distance should be enough for the turn lane. Based on comments from Engineering and traffic study, and if the only way to get on -site was at the rear, it could create problems. Despite staff comments, the Subdivision Committee had recommended unanimously for the curb cut. Commissioner Trumbo concurred with Commissioner Graves. Commissioner Lack advised that he chaired the other Subdivision Committee meeting and still had reservations about the curb cut. He would like to hear what staff has to say, and is more concerned with the information presented now about the traffic study not addressing traffic safety. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 13 of 21 Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed safety, level of service, and traffic studies in general. Pate read from the traffic study, which defines what level of service is. He also advised that when the 2004 lot split occurred that created this property, access was an issue. In 2006, when Bellafont was approved, access was required to be built for this site. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he thought all traffic studies addressed safety. Parks stated it wouldn't be ethical for an engineer to give a high level of service without taking into account safety. Hamilton stated an A through F system would seem to account for safety. Commissioner Ostner stated that he was not convinced it will be safe with a curve, a lot of traffic, and speed in the area. Commissioner Anthes spoke about the visibility issue with the curve and hill east to west. A drainage structure with a railing was also impeding vision. Staff anticipated this would be the case and required a service drive. She stated she was for approving the project, and finding in favor of staffs recommendations. Commissioner Graves advised that Subdivision Committee didn't have a tour, and that this was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a final determination. Parks asked if the visibility issue was eastbound on Joyce. Commissioner Anthes stated it was also westbound on Joyce, and anticipating the curb cut coming up. Parks advised that the entry will be highly visible, and the traffic signal should slow traffic. Commissioner Anthes stated if adequate access wasn't provided to this site, perhaps she would be willing to take a chance, but would err on side of safety because there is access to the site. Commissioner Trumbo stated he didn't see safety concerns as others did. Kit Williams, City Attorney, asked if a sight distance survey had been conducted for staff to make recommendations? Newman stated that he had visited the site to look into these issues. A Principal Arterial limits access, places cars onto side streets; a Principal Arterial is designed to move traffic. Based on topography, he felt it was a concern. Williams stated that if the concerns were that this is a safety issue the Planning Commissioners need further information that we don't have in front of us. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 14 of 21 Pate stated the burden would be on applicant to provide more information; staff is evaluating what they have submitted. Commissioner Anthes stated they don't always have hard and fast data. The experience on -site and long range plans for a Principal Arterial are both important to evaluate. Commissioner Ostner stated the City Attorney's comments seem different than the way they were previously advised. Ostner stated they should rely on the City engineer's degree, experience, etc. Williams stated if you were going to vote on safety issue, you should demand a traffic study. He stated he believes the City has the capability to conduct a traffic safety by Engineering. However, don't ask for a safety traffic study if it is going to be turned down based on other issues. Commissioner Graves stated he could not remember another example of a large scale development where access was turned down if not for safety. The Planning Commission is still talking about some issue of safety. He stated if it is not safe, he won't support it, but he doesn't have information to make that decision. Graves stated he would like, before voting against the curb cut, more information. No evidence has been presented other than opinion. He would rather see real information other than anecdotal evidence. Commissioner Lack advised he would echo Graves' comments. The only thing is safety. At this point he would have to depend on staff's recommendation. Commissioner Winston asked if a lot of work was occurring on the corner. Is the guard rail being taken out? Hamilton stated the rail is not going to be there, there will be a lot of landscaping. Commissioner Winston stated he sees fountains, landscaping, entry, etc. on the plans. The entrance should be clearly delineated with building and landscaping. Winston stated ifhe were using the bank, he would probably use the rear entries. Newman advised the handrail will remain for safety. Commissioner Ostner questioned the riprap, landscaping plan inconsistencies. The landscaping is not flushed out yet. The applicant and Commissioner discussed the plans' inconsistencies. Commissioner Ostner stated on the issue of safety versus wanting a boulevard, safety is the issue. Has the applicant considered a traffic study with safety being the focus? Parks stated he was not a traffic engineer. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 15 of 21 Commissioner Ostner stated if a different package of a traffic study was presented, with safety being the focus, perhaps that could aid. Williams asked the applicant that assuming safety is the issue, would you rather conduct another study, or see what the Planning Commission determines? Hamilton stated a concept that is safe. Commissioner Ostner stated he would make a motion to approve, but with staffs recommendation. Which would you prefer? Hamilton asked to get clear definitions of what they would need to provide. Commissioner Lack stated that he respected the applicant's desire to know what to provide, as well. Pate indicated the information that would need to be provided would be that which has been discussed: sight distance lines, turning movements, traffic from future development, how the traffic signals affect the traffic, etc. Staff and the Planning Commission have looked at other situations in the recent past — large scale developments — such as Nelson's Crossing and Malco, and determined whether the curb cuts presented were safe or not, with or without a traffic study. In the case of Malco, it was also on Joyce Boulevard, near a signalized intersection, and it was denied. In the case of Nelson's Crossing, a right -in and right -out was permitted, but it has been proven to fail and is not safe. Commissioner Lack stated that he would be looking for a scientific determination that this situation is safe. Commissioner Anthes stated right -in and right -out don't function well in other situations. Commissioner Lack asked if the traffic study showed that. Commissioner Trumbo stated Nelson's Crossing and Malco, he could see curb cuts not in these locations. However he does not think disallowing curb cuts is necessarily the best case. Commissioner Ostner stated he would like to see the study address actual vehicle speeds. Parks stated it is not an engineer's responsibility to enforce the law. Commissioner Ostner stated he understood that, but would like to see it as an option in the study. He asked staff how are traffic lights designed on arterials? Do they stop a lot of arterial traffic or side street traffic? Newman stated that arterials should be for moving more traffic, typically that traffic already on the arterial. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 16 of 21 Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to table the item to July 09. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo asked if approved, can it be appealed? Williams stated yes. Commissioner Anthes asked if all other issues had been addressed, for the applicant's benefit, so that something else doesn't come up? Conditions? Commissioner Winston stated he would like to see clarification on landscaping and handrails. Commissioner Anthes stated that for the next meeting, a traffic study and an updated submittal on landscaping was needed. She stated she just wanted the applicant to understand this is moving forward. Commissioner Ostner advised he is not partially approving. Parks asked if they provide a strong argument, would they be approved? Commissioner Anthes advised they can't answer that until they vote. Curb cuts are the issue. Parks asked could we appeal to City Council? Anthes answered yes. