The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About190-07 RESOLUTIONr RESOLUTION NO. 190-07 A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF PPL 07-2679 (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS) AND TO APPROVE PPL 07-2679 SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHEREAS, the City Planning Department recommended approval of Preliminary Plat 07-2679 (Township Heights) with 17 Conditions of Approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deniedapproval of PPL 07-2679 after public hearing; and WHEREAS, the owner/developer properly appealed the denial of its requested PPL 07- 2679 to the Fayetteville City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard from Planning Staff, neighbors, citizens, developers, engineers, and attorneys during a public hearing on this appeal and determined that PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) met the requirements of the Unified Development Code such that the appeal of its denial should be granted and that PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) should be approved subject to the seventeen Conditions of Approval 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 grants the appeal of the owner/developer of PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) and approves Preliminary Plat 07-2679 (Township Heights) subject to the seventeen Conditions of Approval (attached as Exhibit A). PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of November, 2007. APPROVED: By: ATTEST: By: 001ticive✓ SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer "EXHIBIT A" As approved by the City Council on November 6, 2007 on appeal, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval associated with PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights Subdivision): 1. Determination of street improvements. The applicant shall improve Township Street a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and a 6' sidewalk. Said improvements shall be constructed along the entire property frontage including the adjacent parcel, which is surrounded by the development. The six-foot sidewalk on the off-site property shall be constructed at the Master Street Plan right-of-way line, unless the existing property owner objects. Should permission not be granted to construct the sidewalk on the adjacent property, the applicant shall pay money in -lieu for this sidewalk installation. 2. Determination of appropriate connectivity. The applicant has provided two street connections to provide access to future development. Staff finds in favor of the proposed connectivity. However, the applicant shall indicate a minor shift in the road alignment further to the east on the northern street stub -out to allow a future street extension to occur such that the house to the north will not encroach into the front building setback that will be created if the street is extended. 3. The existing residential driveway to the west of the subject development (1114 and 1118 E. Township) shall be removed and said properties shall only access Street 1 as indicated on the plat. A 30' access easement shall be included on the plat to allow access from the adjacent properties to Street A. Said requirement was offered by the applicant in lieu of requesting a waiver of the minimum separation between a curb - cut and an intersection. 4. Any proposed entry feature, including but not limited to walls, fences and/or signage shall be reviewed and permitted by the Planning Department prior to installation. 5. Payment of $21.160.00 for an additional 21 single-family units in lieu of dedication of parkland shall be contributed by the developer prior to final plat. 6. The applicant shall work with the Urban Forester and Engineering Department at the time of construction plan review in an effort to maximize the percentage preserved canopy along Township Street. 7. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 35' from centerline for Township Street shall be dedicated with the filing of the final plat. Right-of-way for all interior streets shall be dedicated as noted with the filing of the final plat. 8. Development of all individual lots within the subject development shall be subject to the requirements of the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District requirements and will be reviewed at .the time of building permit. Grading permits and tree preservation plans shall be required to be submitted for approval for each lot development within the HHOD (30% tree canopy and 30% undisturbed area). 9. The lot reserved for detention shall be an unbuildable lot and owned and maintained by the Property Owners Association. Standard Conditions of Approval: 10. Street lights shall be installed at all intersections and with a maximum separation of 300' prior to signing the final plat. 11. Impact fees for water, sewer, police and fire shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 12. Signs indicating the future extension of right-of-way shall be posted at the end of all street stub -outs prior to signing the final plat. • 13. All street names and addresses shall be approved by the 911 coordinator prior to signing the final plat. 14. 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). 15. 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. 16. All overhead electric lines under 12Kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 17. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year VV ENGINEERING, IN. September 5, 2007 City of Fayetteville City Council 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION APPEAL Council Members, Tofr ;ECEIVED ISEP 0 6 2007 ga y23Ll J, J G Y OF FAYETTEVILLE 1ITY CLERKS OFFICE %b 707 PPZ a7-02-679, w nM'p mgbf lions/up On behalf of our clients, Randy and Kelly Davidson, 1 would like to appeal the August 27, 2007 decision of the Planning Commission, to deny PPL 07-2679, Township Heights. In order to properly prepare additional data to present to the Council, I am requesting that this item be put on the October 2, „2007 City Council Agenda. This project consists of approximately 5.57 acres of wooded property, on the north side of Township Street approximately ''A mile west of the intersection with Old Wire Road. The property is currently zoned RSF-4. We are proposing splitting the property into 21 residential lots and one lot containing a detention pond. The proposed density is 3.77 units per acre. The majority of this property lies within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. The proposed preliminary plat meets or exceeds all Unified Development Code requirements for an RSF-4 development within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. "Best Management Practices" from the HHOD Ordinance were used in the design of this development. We have requested no waivers with regards to this development, and the project received favorable recommendations from the City Engineer, Mr. Petrie, and the Director of Planning, Mr. Pate. Planning Commissioners present at the August 27 meeting, cited "the creation or compounding of a dangerous traffic condition" as their reason for voting against the approval of the preliminary plat. We strongly, but respectfully, disagree with this reasoning. Not unlike numerous streets in Fayetteville, Township suffers from periods of high traffic volumes at peak hours. We feel that this situation, while certainly inconvenient, is far from dangerous. Dangerous traffic situations generally involve conditions such as high speeds, reduced sight distances, or confusing/complex traffic maneuvers (i.e. lane shifts, lane changes or lane merges). None of these conditions exist along this stretch of Township Street. On the contrary, the proposed entrance to this development has over 600 feet of sight distance, in both directions, only two lanes of traffic, and a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The expected traffic generated by this development, approximately 210 vehicle trips per day, will be less than 2% of the overall traffic on Township for the same 24 hour period, based on a recent count performed by the City Transportation Department. Please contact me, if you have any questions or need further information regarding this project, at 582-4234 or thennellv@h2ei.net Sincerely, Thomas A. Hennelly, P.E. President 2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479.582.4234 Fax: 479.582.9254 City Council Meeting of October 02, 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 Planning)` Date: September 13, 2007 Subject: Preliminary Plat for Township Heights (PPL 07-2679) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted to deny the subject Preliminary Plat request, PPL 07- 2679 Township Heights. A motion to deny passed with a vote of 5-1-0 (Commissioner Trumbo voted 'No ). The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat. The proposed development meets all ordinance requirements for a residential subdivision in the RSF-4 zoning district, and meets or exceeds all requirements within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). Additionally, many of the Best Management Practices (BMP) recommended for hillside/hilltop developments in the HHOD BMP Manual adopted by the City Council are being utilized to reduce the amount of grading disturbance and tree removal for the project. BACKGROUND The subject property contains approximately 5.57 acres on the north side of Township Street, just west of Common Drive. The majority of the property is located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). In accord with the HHOD Best Management Practices, street sections and utility easements within the HHOD have been reduced in width in order to minimize the amount of grading disturbance and tree removal, while still accommodating utility locations, vehicular and pedestrian movements, and/or parking. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for 21 single family lots, a density of 3.77 units per acre. There is an existing single-family residence that will be surrounded on three sides by the proposed development, although is not a part of the subdivision. One detention pond is proposed to be located in Lot 1 near the entrance to the subdivision. All lots meet the standards established for properties in the RSF-4 zoning district and within the HHOD. DISCUSSION On October 27, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 5-1-0 on a motion to deny this request with commissioners Myres, Bryant, Graves, Winston and Cabe voting `Yes', commissioner Trumbo voting 'No', and commissioner Anthes, Ostner and Lack absent. The motion to deny passed and the applicant has appealed this request to the City Council. The main issue of Planning Commission concem was traffic danger on • City Council Meeting of October 02, 2007 Agenda Item Number Township Street. A traffic study was discussed, but not requested by the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed traffic on Township St. in this location, based on the comments received. The development of 21 lots will produce approximately 201 vehicle trips in a 24-hour period (see MicroTrans Trip Generation Summary). Township Street in this location, currently supports an average of 11,188 vehicle trips in a 24-hour period. This traffic count was taken on August 28-29 (Tuesday/Wednesday). When compared to the existing traffic this results in an approximately 1.8% increase in traffic. Staff has also conducted a visual analysis of the street and topography in this area. Site visibility is not an issue when entering or exiting at the proposed location on Township. Additionally, traffic accident records were reviewed in 2006-2007 from the Fayetteville Police Department. The amount of accidents that would result in Township being declared `significant' or `dangerous' does not appear to exist. Of the 62 accidents reported between College and Old Wire, 6 accidents were reported within a quarter of a mile; 42 were at or near the intersection of College and Township, and an unknown percentage of these were actually on College Ave. Based on this information, and review of this project through the established development review process, staff finds that the proposed development of 21 lots on the subject property meets or exceeds all regulatory criteria of the Unified Development Code and that the development will not create, nor compound a dangerous traffic condition on adjacent streets. Staff has recommended street improvements in accordance with the traffic generated and. the impact it will have on adjacent streets. BUDGET IMPACT None aye evu le ARKANSAS PC Meeting of August 27, 2007 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: August 21, 2007 Updated August 28, 2007 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1140 TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is for 21 single family lots. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Findings: Property & Proposal. The subject property contains approximately 5.57 acres on the north side of Township Street, just west of Common Drive. The majority of the property is located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). In accord with the HHOD Best Management Practices, street sections and utility easements within the HHOD have been reduced in width in order to minimize the amount of grading disturbance and tree removal, while still accommodating utility locations, vehicular and pedestrian movements, and/or parking. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for 21 single family lots, a density of 3.77 units per acre. There is an existing single- family residence that will be surrounded on three sides by the proposed development, although is not a part of the development. One detention pond is proposed to be located in Lot 1 near the entrance to the subdivision. rounding Land Use and Zoning: Water and Sewer System: Water and sewer shall be extended to serve the proposed development. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Township Street (a Collector Street) K:\Reports\2007\PC Repons\08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) doc Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family South Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family East Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family West Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family Water and Sewer System: Water and sewer shall be extended to serve the proposed development. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Township Street (a Collector Street) K:\Reports\2007\PC Repons\08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) doc Right-of-way to be dedicated: Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 35' from centerline, as indicated on the plans, is required for Township Street and shall occur at the time of recordation of the final plat. All internal streets shall be dedicated and constructed according to City of Fayetteville ordinance requirements for a residential street in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. Street Improvements: Staff recommends that Township Street be improved 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and a 6' sidewalk. The improvements shall be constructed along the entire property frontage, including Parcel #765-15982-000, which is surrounded by the subject development. The improvements shall only include the provision of a sidewalk along the off-site parcel if permitted by the existing property owner. Connectivity: Future connectivity has been proposed to the west and north. Property to the east is a platted, developed residential subdivision. Parks: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed this project on June 4, 2007 and recommended accepting money in lieu in the amount of $21,160.00 for 21 single- family units. Tree Preservation: Existing: Preserved. Required: Mitigation: 93.39% 55.05% 30.00% Not required Public Comment: Staff has received public comment from one adjacent property owner who expressed concerns regarding traffic conditions on Township Street. 8-16-07 Subdivision Committee Meeting: Several neighbors of the proposed development voiced concerns regarding increased traffic on Township St., tree removal, drainage/runoff from the development, small lot sizes, mosquitoes from the detention pond and the overall development of Fayetteville's hillsides. Additionally, many of the neighbors did not feel that they had sufficient time to review the project prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting and requested that the applicants meet with the neighbors to discuss the project prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Meeting minutes are included within the staff report. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PPL 07-2679 with the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the following street improvements: a. Staff recommends that Township Street be improved 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and a 6' sidewalk. Said improvements shall be constructed along the entire property frontage K:\Repons\2007\PC Reports \08-27-07\PM. 07-2679 (Township Heights).doc including the adjacent parcel, which is surrounded by the development. The six -loot sidewalk on the o11 -site property shall be constructed at the Master Street Plan right-of-way line, unless the existing property owner objects. Should permission not be granted to construct the sidewalk on the adjacent property, the applicant shall pay money in -lieu for this sidewalk installation. 8-16-07 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 8-27-07 PLANNING COMMISSION: NO DETERMINATION. 2. Planning Commission determination of appropriate connectivity. The applicant has provided two street connections to provide access to future development. Staff finds in favor of the proposed connectivity. However, staff recommends a minor shift in the road alignment further to the east on the northern street stub - out to allow a future street extension to occur such that the house to the north will not encroach into the front building setback that will be created if the street is extended. 