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed 8-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 23, 2007 Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 4 of 25 Old Business: LSD 07-2574: (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for a 21,613 s.f. bank with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the background of the request, which included previous discussions regarding the proposed curb -cut onto Joyce Blvd. The request had been tabled by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2007 to allow the applicant additional time to evaluate the safety of the proposed curb -cut and to include projected traffic counts from adjacent developments that had been approved for development. Staff does not find in favor of the proposed curb -cut, finding that it may create a dangerous traffic condition in proximity to two planned and funded traffic signals. The proximity of the signals, with multiple turning movements, a vertical and horizontal curve in the road that reduces visibility, and traffic on Joyce Blvd. lead staff to the conclusion that the direct access to the Vantage/Joyce signal and indirect access to Bellafont drive/Joyce signal on the two roads adjacent to this property achieves a high level of access to the subject property that is safer for future users and the general public, and recommends removal of the access point to Joyce Blvd. It is staffs opinion that an additional curb -cut in this location will decrease traffic safety for motorists and pedestrians in the area, and will contribute to the degradation of the Principal Arterial, as identified in the memo and supplemental information provided by the Engineering Division. Glen Newman, Staff Engineer, read a memo from the Engineering Department regarding the higher percentage of crashes associated with left turn movements, the use ofa protected turn signals and the function of an arterial road to move traffic. He referenced the traffic safety data provided to the Commissioners as statistical evidence that additional curb cuts onto arterials degrade the function of the arterial, which leads to increased traffic congestion and danger. No public comment received. Greg Simmons, Peters and Associates, was asked by the applicant to review the access point onto Joyce Blvd. The study reflected all turning movements from the site except the left turn out onto Joyce Blvd., which has been removed from the proposal. The result was that the levels of service were sufficient. The previous traffic study conducted for the development had been amended to include the projected traffic conditions and although the level of service declined with the additional traffic numbers they were still acceptable. He will not dispute the high percentage of vehicle conflicts due to left turns, but the traffic signal at Vantage will create gaps in the traffic flow. Additionally, the drive onto Joyce Blvd. will alleviate some of the traffic at the signalized intersection (a computer simulation of the project traffic conditions was shown). The proposed curb -cut onto Joyce Blvd. will operate as safe as the signalized intersection because of gaps in traffic created by the signal. The driveway is crucial to the operation of a bank with drive -by traffic. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 5 of 25 Howard Hamilton, Liberty Bank, reiterated the comments made by Mr. Simmons regarding the safety of the intersection, and stated that staff's position the last time was that the traffic was too fast, now the traffic is too slow, which is it? Commissioner Anthes asked if the City has an access management policy. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the City does have access management policies. He referenced the city-wide BWR study that identifies these policies and ordinances, some of which are included in Chapter 166, Development, of the Unified Development Code. Newman read two sections from Chapter 166.08 referring to access management, which states that "Local streets and driveways shall not detract from the safety and efficiency of bordering arterial routes" and "there should be a minimum number of intersections." Pate stated that the City continues to work on additional access management policies. Simmons stated that by allowing the curb cut, this will improve the intersection by reducing the cars going through the intersection. Commissioner Anthes asked if the driveway onto Joyce was the principal entrance to the project. There do no appear to be as many cars entering the site through this access point as others. Commissioner Winston stated that a Principal Arterial section requires a median. If there were a median present, in front of the curb cut, there would be no question of left -turns. Has a median been considered? Simmons replied no, a median has not been considered. Pate stated that is correct, a median would alleviate the concerns of left -turns by providing the needed barrier. However, in this location, the curb cut is likely too close to the intersection and a median could potentially conflict with the stacking distance ofthe cars turning left off of Joyce onto Vantage. Commissioner Myers stated that the right -in and right -out designs have not worked on other projects, and reflected on the Nelson's Crossing development, in which cars are using the right- in/right-out incorrectly, increasing traffic danger in the area. She stated she was reluctant to approve a curb cut that she feels is not in the best interest of traffic safety, in close proximity to the intersection. What is the primary access to the project? Simmons stated more vehicles are projected on Joyce than on Vantage. Hamilton stated that the Joyce Blvd. entrance was the designed as the primary entrance. Commissioner Myres stated she was nervous about the access and traffic on Joyce, and can not Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 6 of 25 support the way it is currently designed. Commissioner Graves asked if there was any type of waiver required for the proposed curb -cut. Pate stated no, a waiver was not requested for the curb cut separation. The reason this is being called to question is that the that the safety of any curb -cut is a determination for the Planning Commission to make when they review a large scale development. Commissioner Graves stated that staffs information regarding the safety of the curb -cut was general whereas the applicant has provided specific information regarding the safety of the curb -cut and that it meets all ordinance requirements. Traffic safety is a consideration for denial of the project, but at this time there has not been enough objective information provided by staff to deny the curb -cut, in his opinion. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the large scale development with all conditions of approval, which includes the allowance for the curb -cut onto Joyce Blvd. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Commissioner Myers stated that she could not support the curb -cut, referenced in condition #3. Commissioner Winston asked if the proposal included a left -turn out. Figure 8 in the traffic study still shows the left turn, but the site plans presented only show a right-in/right-out. Simmons stated that a left turn out would be prohibited. Winston and Simmons discussed the different figures and plans submitted. Discussion ensued regarding the motion and the outcome of the project if the motion to approve failed due to the inclusion of the curb -cut in the motion. Commissioner Graves withdrew his motion for approval. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to find in favor of condition #1, stating he would go through each of the required determinations one by one. After discussion, the motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Anthes stated that she was in support of staffs recommendation finding that sufficient access was being provided to the site and that the driveway was not safe. The City has an established access management policy and ordinances, and the safety and efficiency of surrounding routes must be considered. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 7 of 25 Motion: Commissioner Antes made a motion to remove the Joyce Blvd. curb -cut, finding in favor of staff's recommendation on condition #3. The motion failed for the lack of a second. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the driveway should only be denied if the Planning Commission finds that it will create or compound a dangerous traffic condition, based on the Unified Development Code criteria for large scale developments. Commissioner Anthes stated that based on the expertise of staff and the information provided that left turns have a higher percentage of crash rates that this finding had been made, and the proposed curb cut would create a dangerous traffic condition. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve condition of approval #3 as proposed by the applicant, which would allow the curb cut as indicated on the site plans. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed 4-4-0, with Commissioners Bryant, Myres, Cabe and Anthes voting no. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the project, finding in favor of all conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commission Myers seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 8-0-0. v • tT 1-- • IIIIIII!I I Irl• iI IL I f I � I4' Traffic Study LIBERTY BANK prepared for: Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Lii ENGINEERS, INC. • CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • 5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax(S01)868-9710 Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ,r+,r ERNEST J. PETERS No. 6682 Project No.: P-1291 May 23, 2007 The location of the development is within the City of Fa- yetteville in Washington County, Arkansas. The site is located on the north side of Joyce Boulevard and on the west side of Vantage Drive. The proposed development site location and vicinity are shown on Figures 1 and 2, which follow. I Li St r, Access to the site, as shown on the site plan, is proposed from four access drives. One of the access drive (Drive A) is proposed to intersect Joyce Boulevard along the south edge of the site. Drive A is proposed to be located approximately 270 feet west of Vantage Drive and consist of an outbound right -turn lane, an outbound left -turn lane and two inbound receiving lanes. One of the access drives (Drives B) is proposed to intersect Vantage Drive along the east edge of the site. Drive B is proposed to be located approximately 320 feet north of Joyce Boulevard and constructed to consist of an outbound right -turn lane, an outbound left -turn lane and inbound receiving lane. Two of the access drives (Drives C and D) are proposed to intersect a planned private road along the north edge of the site. Drives C and D are proposed to each consist of an inbound lane and an outbound lane. The locations of the access drives and distances between them are shown on Figure 4, "Directional Distribution - Site Traffic." The site development plan cells for the construction of a 21,613 square -foot building consisting of a bank with six drive-in lanes and office use, plus associated parking, landscaping and access drives. The site plan shows the proposed building location and the approximate locations of the drives proposed to serve the site. PETERS & ASSOCIATES msmms, "C. Page 3 Joyce Boulevard, in the vicinity of Vantage Drive, is a five -lane roadway consisting of two eastbound lanes, two westbound lanes and left -turn lanes. Joyce Boulevard is constructed with curbs and gutters. There are sidewalks along both sides of Joyce Boulevard at Vantage Drive and the speed limit is 35 miles per hour in the vicinity of the site. Joyce Boulevard is classified as a Principal Arte- rial on the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan (MSP). Vantage Drive, north of Joyce Boulevard, is 33 -feet wide with no pavement markings currently. Vantage Drive is asphalt and constructed with curbs and gutters and there are no sidewalks in the immediate vicinity of the site. The speed limit on Vantage Drive is 25 miles per hour. Van- tage Drive is classified as a Collector on the City MSP. A traffic signal at the intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive is currently under construction by the City of Fayetteville. This traffic signal should be operational within the next two months. This will be a 5 -phase signal operation with signal indications mounted on mast arms. It will not be interconnected with any other traffic signals. The site is currently undeveloped. The following photos show the general layout of Joyce Boulevard, Vantage Drive and surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the site. These were taken at locations as indicated on the photo captions. PETERS & ASSOCIATES F CI!EERS. INC. • Findings of this study are summarized as follows: Traffic volumes projected to be generated by the site at full development are approximately 2,632 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday. The AM and PM peak hours of the adjacent street have been determined to be the worst -case traffic conditions in the vicinity. It is estimated that approxi- mately 139 additional vehicle trips will seek ingress and egress at the site during this adjacent street AM peak hour and approximately.3 additional vehicle trips will seek ingress and egress at the site during this adjacent street PM peak hour. It It Ft 3 I I I I • Capacity and LOS analysis for existing traffic condi- tions (existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traf- fic control) were conducted for the intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive. all existing vehi- cle movements for existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive 10, presently operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "B" or better for the AM and PM peak hours ex- cept for the northbound and southbound left -turn vehi- ��1 de movements on Vantage Drive at Joyce Boulevard during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exist- ing "Stop" sign control. These movements experience delay under "Stop" sign control, resulting in less than acceptable LOS. Traffic signal control is currently be- ing installed at this intersection. Once the traffic sig- nal is installed, the LOS are projected to be "C" or bet- ter for existing traffic volumes. PETERS & ASSOCIATES EPCIIWERS. INC. • Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for AM and PM peak hours for the full build -out of this devel- opment projected traffic conditions. All of the vehicle movements for projected traffic conditions are ex- pected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "B" or better for the worst -case AM and PM peak hours except for the southbound left -turn vehicle movement from Drive A onto Joyce Boulevard with "Stop" sign control during the AM and PM peak hours (LOS "F"). These volumes are low (2 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 7 vehicles during the PM peak hour) and the delay should only occur for short times during these peak hours with all other hours operating at better LOS. Additionally, these vehicles turning left out of the form Drive A onto Joyce Boulevard have the option to exit out of Drive B onto Vantage Boulevard and turn left at the signalized intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive. tt S PETERS & ASSOCIATES WGMms. WC. As a part of this study, for projected traffic conditions, queue length analysis was conducted for the study in- tersections. Analysis shows vehicle queue lengths will be minimal and will not exceed proposed storage lengths. The 95th percentile queue for eastbound thru movements on Joyce Boulevard at Vantage Drive are projected to be 110 feet during the AM peak hour and 209 feet during the PM peak hour. These 95th percen- tile queue lengths do not exceed the available storage distance between Vantage Road and the proposed lo- cation of Drive A (approximately 220 feet from the east- bound stop bar at Vantage Drive to the easternmost curb line at Drive A). The queue length analysis is in- cluded in the Capacity and Level of Service section in the Appendix for reference. Recommendations of this study are summarized as follows: It is recommended that the roadway lane geometry at the site access drives be constructed as shown on the attached site plan. • Curb cuts along Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive should be constructed in accordance with intersection design standards of the City of Fayetteville and will re- quire approval by the City. Page 17 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR LIBERTY BANK SECOND SUBMITTAL PETERS & ASSOCIATES /111 ENGINEERS, INC. July 13, 2007 Mr. James Parks Crafton Tull Sparks & Associates, Inc. 901 N. 47th St. Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756-9634 Re: P1291 Addendum No. 2 to Traffic Study Liberty Bank; Joyce Boulevard at Vantage Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas Dear Mr. Parks: As requested, Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted additional analysis for the referenced project as a result of the meeting held with the City planning and engineering staff on July 12, 2007 at 2:00 pm. As suggested by the City staff, we have used the projected PM peak hour traffic volumes for the intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive as stated in a study published by Carter -Burgess, Inc. in January, 2006. The traffic volumes at the adjacent intersections have been adjusted to balance with the intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive. These volumes are depicted on Figure 8 (revised and attached), "Site Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour." This analysis includes the following: Analyze the intersection of Joyce Boulevard at Drive A to allow all turning movements EXCEPT the southbound to eastbound left -turn exiting the site. • The geometry of the intersection of Joyce Boulevard at Drive A includes an eastbound left -turn only lane with taper, two eastbound-thru lanes, a westbound-thru lane, a westbound-thru-right-tum lane, a southbound right -mm only lane exiting the site and two northbound receiving lanes entering the site. • Projected traffic volumes for the PM peak hour reflect the geometry described above. Findings The level of service (LOS) for all turning movements at the study intersections is projected to be an acceptable LOS "D" or better for PM peak hour except the eastbound left -turn at Vantage Drive and Drove B. This movement is projected to operated a LOS "E" for the PM peak hour. The results are depicted in the table below: 5507 RANCH DRIVE - SUITE 205 LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72223 (501) 868-3999 FAX: (501) 868-9710 Mr. James Parks July 13, 2007 Page 2 Level of Service Summary — Projected Traffic Conditions Furthermore, analysis shows that queue lengths for Joyce Boulevard and Drive A will be minimal and not exceed the available storage lengths. The capacity and queue length analysis is attached for reference. Additionally, the traffic signal at Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive has provisions to allow interconnection and coordination with adjacent traffic signals. A video clip of the traffic operation of the intersections of Joyce Boulevard at Vantage Drive, Vantage Drive at Bank Access B and Joyce Boulevard at Bank Access Drive A is available in a format viewable on a PC that graphically depicts the traffic operation in PM peak hour. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. rn Ernest J. Peters, P.E. President <O'noc_z fLWON t ?«m 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 N O do y y • Co .�.. n y N y A O ry a O m n P O n '< tom] Co �o q d � -L�3L 489 Pro ti m m s a 3ARIa m A r ® D m co m z < T1 z COW m z O 1 (# -< p O m 0 v i my SOS 'aa 30VINVA r C In N Iii m x m w w IL 9 Om- t at o- 99 m e v u -0�m w S w tb T D 9£9 x v 4 sta ZJ m (7 m zS o Oc K o- za M > < 0I LS b d Liz <: xO-4 o Q o c V.,m OQ xm�, �— cn rn O' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 3: Joyce Blvd. & Drive A 7/13/2007 unblocked . 1'1 1 !r �Jy .'$ i.',, l I:kl "�4F .� tl I Tro � •t $'i/( ' • :�� r 3n� •1 • - i 11 o- r=fie,a d,-�``Ft4e 3,ty .ic, . ..a',tx '� }. Volume Left 51 0 0 0 0 0 MX4`��IF"` 'FA cSH vJtK q �FYl"!'.II.�-y 285 s 1700 .krh'{ys n ` 1700 1700 1700 i�,°. 574 ,`. 6�i "WM 'V tIR I ':.. Y n 'H` ,Yv°i��Yr'� v l % 4r a �i i. it'. zrtt � � an cr t( :•:I� o- J sc9 .• •.• Ave/raag�ey /Delay y } G y�0.6 Inten,5il-W., 'Y..uil'+rT"."N�t ., A.':M'h+,.�tt"... .. 1p • ..v w..�� r '. i'X% `1 �Sr»`3f-'. Analysis Period (min) 15 v1 M1 us .M�b Page 1 Projected Traffic from Carter -Burgess Traffic Study, January 2006; Proposed Geometrics Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1291; Liberty Bank, Fayetteville, AR HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Vantage Dr. 7/13/2007 J l 1 l _'hs:k %eye :Y, r'C e- . �i � � � ( L 1.V�. "a a 1. • u � t .`4'i .� .4:r � ' q+i� pY: 4 � F .6.�isi+ _ iT: � Yel . Y��`yyyf4.YAYR4W• cSH 116 414 858 1700 1700 +f' N Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 5 7 0 0 V. 1'. fS�nr ,max' ��:C 4. 7 1.1 Page 4 Projected Traffic from Carter -Burgess Traffic Study, January 2006; Proposed Geometrics Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1291; Liberty Bank, Fayetteville, AR SITE ACCESS STUDY - BELLAFONT a M' rV. f n' 1 A ri l✓.� a s �tln _ T,Sf'�Pf S 4 9d A frJ'1 1�`•.1 rp �� Ij'1.�S� 1 PS ✓-��.�, Jif l y fev � r{��; [( �i� ? f�•nl#r f p' C s• I`31 1 ' yr ! - ^ o •/ n��T4 ..jam. �1 l (1 • • VV F `S' 1 - T1 Sfl L. MF r�r.Y �.L.rl.Ii� I I' s. /•. s1 �• Ri. • it P�4 C Lam. 1 r_��Je J 0 LJa JIY Jf •I� r • 111 ■ • • .- ii r Ugnl 7l)e} knei,Jo, c S',ca Ik .4upnwnNepa4.pmdbc Curter=Birgess March 27, 2006 Planning Commission LSD 06-1939 (Bellafont) Agenda Item 12 Page 23 of 42 SITE ACCESS PHOTOGRAPHS ae ` 1� yy .t } pQ Y _ _ ;. k e _ y .L I. • � .. � f l —•^t�a✓'�a f y pp $COIF \ 4� -,v)c2 81vc1 . — ♦ iAT S,,Ix •': rk tom; +Yr/4 t iT3 } f " wy�i « c �,• R•• � �i R n. �!� � . ♦ � ri'Y w a � � �' nff i _ �, e. � a �Y '.'�i P3 � • ,i t ys i n M r,i ty a� xS•;. i=nA₹4ia �'d � A- -sue F a ♦4 ' %''i.4 ilq¢�� '♦ 9�'�,9 avwE.yir5 ♦ 1 -- •g l Y 5 ti .S is PYLi0.�'its:iR. a4a..> '�, L a r• n 14s '."1 ti- �o�cE - l cpK £oft - M er Crnca 0 Freer 3 eor $Q_,�hc,� - lae c *or \ a F y1 Q+J�Y`i Try[= fit_ 1 1Y Ty. Ac! .4 -. f Y fA1. Fafi�S� A fxx '_ __-_ Nr Y1¢t l !I / �..- � . lu<[ _. � - br rya to `: �•�� J{{ � LI,�[b � \ Y� iS s . _ sy u�( fi Yc ,6 -. ! � _ A + L Y v \� v ems' me - 4 •- i i� � 4 >E c T`� 'LsRva R 1 if i A - - • r{ x.. 1 r T 3'I. .7T�fJ1 .T y • :.ice �Y',. .f.{. "aXY'iF V.5 — vey.�... ry SFr 1. y`a J' 4 rY - _ a =♦ Sq al aa SnE ti � ♦♦�•� � �. "p i. �tii Y ]f -♦ aV �N`R Y 4r piII "A -IXvy n ray } £5 i�♦ yF4YiN 4'a ♦ S e-c"`fhae T $_;'$at iiP 5 Jr ratvd� "" YY w : r"' -'C ^� .r s 2i.✓xTW".Rr`�`4tcs'3cj�e,#'h ��&.k.�v�� c _ �♦ ':o zH SN 5 r*Ai^t j..nyA➢�fT s-!3:% 'y�Y°r.2 i' y>`-i �+ S5 'r i>, js ��N z .P syo� S�v✓4, y a- 'fi v xa w rv� tr f t .-.."' CO L Svbo y}] A L .yam C''' c�aF _ - _tid R - p •K G cFt}a� a yy Y� u y .^ I � hpA1a ' _ � T TT LSD07-2574 Close Up View Overview LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS SUBJECT PROPERTY 0 75 150 300 450 600 Feet C-, FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council CC: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: August 2, 2007 RE: Liberty Bank appeal: Curb cut regulation t LEGAL DEPARTMENT In my memo of May 3`d, 2005, I advised you that the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that "the owner of property abutting upon a street has an easement in such street for the purpose of ingress and egress... (T)his property right is not diminished merely because the property owner has alternative means of ingress and egress." Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420, 47 S.W. 3d 851, 857 (2001). Attached is that memo, as well as my memos of March 7, 2007, and February 6, 2003, discussing abutting owner's access easement rights to city streets. I have also attached a one page memo dated July 31, 2007, from Liberty Bank's attorney which also discusses access easement rights owned by abutting property owners. All of my earlier memos were directed toward proposed vacations or closing of streets or alleys, not the disallowance of a requested curb cut which is what Liberty Bank is appealing to you. The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that a city council has been given "broad discretion" in matters pertaining to city streets by the state legislature. "With such broad (statutory) power over streets and alleys, it seems the latitude of discretion vested in city governing boards should be very wide indeed." City of Little Rock v. Linn, 245 Ark. 260, 432 S.W.2d 455,461 (1968). "This court long ago recognized that the varied uses and conflicts of city life required that much be left to the discretion of city authorities, whose actions should not be judicially interfered with unless manifestly unreasonable and oppressive, an unwarranted invasion of private rights, or clearly in excess of powers granted." Id. at 462. Another case discussing the access easement rights of an abutting owner to a state highway described the access easement as "limited" and agreed the owner whose land had been condemned for the highway could recover damages because the access easement the owner was left with "would surely be subordinated to the needs of the highway department and those political subdivisions and utilities...." Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Wallace, 249 Ark. 303, 459 S.W.2d 812, 814 (1970) (emphasis added). Those cases lead me to conclude that cities do have the legal and constitutional power to control access to their streets by regulating where and how curb cuts will be allowed. Such curb cut regulation has existed in Fayetteville and most larger cities in Arkansas for decades without serious legal challenge. I do not believe that Liberty Bank is questioning the City's power to regulate curb cut location, but does question whether the City can prohibit any curb cut along Joyce Boulevard for the entire length of the bank's fairly large lot. I believe that the City has a heavy burden in this case to absolutely prohibit any curb cut on Joyce. The case cited by the bank's attorney, Campbell v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 183 Ark. 780, 38 S.W.2d 753 (1931), has some strong language, but it is based upon significantly different facts. In that case, the Highway Commission built a bridge over the White River in Newport. The bridge and its approaches were necessarily raised dramatically above Campbell's house and property and thereby obstructed his previous access to his property. Therefore, the Highway Commission had to pay Campbell for his loss of access. Pc In our case, we are considering a loss of potential access, not current access. However, even blocking access to a public street by a curb or barrier can constitute a taking for which the City could be liable for loss of the property owner's access easement. Curbs and curb cuts were discussed in Flake v. Thompson. Inc., 249 Ark. 713, 460 S.W.2d 789 (1970), in relation to blocking access to a public street. The Arkansas Supreme Court held: "The property right of ingress and egress of appellants in the easement was one that could not be taken by the city, at least without payment of just compensation." Id. at 796. An argument that the property owner had other access on another city street was rejected by the Arkansas Supreme Court. "The mere fact that appellants also have a means of ingress and egress via University Avenue does not affect or diminish their property rights in the easement, and they cannot be deprived of these rights because of the remaining means of ingress and egress." Id. at 797. CONCLUSION The requested curb cut does not specifically violate our current distance requirements from intersections. Therefore, the curb cut requested by the bank can only be denied pursuant to our U.D.C. if it creates or compounds a dangerous traffic situation. The Planning Commission tied 4-4 on this issue. If no curb cut on Joyce is allowed for a good public policy reason (safety), the City might still be liable to the bank for depriving it of its access easement to serve a City goal of facilitating safe and efficient traffic management just as we would if we condemned private property to obtain enough right of way to enlarge a street for safety or efficiency improvements. JUL.iL Juui, Luc u4:ulbtflr tMHJ. MA p0. JO AdtD i r uu�: a.n DATE: July 31, 2007 RE: Liberty Bank - Ingress and Egress The Supreme Court of Arkansas in Campbell v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 183 Ark. 780, held that an owner of property abutting upon a street has easement for ingress and egress which attaches to his property. The reason is that the easement in the street or highway is incident to the lot itself, and any damage, whether by destruction or impairment, Is a damage to the property owner, and independent of any damage sustained bythe public generally. This right of ingress and egress which attaches to the lot is right derivative of the taking section in the Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, Section 22. The Supreme Court of Arkansas in a'recent decision of Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420 (2001), echoed the well established principals of law holding that an abutting landowner has a property right of ingress and egress as a means of accessing the property. That right attaches to the property as fully as in the lot itself. The right of an easement for ingress and egress off of a public roadway or street Is Independent of whether there are any alternate routes to access the property. See Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark 420 (2001). This right was specifically discussed in the Supreme Court of Arkansas case Flake v. Thompson, 249 Ark. 713 (1970), which the court held that the mere fact that a property owner has a means of ingress and egress via an alternate route does not affect or diminish their property rights in the easement which is affected and they cannot be deprived of these rights because of the remaining means of ingress and egress. Quoting; Langford v. GrYMn, 179 Ark. 674 and Campbell v. Ford, 244 Ark. 1141. The courts have repeatedly held that the right of a property owner to ingress and egress cannot be taken without just compensation. There is also an ALR article discussing the principals associated with the power to directly relate or prohibit abutter's access to a street or highway:. This article is located at 73 A.L,R. 2d 652. Let me know what else I can do for you on this issue. Zo d 8849ZE60LR ON Rlid 3AO89111NS Ud EO;EO 3f11 L002-t8-lflf JUL-31-2007 15:47 8702681525 967. P.02 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT Wus1AMS, CITY ATTORNEY-- DAVID WIRTAKER, AT. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: City Council Planning Commissioners FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: May 3, 2005 RE: Vacation of streets, alleys and easements The City of Fayetteville is often asked to vacate a platted, but not built street or alley or an unused utility easement. The City Council has the power "to vacate ... such portions thereof as may not ... be required for corporate purposes ...." A.C.A. §14-54-104 (emphasis added). There is another more specific statute for vacating streets and alleys that have been dedicated to the City by platting a subdivision, if such street or alley has not "been actually used by the public as a street or alley for a period of five (5) years .... " A.C.A. §14-301 -301 (b). Neither of these statutory powers to vacate are mandatory upon the City Council, but only give the City Council that "power to vacate and abandon" streets, alleys, easements, etc. The power to vacate is limited to the extent that abutting owners object to their loss of "right of ingress or egress across the property being vacated ...." Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420, 47 S.W. 3Td 851, 856 (2001). "We have held that the owner of property abutting upon a street has an easement in such street for the purpose of ingress and egress which attaches to his property and in which he has a right of property as fully as in the lot itself. We have also noted that this property right is not diminished merely because the property owner has alternative means of ingress and egress." Id. at 857 (citations omitted). Thus, we need to ensure that each abutting property owner has consented to the street or alley vacation. I believe our Planning Division ensures such consent has been obtained before submitting any vacation request to you. Once all abutting owners have consented, the issues for the City Council and Planning Commission are whether the platted street or alley has been actually used by the public during the last five years and whether the street, alley, or easement is "required for corporate purposes ..." A.C.A. § 14-54-104. If an owner of a large tract of undeveloped, platted land wishes to vacate dedicated streets and alleys (which have never been built or used) in order to reconfigure and replat his property (which would require appropriate new access and easements because of our UDC), there would seem to be no corporate purpose possible to refuse the vacation requests. However, if an alley is shared with an abutting property owner who objects to the vacation of that alley, I do not believe the City can vacate and abandon that alley or even half of the alley. "The Supreme Court held that because of the adverse effect, the appellants were abutting property owners whose written consent was required before the alley could be closed ...." Holliman v. Liles, 72 Ark. App. 169, 35 S.W. 3`1 369, 372 (2000). (emphasis added). KIT WILLIAMS, city ATfoRNEY DAVID WHITAKER. AT. CTTY ATfoRNEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Tim Conklin, Planning Department FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney( �--i DATE: February 6, 2003 RE: Vacation of dedicated streets and alleys As you know, the legislature has provided two statutes which both refer to a city's power to "vacate" streets and alleys. The one you have uniformly used is A.C.A. §14-54-104 Additional powers of cities of the first class. This statute provides power "to vacate or lease out such portions thereof as may not for the time being be required for corporate purposes .... " No notice or consent of abutting owners is required or even mentioned. The other statute is A.C.A. §14-301-301 et seq. Power and authority to vacate. (Copies of both statutes are attached.) 9 In a recent, unpublished case decided by the Arkansas Court of Appeal, Bateman v. City of Paragould, 2000 WL 17832 (Ark. App. 2000), the Court of Appeals upheld the Chancellor's decision that "a city of the first class could only abandon a dedicated easement by following methods set forth in A.C.A. §14-301-301 (1997)." (emphasis added) The Court of Appeals specifically held: "The Arkansas General Assembly has set out the procedure for vacating or abandoning an easement in cases such as the one now before us. See Ark. Code Ann. X14-301-301. That procedure is binding on appellants, the City of Paragould, and the courts. Absent compliance with that procedure whereby the town council vacates or abandons the street, we cannot hold that appellants' arguments on appeal warrant reversal" (emphasis added) Unpublished opinions are not controlling precedent in later cases. Other published decisions have affirmed vacation of streets pursuant to A.C.A. §14-54-104 (2) as we have done. Thus, there is not a crystal clear resolution of what we must do. The Supreme Court on June 28, 2001, reversed a trial judge who had upheld a city ordinance based upon A.C.A. §14-54-104 (2) to vacate an unpaved segment of street. Although not stating that cities could not use this statute to vacate streets, the Supreme Court stated: "We note that nothing in this statute provides that a right of ingress or egress across the property being vacated can be extinguished or taken without compensation." Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420,47 S.W. 3M 851, 856 (2001). Monticello had vacated one end of an unpaved city street returning it to its abutting owners. Plaintiff Wright was an abutting owner along the street past where it had been vacated. Wright sued for an injunction and for a constitutional taking of her interest in the street. The local judge ruled against her, but the Supreme Court reversed. "The legislature granted the City the authority to abandon or vacate roads or streets. However, the City exceeded that authority when it enacted ordinance number 700 for the purpose of extinguishing appellant's right of ingress and egress through the vacated street." Id. at 857. 2 7 The case really did not turn on whether the city could use A.C.A. §14-54-104 (2) which was quoted by the Court and implicitly sanctioned as a manner to vacate a street. The main issue was the takings issue which the court ruled in favor of the upstreet, abutting owner. Unless we use A.C.A. §14-301-301 and specifically §14-301-303 which requires "written consent of the owners of all lots abutting the street or alley, or the portion thereof, to be vacated," we could face a takings claim in which the City would have to pay non -consenting, abutting owners damages. "(A)ppellant, as an abutting landowner with a property right of ingress and egress, has an independent right to use Browning Road as a means of accessing her property. We have held that the owner of property abutting upon a street has an easement in such street for the purpose of ingress and egress which attaches to his property and in which he has a right of property as fully as in the lot itself. Flake v. Thompson, Inc. 249 Ark. 713 460 S.W. 2d 789 (1970). We have also noted that this property right is not diminished merely because the property owner has alternative means of ingress and egress." Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420,47 S.W. 3rd 851, 857. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held: "A city's governing board cannot give away a city's streets without the consent of abutting owners or without statutory authority; any attempt to do so is ultra vires. Freeze v. Jones, 260 Ark. 193,539 S.W. 2d 425 (1976)." Holliman v. Liles, 72 Ark. App. 169,35 S.W. 3rd 369,372 (2000). 3 "A conveyance to the only abutting owner is not prohibited. Barbee, v. Carpenter, 223 Ark. 660,267 S.W. 2d 768. Nor is a vacation of a street for the benefit of the abutting owner if the street is not needed for corporate purposes." Freeze v. Tones, 260 Ark. 193, 539 S.W. 2d 425, 429 (1976). The Supreme Court's specific reference to "the street is not needed for corporate purposes" harkens back to the language of A.C.A. §14-54-104 (2) so that statute appears still somewhat available for vacation of alleys. However, a literal reading of A.C.A. §14-301-301 speaks in all-inclusive terms. "In all cases where the owner of property ... shall have dedicated ... by platting the property ..., the city or town council shall have the power to vacate and abandon the street or alley, or any portion thereof, by proceeding in the manner set forth in this subchapter." (emphasis added) CONCLUSION I believe it will be better in the future to use the procedures outlined in A.C.A. §14-301-301 et. seq. when a property owner seeks a vacation of a platted street or alley. This procedure (by requiring consent of all abutting owners) should protect the City from any takings challenges and potential damages. I would not only follow A.C.A. §14-301-301, but continue to require utility companies to consent and include a finding in the ordinance that the street or alley is not needed for corporate purposes (so we get the benefit of A.C.A. §14- 54-104 (2) if we are ever legally challenged). One final caution, the Arkansas Supreme Court in the past has pointed out that certain challengers of street vacation did not "own property abutting the portions of the streets being closed...." Kemp v. Simmons, 244 Ark. 1052,428 S.W. 2d 59,64 (1968). "(N)one of the appellants were abutting landowners to the closed portion of Kemp Road .... " Id. at 65 More recently, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that an owner up the road that was being closed was"an abutting landowner with a property right of ingress and egress.'-' Wright v. City of Monticello, supra. The Court has shown a willingness to extend the definition (and legal protection) of "abutting owners" beyond that portion of the street or alley being vacated. "In that case, the appellants' property did not actually touch the portion of the alley the city board had closed, but the closing of a part of the alley adversely affected the use of their property. The supreme court held that, because of this adverse effect, the appellants were abutting property owners whose written consent was required before the alley could be closed .... " Holliman v. Liles, 72 Ark. App. 169, 35 S.W. 3n1 369,372 (2000). In Holliman, the alley was only narrowed by vacating half its width to the abutting owner. The. Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for the City (Quitman) by stating that an owner's ingress and egress does NOT have to be blocked before the owner must consent to a vacation. The key issue was the extent of adverse affect the vacation would inflict upon the owner's property. Adverse effect justified making an owner an "abutting owner" whose written consent to the vacation was required. 5 FAYETTEVILLE fl THE CITY OF FAYMEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council CC: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: March 7, 2007 RE: Vacations of streets and alleys I am sorry that I did not see that an abutting property owner had not only failed to consent in writing to the proposed vacation of a portion of the alley abutting his property, but actually objected. This lack of written consent by an abutting property owner is fatal to a vacation request. "The Supreme Court held that because of the adverse effect, the appellants were abutting property owners whose written consent was required before the alley could be closed ..,." Holliman v. Liles, 72 Ark. App. 169, 35 S.W. 3° 369, 372 (2000). (emphasis added) Attached is a copy of my two page memo of May 3, 2005 to you and the Planning Commission about the limitation on the City's power to vacate alleys and streets. Also attached is my five page (more in depth) memo to Tim Conklin (then City Planner) of February 6, 2003, concerning legal restrictions on alley and street vacations. • .. ��c .HC{ICI flAzt SPECIAL SECTION!, ......... Collision Um.e Analyzing accidents in Northwest Arkansas Sunday, January 9, 2005.. Access in excess, thick traffic bad mix Nonfatal wrecks worthy of scrutiny, too, experts say uaPaC jif.N'p F.hW eal{ewe[aN0=¢ eveta du rat tbmdau• - S.S tldmfyeyetlaefMa mottm .v ear p im .her lnnWThen elgte.Mev¢e dMteM1 'weSSktrcddeere EkthttM IPed. • Drlwnmtwd mWur nlnr tlmG"i 1091e cpalytlip .: hoer ntnr rIeD�l!ei•_ they'likelyre o IN.NNdlmudtleh!oibut allleaee *re ape•gb(e3 parr be In ymelddU"DeIxfa pbirobpIllt'Mley d +nlaxr JMct4nHer she snw. wted iuc &o they're man 'std�aM' kill F'Dt nae pt. gt ebe eip"Y to be fdwl.am ehandryl:, ' and nd cowltkme* 6p.zw wring Hong rtrlPPW.Mr than w• On ewngq Nete)WnS34 astA And Wd*Mmu; xte PolkarG.be ddvea m for artry t occiry mat. atWnnee.5 .lgMy q. bYu[lryusci n9l chest nuossedeWm wH UMwoamuWYm&o[anW tWewr. dawn Pvelauhnomv aile.xme Im.co. to mployerlon madW Poll. uy lJnlm crossed the CA Wu ngaaD mlmtlssrremmmgman 'hrytwn off the spat 'ad or twice every 100 msMn mass, the meu towydlAn n teeth, sad LIE wasccuelllJp os we. evy 4e. Nkewx r0uu1dvCverd... . along th. Sam spat But they That mwi nn4 Wag ammwa Tha..ga ce.. ch aapNWd. lopthsoya Sad as Bot7l cue wen ae• Most occur auUldecgy "..amiy dmY gang Nm'Mm6 CtirntW pettoemri[hn.th.lo 0Sot.fd bumwegdy dWWt f_.e umvl arzeyed Theemw4dl@w 6293 total ead DMAsaDhr.aa6tSr. NaranfYwlhelautlemOffa pun orlon tamp o(.. - Palter cltMdmw for driving u0 he esel wahlb" DQdalus,I b.%d lelown 0.w an Neer n[Wmtnth.inSk. t w are the IWepolk.wpk MveiiWum. a(xw¢vA di1 enidemee on engla mb.l tlyu MYaW ntn.csnpyln the lJSlxr <oMltlow <Iw mob rheteW, The St b p-fer rev nil, to lie Wwun. �MNautanr' Some t gt1ft lean belies A• eroldmtnm rhenM Wd Hye o(w6lciq':beNeeen ban an. read 0(ooe(feuay) to five RmomWdmlbenewin r' to aLld ey.ey tof muchocw eoUrc bin Sneer P'o11nat'. faminr terry he .mngenm and me PYulmlryaf' (property ddow wu St o. .66- mmem. Better, they W. tDeantoubutn an exemanyT-0ome', NOm all eon. ere 'aid. responders W w fawn, yevrold wddew, Prop t bard,. Imes dii Mm wine mawancq urMcrishe.c.¢een,whgtetmwbWe. Iles wie¢ ewWide btwdeeenv.' he veld living on her own emee 1910, reM of adM1ee owed on ospital bin, mama and nulwper. o ceMy upset avee eNm ONN carmouLW awwMm nfrequfendebeMerm US. 71E is forty Hoop paid Sin anMw bang nn of what Ne Nwedao her Ceher en Le D9%54e.$So w'Mebect elm arm, he those with mw frequent and il..tebl<. and fore womer dIdd AlaPdogY. d4. lb. accident saranded her her Cojis14SOectbe air cam Sn&ry find ahLmnlW tran,M add. Item nuneueyms ha that con. eue. cemeilla SjM kWt`ew.alpti be. t4 M3eun ynaerbwet buahu"n many megMwlN to. Agee wkan 0¢:30, 'hi In . pnnnt bar frog epweeluoleurn hlep?ebalNaWYpWv �t �!B� a hsl xdtldh mtule PoUteryryeeMen w.ti 3Prm3?ae her 3.yevrogtsbe.deun.d In Pnwnted hop from xolaly:ove in tg®d" r. Wenmta' ate ittM4htw¢ DOaw Sa fewhow. S .iit.z edNRY• Hop yy[ant,aM Plmrled to mown high. w a male nutJeiTheyw VI6WM engineer "ffiemelmpeq,lermweletnb en"jage(ew heun lair. th.T Tots with Mrdmhht ep thepnfest..pad d. but M. ere also ke.onOepat a .. end unwpon.tloN (uStenter.b Mdyn eda Salt Cary In Lei 1001. Tryn. •SooieNNee mY dnyhter will like Nee ail. Deprmtlmt. o(e[rheea And Yn IC haI put Cemry. me re AMwuwni ed wl%bees• Spetyoge.gWn the out to be, FDnd.brty is tri'e Chit Mown that Sreel eprlarhy ono' ha IS. ThesunMdeet faun It wunY get meek' llnw Bad•W go back .Yd eim:FPnhmike, Vdvenlryef �hryp k accotdldrot of[utet Crash.. inn Arbww#blillon mrterpay auk She got u(eru Sew Welk l wWo lie eu sad 5o back hwu at .udn Deptrmmt etatlttke Dug O4 y e year lededmS 0* l000aWuo. pem,rm6 tYwMM rMle don ley the NnamrW fUghwaYhagle 9Mnmgmden hrdlighn coming ewwork 1 p a w le an hone. way. Access ■Rymeviae tnott muu cif - d.ryerowh "followed by: r.. .e,. r L Lc�¢_.�4h n` 3 Sptlryd.i • edy and Page �' r .use ir— ✓ ■ Fatal uadm¢ngnndamitldw -•.' .'=d'R 'r✓ -. ha1merred ouShwerunl and urban r ■ldep n. Meng •kleb yea Nee t" }-. 9DntonVl lDononApere UMITA-- iUMITCMA01 I •_ �r�» t: P ran ¢ .c � �V The W� tltem ,,. •y,T.,., SKr .•e ^ Vrr Nasengtpeenwtlnd An ties, l9NM u -L c - Ne Ntwtmtilghw>t MUm bear I +m Q Xy built Tile made wen Hod tnflc .•.. opt :.� ¢. a _ towedfut bopNry nW win eel z'�u$'-.+' J a AO "Y s 1`=.fw LO 1rol.amevhOOhwne. ANwe �a"riQy"'�a': M !'•'p• h:.s- A, for oMd"nuose a U = 3eP .,x•3 -9 NNnn hyy.DM . Cr ,•.-+etid;lx! +� rr � •'4ai a dgn,MSlvW mednwnbfeewa. _ on minrMt Diner, meege Into mb - n 4+ }+ - -y' 9cnrhn'tMntd thus no plate, mddenmrw dNe u AMefou mdaNe enm.Pn' or r ti. %'.'k� ew tnm bl Ng eaurw. Nurreeden �*m' '.S -....y II which. like .n&nnr said •-• ,. Cr yiy fnaMN.mhM,mendnrrMNN. IR ^ SPr 3Ad_ sty lnwna lutlmh fae.HISM1My 5Je-• AtanWgmNo4dedelewbrn •,,.