8-16-07 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONNECTIVITY. THE REQUEST TO ORIENT THE STREET BASED ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH WAS ADDED AFTER THE SUBIDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING. 8-27-07 PLANNING COMMISSION: NO DETERMINATION. The existing residential driveway to the west of the subject development (1114 and 1118 E. Township) shall be removed and said properties shall only access Street 1 as indicated on the plat. A 30' access easement shall be included on the plat to allow access from the adjacent properties to Street A. Said requirement was offered by the applicant in lieu of requesting a waiver of the minimum separation between a curb -cut and an intersection. 4. Any proposed entry feature, including but not limited to walls, fences and/or signage shall be reviewed and permitted by the Planning Department prior to installation. 5. Payment of $21,160.00 for an additional 21 single-family units in lieu of dedication of parkland shall be contributed by the developer prior to final plat. 6. The applicant shall work with the Urban Forester and Engineering Department at the time of construction plan review in an effort to maximize the percentage preserved canopy along Township Street. 7. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 35' from centerline for Township Street shall be dedicated with the filing of the final plat. Right-of-way for all interior streets shall be dedicated as noted with the filing of the final plat. K:\Reports\2007\PC Reports\08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights).doc Development of all individual lots within the subject development shall be subject to the requirements of the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District requirements and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. Grading permits and tree preservation plans shall be required to be submitted for approval for each lot development within the HHOD. 9. The lot reserved for detention shall be an unbuildable lot and owned and maintained by the Property Owners Association. Standard Conditions of Approval: 10. Street lights shall be installed at all intersections and with a maximum separation of 300' prior to signing the final plat. 11. Impact fees for water, sewer, police and fire shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 12. Signs indicating the future extension of right-of-way shall be posted at the end of all street stub -outs prior to signing the final plat. 13. All street names and addresses shall be approved by the 911 coordinator prior to signing the final plat. 14. 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). 15. 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. 16. All overhead electric lines under 12Kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. • 17. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Additional conditions: a. Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approved '4 Denied ❑ Tabled Motion: Cabe Second: Myers Vote: 5-1-0 Meeting Date: August 16, 2007 K:\Reports\2007\PC Reports \08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights).doc Township Heights Summary of Average Vehicle Trip For 21 Dwelling Units of Single September 13, 2007 Generation Family Detached Housing 24 Hour Two -Way Volume 7-9 AM Enter • Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Exit Enter Exit Average Weekday 201 4 12 14 8 24 hour Two -Way Volume Peak Hour Enter Exit Saturday Sunday 212 184 11 10 9 8 Note: Source: A zero indicates no data available. Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Tare MI le ARKANSAS PC Meeting of August 27, 2007 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester Date: August 21, 2007 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3470 ITEM # PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (Township Heights) Requirements Submitted: Canopy Measurements: °i;TotafSite urea Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator T Site Analysis Map Submitted T Site Analysis Written Report Submitted T Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted Canopy Measurements: °i;TotafSite urea acres 5 43 square feet236,401.58 aExistmg,Treecanopy_ - -'., ie acres 5.07 square feet 220,770 percent of site area 93.39% IE ii stlrig ill ee Cailopff reserved acres 2.98 square feet 130,132 percent of total site area 55.05% irEleea .Minih Canopy;Requir w 3o% FINDINGS: The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. • This site is a very wooded and found within the hillside hilltop overlay district. Over half of the canopy will be saved after the installation of required infrastructure. Each individual home in this subdivision will require a separate grading and building permit to ensure a high amount of canopy is preserved. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the tree or group of trees. • Environmental degradation should not occur on the site. A good amount of pervious surface will be removed but the applicant is utilizing options provided in the best management practices manual. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located. • Adjacent properties should not be affected by the removal of tree canopy. All utilities are kept to the fronts of the lots. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of development on existing trees. • N/A Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design. • The shape of this is very long and linear. This does reduce the flexibility of design. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease, injury or hazard. . • The general health of these trees was determined to be fair to good. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the property. • The trees on this site are very dense. There is little allowance to move the road around The hillside hilltop best management practices are being utilized to preserve as much of the integrity of the area as possible. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. • The trees proposed on this plan for removal are for infrastructure only. When a single family lot is purchased, the builder will be required to save 3o% of the canopy on the individual lots. The utilities have been placed in the fronts of the lots with a reduce easement to decrease the amount of disturbance. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. • Roads and utilities have been designed as best possible. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives. • • N/A The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives. • Mitigation will be not be required on this site as the proposal stays above the 3o% minimum. The effect other chapters of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the development design. • The project is found within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by state and federal regulations: • N/A • The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the Applicant: • Staff is recommending approval of this Tree Preservation Plan with the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval: i. During construction plan approval, staff would request the applicant look to preserve more canopy along Township if possible. Many of these trees are found within the Master Street Plan right of way but staff feels it is important to try to save some of these mature trees along the roadway. 2. Mitigation will not be required on the site as the minimum 3o% canopy will be maintained. 3. Each individual lot within this subdivision will require a grading and building permit before any land disturbance can occur. A minimum of 3o% area must be left undisturbed. • evi ie ARKANSAS • PC Meeting of August 27, 2oO7 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS LANDSCAPE REVIEW FORM To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From. Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester Date: August 21, 2007 113 W. Mountain St Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3470 ITEM #: PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (Township Heights) Applicable Requirements: NA 1Site lStalldaIds Development & Parking(L0404 .,;:frt.-&.4 :4Ca A, (>: NA ++I-'--54o,Design 'overlay eit't.: ,:LI :, Y4Street ':ii":, t. k.;c Tree Planting Standard - y 'Stormwater y Faci1ittest;' `c: , Plan Checklist: Y= submitted by applicant N=requested by City of Fayetteville NA= not applicable dPre1mmiiary„ Subnuttal tFinal Wait. _l ' fY '!$fr' '?:r''All-laridscapePlans ':ii":, t. k.;c '. v4?=%h`ri.ice ,tet'. t,'NAL N y Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib N y Species of plant material identified N Y Size of plant material at time of installation indicated N y Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed N y Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds N N Plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect N y Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual _> ft. w ,�fs ��iG�.� t dls �jqY� '�1 ` • � , -Site .. '%t Development A :, `i. 8r Parking"Lot .5�. -`c l7 fX7 �' .:��•'IH Standards .T: , 'Y�".'R'! .�i_ .r_.l �. y, .. NA Wheel stops/ curbs NA Interior landscaping Narrow tree lawn Tree island (8 (8' min width, 17' min length/ 1 tree per 12 spaces) min. width/1 tree per 12 spaces) PPreliminaty wSubmittal iFinal' X ,Submittal? 4 NA Perimeter Side and rear Shade trees Parking lot 8 per tree- landscaping property lines (5' landscaped) as described in street tree planting standards, adjacent to K.O.W.- continuous planting of shrubs-at least and ground cover -5o% evergreen) S —c. `o" �$�� .Over aycDtstrtct 'i:''i M Requirement$7 y Ono 2.A' � =r� . Cll. .L "}; �[ ` NA Greenspace adjacent to street R.O.W. (25' wide) NA Large street trees planted every 30' L.F. along R.O.W. NA 25% of total site area left in greenspace (8o% landscape) NA Parking lots and outdoor storage screened with landscaping Stand ds_ inn ofFV - -ernut T `? IStreetir ee Planting N y Residential planted within Subdivisions- t Large species shade tree/ lot tree R.O. W. if possible NA Nonresidential tree planted Subdivision- within 15-25'greenspace 1 large species shade tree/3o L.F. NA Urban Tree Wells-urban streetscape only-8 foot sidewalk NA Structural soil must be Soil-if urban wells are used, a note or detail of structural indicated on the landscape plan N y Timing of planting indicated on plans (subdivisions only) N y Written description of the method for tracking plantings ;Stormwatee+telltties (tame fl' okperaiiit) N y 1 deciduous or evergreen tree/ 3000 square feet . N Y 4 large shrubs (3 gal) or small trees / 3000 square feet N y 6 shrubs or grasses (t gal) / 3000 square feet N Y Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified . N Y 5o% of facility planted with grass or grass like plants Conditions of Approval: 1. Lot 1 will be required 1 street tree. Please consider putting this adjacent to Township as a good amount of canopy will be lost in this area with improvements. 2. Please review the report and address all comments marked with the letter N. 3. Before construction drawing approval, the landscape plan shall be stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect within the state of Arkansas. 4. Chapter 177 requires all street trees to be bonded for a 3 -year term. This bond, letter of credit, or check would be required for signature of the final plat. • • a e eviile ARKANSAS PC Meeting of August 27, 2007 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3470 To: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester Date: August 21, 2007 ITEM #: R-PZD 07-2680: Residential Planned Zoning District (Arcadian Court) TREE PRESERVATION PLAN i. A full Tree Preservation Plan will be required once this development comes through the preliminary plat process. 2. Staff will assess the plans with a minimum canopy cover of at least 25%. 