� •x _ UI DI b.medetNaddnnnd<eotpueecee rv;Yrtb" farPeae on",canM Ohs PeMo3� Y � � "-'ItJaj :- aMolm.on(dq�cta IDaNe -•.•... ' l� _v t .betnddHmpmminon'Miaftl. - t 4Jtitt 11 . mf00f.43 werad.i6ma0oi rig - ' accident. od US. meat were at Inter- T.,e' uctloas or wet. NuneNan•ralaaed v•.+�r�•'+ a uco ttom.NWoullagp y 'rrti°J'1 �dtimtzy '�,• r1 -iNdtc3e( Na¢ e a a, •. +><` heleno mamllM ¢Caves w ^+Ye wr+. inn Accident-- rw that some .d. insaferchanging e•WIWe ate xetk Cwt.k to /� '� G : @.•-.T ,eF2 dMerMMNOL.NIneeM1wa[k to rates en%V �:j � yy'�'`' =. o... m.keme&man drw, Medlp S in e.. :..'w `• e K � vhY Ii can rapid w a toed orhoo �s'�}R +� >"+a,2 mtMwrv. ea' m m Northwestw�' .= , la JY 6mh.—roHrd3n3Trce x .n '^ yea r oes•. t,yi �y al v NRIITehec.o uWeSafefueY Q l`QO ^. 6wt aO m Ad$Wily2000 MeofwmtmRponstlon ere Aarch U tiller )Hoiv q>vr-.y: ...a �•. d •a. DarNS of cub showed IMtwMnthe m . i rr t^ t toper fcwbmnmngwaem:o �� . d nbpermM (wW4omeP paf ■GUN'un Pn urwa .,.r ya ' y a j A Y.a^ YEN DA fen to he f..Q, wells mot ded. Ueda m uhuMm 'a'' I 0'2 IMi NO When the mrbaut me ranm 60 MONO IN n 9,mlr 'y" •' xrmllncruhm"amble• p Mpdp' M M +�--> •-'t ':,p wwd ...' O a \ 'Oda mural club jnl 'e'C..aa�=0.v ... +^ Pins of atknashave highways ciS.cus tern¢" mp 190, w1k' 'Tir'^nc'4t jfi• -�lz" "4•'•` �a1'e tin high Arkansas na &dwM •�i.'. �^ nn hMh¢N.e 60.ThWacpldw 9"I'Mtnvnio' +" ® /:I .1 un wow very Nghmhe UThal o¢bxlg Aawmfw r _ B.1 .1D oa:Nl;U e1add UA3lt3m 3eo- Mon nmam,awamJr. ' �Il.'or ld ondlic US69 ax US. eih:In . Just MAN, MIgi lntff onmad t Adsp Sel4MtweenI.NOume5 !w¢ Intraen'ti10 Me me 18mSpdnedawme AddF do GeN Io est, MURAU¢ay..• O foW IC[IdeMt mwntown Spdnnd.le and?ay.tt We. ngnnydhtmr co theg MORSCIt1STIRROMS OIH pl.mw.ry ehWre hnm 'w4ar.omenwuml m�mg 77TTo ea s,6 Ynew m N r '[Leenno nn faemW. or Pat es 9utnpimu eniM'¢rnpyvDwyilw PEODDmpntrou.N.Ma ey. E preen.Bu{NH [.tarn add don uk Ns, dun fu dnlNn(hodi Nemmryb bttwe s,3. mlplm'Jm bi;0>dit. ..'. dew whaftl6ndNDWd'Rrnmw¢ Nn And wmwBNIb NM1tram: D.pA*aatt W pdThwaa .dM,fpemt Ott deDartmener de- bMWled nnb Mlm mw,wtl' {N(ee ykdma' oW.1W us.nawnnh4lmwMM Dm.rmmrwmmw.mSly OLeir u Drodr, adcounrtaetnpwm.n, 'ate the leraafleofVg,.0 wsteI. aYoWaaai lilii 10 dmu Id Addlep anvery warMprovd• • Nattvepaodu ksndy ¢mM vvlon and<emnlud.. . Mbprt. wbng SNemeret fan rddmt .greater for Sameoeayaw o(US'eu Mw • mien Pa mm A6vdyy On and enable pro)wn, MW4. dnmt0curba Mate r.m.o ton Hetupntohil 6Wenagolp In. PPem Ne euNNan eyc the onatove we next 4.ca6Illio le had. Dredromm. Dal stile city Y It hop 120 curb NU from]-0IOw U.5, (M.Itt3sm snn.w oh Ydddew o ply a+a�mmDWey tee wry ox3nwn the negid"edq but endmxMNMN.me.M city n3— x.wrye do pp. per tulle lire Dmowmx ieo" Pb Ng mYlllms NShw.M tee e 9 eIM�I,'N!'{f6 bWbobNndO,b awbwan. . ...henue'.re-or ew every ]a(xt orotlenpenrekA6leL'lA ate Dl, m1pRD larmly ew9—qdonV eniAPMp aaieNWw.Y aneldwn arour6'N Net ordinances IMofn.d r1' angry dine you made a decmm m .': �""' ^till ■allot In NadnfW A¢nwnkn reletl.l ptmMM rua,stOMn .dd A mub M yo Ii +doer. noprn has the Mmn rpuMon Foyntr rt ammlld,n,m.' me Wn mhlwwm mda.m OIt"Witxdlmm$ men Now 10 pWnpetemmmmdedby aN' Thledy hh.t mtateaI e 1roAmowbehpOnoh4oird$NMN onbushemm M9me. IM,,ut DemnNeoe. Nu to list"LLta .ouppl111omiNmumofllS NM MMrm am¢mn Mad¢x araun" NeHokmn South Da Ee, an dd.ldWq o0dD000MDIeon.Mp1199pManyWnrfang adON.d upuladm r'I Onkanv14 Dame uWcela • 1$"-.• Wlfplky i' . ovp ob, 'tan uMNR00. recede Mae Mn°errt. rylldee The y6Rettmenum Nev nwa. he.M,Msi optoae[utr • ��eoMIM D 1a0'• � mmbloudtnucs N.t edow NoolfmT' ®'80•' The l3drwp Depu®rt m.V• kmlx don no; bell an Newman` 1 MM om UR 1�•.. .Sweatt dMabn Thedeparmenty aping a the proeeue(ued.WM.No. at I YIS was la diet SWde turn se at It , 'elnn,m xa• *hths n. ' u,mwmroum.m ..'nm"arum hotel was logo upfandm 1990. On add: V null a,anunnw.enir yne rm•nwewarpr,emum"pFt wseeno n, mss cniir. 4M .Iock of Ceeepe ANnn Otlfbralt➢eP�m�M' Olin ac. .fuss m. nnwmraremxnau. nn•m"ee•niwne an sordin lIMITS lice. Owlwiwdrq I MM weeran- •mho .. arFYgalRlgeDatq 6(,Srgw. v u The did.' atdmmex w mote• OwatMn npMr MnMnMwmsY Wnb Mina wMepnarx eulp.rn re" eaw[eScwarxww, wnawrn"n.n,Im Menu, dmemuQuem Sx SOMOSMIS, 91st 01r ..4 -mw D ai iiS Arkansas Fayetteville stretch worst in 2 counties SIC 10 to 40 avy traffic on LM court. ar4ar the way to pt eliemt' be I Seventeen percent of the city's highway accidents occur in the two-mile stretch of U.S.71B between Sunset and Emma- avenues, according to an Arkansas Democrat• Gazette analysis. Avg ed Mt tmt tatu- 'It on 6 on a soy &Ad Hn. mw:: He Av- • V ie the nmi Hewed to shift e Prcr �led Unkbeatln Pvke reNhl, head good huda apin.t Lhe nenln{• wheti In dSrun after malhlnk the (emit of hu ear lobo ParteYs pkkuR s t..•Lw�eeefoanonL. '4 dldnY dp mush damyMoml _ uuokbut 4 Sure diome.udlhi CEAede ualowr. Kiteddetlito- he rar. He two, soared to death a l6'.... andy com nn do about the rarely omSoueus HO+ o(Aflp mAV - y LxlIdd on his w,Y homeb eurb mu o.wet lone oar US. Mµ rorvm pvtof a Wdb. war Se 11gox llp el Hot dvq lewnwhen m druid Impose the ta$Pntersaid'He d,tAngenouPbenendnnmhh p ddCm.^ �. q NfhwtMHehO aoc e¢urbthe tie•. Huµ rWU Tbelun pre wldtt. mmaoo strtmh,e(ta.,0. ilB Ntaseem Sup• mJe cu*-nrtxye drop A®JS per.m told ClIauid em* oebed for k !. get udrmmoYedaues,amttalpp to to 9W mile. rom ntPoc But in hL pollee nS,ement.... i. Rogers era PtWC HA.ci congestion fuels anger, ='llky moves Junction of U.S 712, Ar(�ansas 102 is dicey. BYPILLCHAND t..ua.. pmm—The bNot SaNTONt Stop —'lhe wnthtlm. line at PwCerr Hord the tuthe heeh44feet from counter to —Cr. The pnklagS let, bordered by SOuthwnr A Snnt, AA:Yau 102 Yd E 0,! U!. uuurs ....._,.,. l�i9iri sorthwestl�rkansas; oAad1ude signals -, th, curb cuts oWdnmb Ndhn Yn mYYm mm •: I S t=— 941k re N. Wti a- .byo hdmbcr of of Sr83P. number of reNrb bm A 10 LtS I: ............. ...-.-e......_..... _. auodatS with Intestate 544 rn cording to a ana191LL by the Ankh. MOIL hunry •a¢.v'e, a, pe .qi- t-5`".: FYt.oMnmKutlY eu fllnCMlCYMC�F.• • dr &onomb by tiven&m the nW<i aMweroB<afL.ed mhvlBe a b tto� problem . goal a yen. It Plw. P, Chief)frmea.Wena "�la �; g @ > 4I'Hr w Allen add aaaep pollee pna. heagoahe. DuMS a MehlllWl a=- b p 1 .,d edge en. help nub aBmeWve ddnr . W N.Scgeatber; ABa➢timed &I babrNee. Put aomaMn -as mu. Pane ca stems the coca ru➢9N1 WmathinS wh how -more pm mdl>it..,$ llca mein mole Cock! u if. Nun 94*1 MSnth a old NYa9 two en.Wur YIdU uNtad AUSIV uw:himMIM . . tC(o a 1A driver] rounprobrppryry heT: •AaeWMITh.' lFb➢ntylyef• - SoW teHr ntiM Muta.lf ha Wd I': low o,la..0 could how.... . n 9ent0egW. PY new nha a the m W".. from u UMS Ne4.4ew dubs Muth BCW ➢Caubryry matedna dadve houNor' mamhisacamBY Md S.gba wr ne III hMn wNedentt aeddeMa 16.dL1e4 pomUIpw N C "-° e"^t•. W,Ct hy'c Uron Ar7umaa.103 fromPon i MahNm6 r5 SoSudMn fy ryry,,�.mv� 4(r�'rvi i tv `'re�{'fr4e PhIW}Cm lmT mryNMwMn Cauegf mote In MSh<b.bener ' ,i+eCtoM'+rU"J ` " he hem th. wneb aLSWa and atcel' "''a ev ,� �yt.`' N Some a p" Awe which he had �y &t duff the momLla wh holm. by .rJ.,'d.� v ` F'.r�''.qq.'.3'a + Contact edge 1985 't i�. they anagayanm1 ap edged odd Pb °`- ` %gy.' lah9 Plelda maNd a\➢ Mute new ts Me&who her Mm eO➢QOnb <G C<Jg4df MPJM 1fl6.Hd tloaa Yd plenty of Bnryr Smmrn 9oummn B'Street N 1981: He ra, Map of the mooted o..mplo- • membere when the wa wu adding vole Weldon Starer Ne. employ. ^ but Yry ppw I{ aY or vemortbe Nelr buly gtm' r : t 's Now, tbvt1WeE rt,mg em' F+ th.y their v.OorUnehlubu gY ,e• plats deeanO batb.eetmimMan]� j'ot' FFF they, eaytoi he'Ud 4 to,Cggnau 103. 4b.looea.heum4 Vtram Meter wiry. Li nun rWt Woad h.k.Penevod A!7 l oB3Omndla onham an • by matt m Sautbww<t A Sleet. Fayene0 m to Bmeevvm. t.kei _.where o had le Wbtemuraa o my about10mN om etfr510. ontoi. h. bet 54010Ho*tW&bMM1 e*gmn ftomP•f:.. .won. c0n9 fl weeuA.w rm.uae Chit. Cheatham obamembWS Se0 m NWMut herdpurrtMdaket SpdMObA Udall lean lnu+dl.to: NB.4188 Mirth e B.NofMMPe3.la dry Am ea Ton M.niMrolablOo 1000 n teed BRmlham PWg5aW Seth sperm beonan lab am WrpA4n 5Wna IM.Y b.edauut.n on se wE 9m In 9anam9l.. °9'the claua➢amt),,, inlllFte AN 96 'T.e men MM Ivlld thus 2ada. Theories le,Yme than Berton eve Imvlvd W aunty's higher crash rate , RII tije • Crash n•mlla WSMppn; rates C.be! 1.B2 • :M Benton CounMe mmdllvue'iMN 3 .. �1' a.Mwawemthin 4MnWObr tlnhlAa NM1 rverNl I .l r: But the op it Wetdnolan pepN pd Moran. Wle an. tBmrm Me IM vanpa 2011 2005 rwwaU en Camrya exen<NPEer. louncl uunm ew Ma "arts, DijMn4.fl he nmae ran WuNepan CemN W>2311 aea JutenueecomtNB,4.pnh m r Rlldthl fl5lBroXwmpved may0veW Beotm CauftY Intl Aare WF816.6a9 for Bennie Caunry, a mub a wuhmpm County.' way oBiciaa •' Veup5 people have wm driving BtMemWeeinto Mike eerier than elver.. OemrdWB to W red oemore Churchwell affeud one more theory lhauhen� - 1hcruh earmmmapsNu, for Washington County. bigb erW me depenl And IMt seems to be mDpaned nit, by an mdyhla of 2003 mctldeat do In the merrodox . three 'ftpdhe2 di have a mom driven commuting north Into _ _ter. . Drivers under the alter of 30 were Benton County.. aim attest. lnvnitid W elm e, bell 4 p l — ercent then ere fewee accidents dunng to the coca- •—olw..higtoo CounN''etCl. the mmruinanuh bow lhmthe enter' dente.. roan one, ,ecordiding 10 $Z analysis of a aW M InBmmp County, the lens age thedve. t R'uNnl- an io.. ♦.'.', Qatt ettum ead for el percent the TiaM1 heeauu morNeB drive'sdrive'sm30 have drys hid coffee and ace am. ono of sea':. aaJjmy. -Fen(Bureau and Sate Part, tM CEutthw.0 old. - more mm Cpnn caw. m ve6 And flyyaenMB' hen the-enrates mlleat t1ma twityerrh for BurkIY'IW;i6We'mta!aan ethfnr-. Marfear -Implied' —mete Jun the other: Jule pltkeh`Nef<pwm Arkm• w elt1nco 'ebbWkt PcmklWnaN Pay<nevlll 2.8 ac artlraN'GY+'ev.'Youtie Befamew wi0' he said. Young people and accidents, pop Wtd MyMA'anMIY ■ ImenMe campenlef an pembme ems euompoon Nalvounp emnldn m'la'YMM4mmxren aW ... people arse men nepeuly. One ofaveron for Washington CoumyI AMID Aa10Plepve lhmhea sl e nbnerutaem ll IStrial ':. ii Fsy*hlle. IMMIS -0nMnM oe Ananiasu Yang P.Bnhlopi it pepis1 WaMIle Bhmmy..More peach 0Y.M6e1ten111a WtlAlrglaa fromnP thh%mm ntounry mminBmlon ' a4 i • t i{ t '! ° 1 d I fccina.nrS In nflrtnur1PST •.I 1 �`yK"'fN�°'el . �r�iriW'k!•y+" 'F." n e s r t I 5 �l t\ ,'ry•tM1�,Ypr 2 tlr YM ri l'vVnl;�v I ♦^atr�(ka vil An1.� i I • „'YY lv: yi"MYi♦,nb Y'Ili♦s4..W .1. h'"t L fYll • .rI,.Y r„Yr�4rV )Ii v. r ^i r'i+�•,�,raypivelpMA 1 ^ YTNMrJiTT^+rIrIM1N�.r+V xJ Tr [r.V 41 i I,t d tl,,. icy a s j �' 1 ,iVJrtY�'4'M4'JY.i�f'rl i.♦yy!` r 1 1 In .. t I r 1 �� lg r I K-.ik9Y"wirl� Wx'ry T[i% " « Yl. - ! It ♦ Y� '.vlv ♦ aiM Nf v L.. r,5 ^r„' - :z:: .� �lyl 1. RYt'. ♦ v,y�'.JZ y�^4u'fh!9 tYl' 1 tel 'Y tt•u PY S • lr — ys A t ♦a11 �'T $'• i[�r AS1 �' �ShilM • 1a' iL :•' 1 - �Mifb • 'r. THE Y IMPE Roq�rc e n 4 o V F 4 YIgL d�� ycciaen ,ates Vorth, Irkanh LEGEND !:;Ixj IIun cui : Miuimnm sgrrrc Pr piupetV hcltvicen cut•, )hn:t) f SDI -'414 y� nSr ' Ord 1, ,�y�t i •1 • f C �f r i •r Imp 41 i •. rn' f� _ III I Irr I•��a yr ) �' 0 r I. r " rr• 1 ; r i f1r •ba nay ° 1 • r ��, i 1. • li •. r: r 1 11 .r T sir r l _ 41 ( 4 I�In 1. �� , 1. a f` r •�1—�eh nl cit •• � r �. ( j 1 r • r r 1 �� nb"fir r!'. rIr If IL r1 r / • l I r. �'�I d•�i • r rIf"Ihr44. b'i' , r• r r a I n I � �� ,�I I .' � I II 3I a�7Na) �� Il)t n. 1•Ir1 � • _`1[• r Ir '•, XX']'QY ,ru nl r �I+rc iti ®r�-� tier r pi r i �,y 11 mIf� . Ih, +r •rile, vl ,b1M �q�y1p y/ 4 , ! ] '� r! f i'R4IW�xY >Y� v� n �QI � ��C L fP'�� {h,IJgarq 6Ff 1 �' r e ��' 1 r. T 4 1�,1411Y r r' � I II �' �� • LI I ) • 1, .� _ x,..q h yl 32 1.'e'H` } _ :fi 1 r If II r 11 I' J y ..... �f r r. I Ir .IP'R r .r:. •r 1 r '. il z r f 1 rl '. r �.ryY r Zto rt Xr� r� .I Il Hll ri rr5 ir'T t� 11�rrl lF"1 {�I�rq 11}� l�{I r alr f'1 rt, ql4 ��7w Il Ii !I �t �r'I /r r('rnl },;i flr l4V�1 Ilr r 4��J�i�I1MI�".iY III r� ("+ 44 i • IImo- X� ,.rn I'J .i�q 11 1 1 4 r VI^{ •14 • rdlf r � J I � � I �' I � %i 1�w rr �', Dill �yli �' � 1 iQ Mr • _ ••• r I a I 1� � i I rl �1r 1..�1 �� '�r��ri liV�I •� �'Q�'f•_�,�a �r•�,f l�^��,#1a. �� .. L � r � , Y ii', r � dTrl V rl �•. �� i��aVr" rVel Y'r/ If ��i•r ,t �L ty.f Y4� ri j$rY, II �r rr �I 1 �lr r r • •r• j^"� Y 11• 1 - / f. 1 r,P v� f -t I I: 1 1ikr pll. �F r , , r .WWWWee a �i1i•'3 �t _'. �rl Iii / hCJ r IffKRK�' r _ r r 1- I ' r `I �' r dA. 1 1 r It r r � .. iY t `mil r I r 17 r ..1 tI r r r I •�� r fry . r u r air,y I •mot i" Vl •{ r u �.I � f , . ,I Ip Ir r i i l 1 '`{�T1+�ti +y'1 (It"�\fir'"'1 F✓1'Ni�r tdfYbKfin 1rl •t�r •� 1 a�iA40�d4f/� LLSSrY�� I.. r ••r: 1. 5ri� � 1 1 -, ! � f ..'r_ r , ... J.�� ri(-.ar u� r�r.�iv r. vr., Il 111 ..t�y�� 1• .r el Am aR.4y4 �n • I I .ti 1_ 1, 1, I . L' Coaafribeetors Ca6aasaAt this G la,ili �yJ 'hf.74' •ao'v .J thr '44Il la''!v a , '�(R Si• ♦ ;,\ !_ rl• ••"-r {• • . 1. N . h f,"v 1pi 1 ,ei ♦Y• If @j eSf♦ d.til { �' %1 IiIM I1,1V r ( 1 re �L') r •.1 •w ES x�Ry V`�y�A2 � I L i 1 Irl +3�.�1*�L.rr+Y��1�;•{4S' gyp. s 'y;lw� Y,. .. a � " �4 \ .�:Mi y+v � k Aa P.II • 1 •.r le yv s14 sk.MY`II lJ',i' tyi ♦♦ r, yl Iv ir.y rY "h\d \ : ry ♦I:M u 1 Y J M 1 r11 nva ) Y fir{ i f '..n ceIt it `r! i •n v. y )/ . e ii 1 i i(. i'. eJ{ rvs "Y r{`fr 11 1'I /i h 1�u Y\ .t 11 •• • . 1 • .y f l �R Ijf.V a. AI +' 4y 1\ 'F W j ra 4. x0.1 r !1 , �.1 1 r ♦ r `i r Yi+l 1" • • •r IA. 'Y l 1LL1L`.. F. ��77•• r ♦v •l 6 MP rJy { y ,1} �� II. F 4x/n%g r ,1.• ' \,� /S/ RRRRRR t 3[ A J I.5 T : ^In ♦ y n.. rin '['Y x y :II nJt/ iv 1 I' i •{'♦${41r { +I rr IP-ry.�/ /.J a' '1}Yv a A )' . •.0 • T ]] + j "' 1QI�fl .)lIS4• x [ M 'C•%\ fv `��I�t�t°' I'' / r / Y 4F%1f+Y 1O f�MY1 1 i I J8.1{... I), 11 J .'/ u f P.r'♦ 41 YIfi �2%� L.� f �, of • • .. Ir�:If�dfms; I YI 1 ,.YRaI A' \r FIY ..� hf.C9BS:l9YS �ta ,� fP,x. . 1 IJIIIIII In 71111.1) 4� tA" Yv •h' v irl �111j.4• '1'1{.'L.♦w r�.Z a r Y. .r A: 11{rP�♦ !_�'Y'P ,1_•.Lr%1y+l ATar..uy/:.^ e { F Yi YEN((<V:I. L= 11 J y 1� of l ilr 1 '.1 al yN.l `I� 1.�y^ t •,bn r(1 �; _ °{y` "Qs.4�w�n VYI' 1. it ili.'gl•P} • i rl Ye •� ... TM 1. •nY♦ bra ^' w.l ue lli. ly. Ye \lin tl Pr 1 R4i .r4N ` • • ♦ - 1 1 I If L. '.•II. 1 � 1 • 1 11 • 1.1 11 . ` 61 . I' . 1 ' is ' Ir • .1 .II4jx rNv na:x lil llli r IC III (JI °- 1.• • _ ° d, 11 Yv1 _ ` 1 r•.1 I I f , 1` 1• b Y t^ 11 4: 2Iv °�'1{.• L 4NY� �'�{ kv� r�� `'4�K' 1 ♦ 1 e I If. J0'+U��'� I I .♦ 1 V „1 ♦ yl .y� 1 1 'Y )r•. Ix'''Y r- a 11 .Yf . 1•• FI, l 111 •L. Y ! e'� y�k .^, 1 rI1 L. 1 f�R'r1 ��Y , 1 ,�l+ a Ivy �•r.vs. [`a �Y',I nChr riY rW. 1. [I .1 1 vwf 1 1e..1 1♦ f v" { I . . i'1 ♦1 iY ,Yl FF)jV��"pp• rkJ�a{ y r� � .VIII YJ :V � �• V PJ � Y O � � dI IJ� 9ID 0 F iJ V n4 Inn . 1 1 I N �/ Y'n ( '.5.Y 0 Yf Y `'•. I ' .. i!' •[� Y /. _ • I • •' A M1'.f 1 / ! J 1 y- f'w 4 • i 1 .fA •11 n F \I M' ?n ;t4:;/>&I: t + kilt : •4 ,♦y J. i rl+' r .'1.'v,�.t. r• '`iYf+K�.5(.{ 1 1 I Y {• VA(I�IIJ1 1 SAY:♦ 1 1 1 .rte 111 �^�ip1 'k.; ql • V r I I ) I • I. �al'YC)rf• 1 ?,R 1 I S�yYi'J I W I'n `Y' Ohl 1[.. II I I IJIiA LAIL r.. ' • 1 r rI.AnVYJ�v1'ikl��1��f�W'. SAM Ir'' Yf/ \\pp�� 1 •• o • aIIMN� 1 1 4i 1 ! • x 1r a 1 ♦ _ 0� { . i ( r rYl n 021, e 11 rni ' -" { Y , !yr • 1; ti n+ y 4Q Yi Ar 'LI Ir \II.S 1'• 1• r Lc��.ryV].Y� 1 1 '/ • y 1:'A{1rn • • • 1 n UMI� �•� 1 µl r } nr n 1 A�'p�({x�} R { r'.u.L1:1 �. �.v'I?�''«Y�rA r<'r { •1 .. NUMBER OF •-` 1>`yi"i ` z J= 'rr.,q. x'sw ra, ed� • ._ 1 i • ACCIDENTS F�u+*+?x4vt ? .'): {'tf�!'{�',y ,n,e - a1• (711001n 2003) tt �. I:aglpY r'I,yn Ake' r '�1rt r { �� t ,v 1 • I 1 •Ir 1 , �(IIIw' IYJT%v w�' -ygll Q.1� ` .,v • {4•y�t_'1;j111{P J�JA`.>:•�l�v ph•i•`rra"YI 9 (i '�Yr 1 t i f /.• yy • I /�\ r /L I 1 • •. • .y .l- ,.r' � ~y~ �.reyay�}l � 4h� "' r `I�i�t ` / F. I" 1 1 �y(lnJ((��r,4 Is"^.+1'6 , J •`S'Ynx �A'iv •'if.li ,+ 1�, j9°F�r7 nP 11 Yj 1q' I y J 1 - 3♦9U ^7 a. • • • I X11 d]I' wry Ii 1 I7r VIf t Yy • •• •• • ��1 f I . •11.Y 4 I_.• •. •xT Yn i�u 'l f*If •/F.hihl y !Jj/J`4 • • • • • • 'M1S 1 11 1 , y4 hyw�•ty r 'Pry n¢Y \If l• .../, �, r r e' '/ )e iACjC "%Ui .vynpyya�. 'ela• H .:. >i i IIti ♦,`Ift Y�'i rryy {11.y. Z 1 1 1 jjjj r1L{-Jj'.]' e..� 1 F\♦\M1 t. .:.FNN;,, 'f`4 r r:i of T�ngT 'i {�l 1 ty\tt�.(1) fTn l..LP�Y �l I71a.� • r 1. )hl 1t -Itl lfrJ 115 )n .VIP' N'611 I iv�. �♦%'�f\a'SJ♦x/ 1 E wui�z R: ( 1 { IF ay -4 1/5 $� & b , n v / vfJ• at' \ A r f 1 * {�y 4 M1 YY L q Yx •.1'. +.'MDER OF r,1 1 ,, , ♦ YV1 r 1)�� W' 'u �1�` N P 3 l' I f_ 4�� y v3i•� � y / � A ,��A Y ar yr v 'll N Y it.� r { )f at }/ , �Ri +. f.•a ♦ v , 1. iaS1(r)I}a q ..�.Y.S• .\ - ♦ �!!'.LY4 �.J�`1 M .:H.-.:1.j � '�♦ 1 'r d5 bNnl f'I CII 1 y\ {/'' f Iti4 YI •. y 1 r 1 q a♦ �.: ra j raC}�`� r. e VC ✓PbF ( lA f �' ' L4f 4 r 1 r � r. !S Yal r 1 w t L a .1 - ', i 1 1' a s .WYIM'/•Lm Q. i rF r 'tYlla� ♦•e. `+Y•,•. - ��9 NNMRERRF a. t•: ii'Y G1'iilw,'YY(Cy;,: ACCIDENTS .Try,. ♦ f .�`,r ' • �;:ri 12000 In 2003) • .. _ t Rn- a�\ x ,1 `Y1luu t I1t1 J♦4 qq.. •i .1,1 p \ m,�r li\'tl�h '•' r• 'eA r . Il.)L)IS {'may r �rfF1'IOy�Tw:•I'."41♦♦Yl y l-0hS hl p°:'.. r [ I r♦ I JL M(i + 4%_�nQ{-1( `\ II I 1{q,}\� f' YH A , Y [. a h.11\ '' 1♦ f / 1 ( r "�°x14 �r Ja vH3 A1' C♦ ♦C4J t 1' 1 ✓ J- r, nr _•: ♦ ,. ,. 1L it p�r.JJ.1dJl!'.fr Wa ( . C\/w '..! M) t Tua�" : r{ ♦fis / rY 1 1•1 1 , //w Iyy �r e�y♦�F� @yam af� I •A'�� v .•^+ u ' Y r71Q$i. 1$01911P0/ x,%^/1+1SA �1'1• i!U)aTtL♦ �..• r t ` v � !a W+H'Bll[,$J 4A r �� {QY191 l')[ Y/7Qi 1!i 1"r II II r ♦ ;.�{ Iv♦ �� 'byy''w' drY}�"Yr yrYr{H� a ,Y t.j',4 •1""^�"('a -1°T-! 7,• .1'F r��ak fr r j@��Iry 1 1(.(, '(� i �. ate ll . 1. :♦ I a(ii ./' 5o i•: V 0.I 1'iLl H 2n,,, piY fl 'a 1 I r 1 'WM Tr'•'P lt� 4'VY'J� _ 4 • a IIi�S3 ♦ 1�� 4�AA (/}LL} tA1�'1�1i �'1f Ju��♦�j{ � 1 •♦ fFl '61i YYf rMll `.\fY' 4i •rOAYY' ' 'r .LkII r rT r4• IT laF / "n T' Sd ,I3 ♦A lln6rft u'h+`+b a J4 7nP` Aa rm( v I1 a P r �y(rHl^a+(re"n}1Y4f • 1 ♦ r u %tom.. •ji l� ;: t iY -! 1 a r M r 1 Y M k'+� ..u.YFal (1, r l:•y Y� _r .. r. { 1 : r . .- G tl _ y.� I 'I ♦ l ' .l'r 2:r1 lap x'1/ • , ..j - — ♦ 1 rr I ♦ r r, Washington ;• Conty 4 �y� 1 I. imnly Washington Cnunly '� a., :hci. , & .. " dd / Ae AVID/ ` ♦ i , .' s.. . Bealnn County 0 llvrrape annual hiVhmay anl.hlcuts ImII:4111 19ashinitm0 County I of ulllloo vnhi,.lr. n,i!u . Urntnn !mnty • 8.14.07 Clarice Pearman - Res. 149-07 & 150-07 Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 8.14.07 5:21 PM Subject: Res. 149-07 & 150-07 Attachments: 150-07 LSD 07-2574 Uberty Bank Appeal.pdf; 149-07 CU 07-2560 Bohot Appeal. pdf CC: Audit Jeremy: Attached are the above resolution passed by City Council, August 7, 2007 regarding the appeals brought before them. Please let me know if there is anything else needed for these items. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman, C.A.M.C., C.M.C. City Clerklrreasurer Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-8309 coearmant ci.favetteville.ar.us