3. Significant trees, canopy within floodway or along riparian areas is found to be a high priority for preservation. LANSCAPE REGULATION 1. Landscape Regulations, as defined in Chapter 177, will be required with development plan approval. This shall include but not be limited to street trees, detention facility plantings, etc. • yettevtlle ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3469 TO: Jesse Fulcher, Associate Planner FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner DATE: August 14, 2007 SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Review Comments ****************************************************************************** Meeting Date: August 16, 2007 Item- PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights, 291) Park District: NE Zoned: RSF-4 Billing Nanie & Address: Randy Davison & Kelly Martin 395 Polo Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = acres 21 @ $960 per unit = $20,160 Multi Family @ .017 acre per unit = acres @ $680 per unit = $ COMMENTS: • This project was presented to PRAB on June 4th, 2007. A recommendation of accepting money in lieu to satisfy the parkland requirement was made. • Fees are due prior to signing final plat. PPL07---1 412 ENGINEERING, INC. July 17, 2007 City of Fayetteville Planning Department 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SCOPE, NATURE, & INTENT Mr. Pate, On behalf of our clients, Randy and Kelly Davidson, we are submitting Township Heights Subdivision for approval by the Planning Commission. This project consists of approximately 5.57 acres of wooded property, on the north side of Township Street, approximately % mile west of the intersection with Old Wire Road. We are proposing splitting the property into 21 residential lots and one lot containing a detention pond. A portion of this property lies within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. All infrastructure necessary for development is available adjacent to or very near the property. There is an 8" water line on the north side of Township Street and an 8" sanitary sewer line on the south side of Township. It will be necessary to extend storm drain off site, as no storm drain exists along Township in this location. There are no known drainage problems in the vicinity of or related to this project. Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Board voted to take money in lieu of land dedication at the PARB Meeting on June 4, 2007. With the addition of 21 single family residential lots, it is anticipated that an additional 210 vehicle trips per day will be generated. Please contact me, if you have any questions or need further information regarding this project, at 582-4234 or thennellyna,h2ei.net Sincerely, Thomas A. Hennelly, P.E. President • 2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479.582.4234 Fax: 479.582.9254 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION OF UPCOMINGPUBLIC HEARING Today's Date: August 8, 2007 Project Name: ; iTownsh Yletphtsa� APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO: H2 Engineering, Inc. 479-5824234 Subdivision Committee Meeting*: Planning Commission Meeting*: Thursday August 16, 2007 9:OOam Fayetteville City Administration Building 113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219 Monday, •.August 27, 2007 5:30pm Fayetteville City Administration Building 113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 22 lot residential subdivision on 5.57 Acres north of Township Street and Y4 milewest of Old Wire Road. Adjoining Property Address 'and Parcel Number(s): PARCEL: 765-11538-000 CARMACK, WILLIAM & BRENDA - 2445 N COMMON DR ' FAYE11ENILLE'AR72703 Lot:.. Lot: Block: Subdivision: Block: Subdivision: * Please call the City of Fayetteville- Planning Office at 575-8263 to verify this meeting's date and time. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS (Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped Enclosed Envelope) Project Name: Township Heights I have been notified of the above meetings for the described project I do not object to the project described above. I do object to the project described above because: 1��`kgrn, b C& P $kc : T3R A CAam�lu Name of Property Owner (printed) j gd ignature of Property Owner di,cack.. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARING Today's Date: August 8, 2007 Project Name: Township Heights APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO: H2 Engineering, Inc. 479-5824234 Subdivision Committee Meeting*: Planning Commission Meeting*: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:OOam Fayetteville City Administration Building 113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219 Monday, August 27, 2007 - 5:30pm Fayetteville City Administration Building 113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 22 lot residential subdivision on 5.57 Acres north of Township Street and 1/4 mile west df Old Wire Road. Adjoining Property: Address and Parcel Number(s): PARCEL: 765-11539-000' HENRY, MORRIS M. & ANN R. TIES HENRY, MORRISS.M. & ANN R. 2465 N COMMON DR FAYETTEVILLE,'AR'72703-3568' Lot. Block: Subdivision: Lot: Block: Subdivision: * Please. call the City of Fayetteville- Planning:OJjcce at 575-8263 to verify this meeting's date and time.. -. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS (Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped EnclosedEnvelope) Project Name: Township Heights I have been notified of the above meetings for the described project. I do not object to the project described above. x I do object to the project l�. described above because: __ �� \\ o P-44 S s d IA) t't C,V PAY Name of Property Owner (printed) Signatuf Property Owner �� Q'-�9 ` _!� rte^ ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEA Today's Date: August 8, 2007 �0 G Project. Name: Township Heights APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO: 112 Engineering, Inc. 479-582-4234 Subdivision Committee Meeting*: Planning Commission Meeting*: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:OOam Fayetteville City Administration Building 1.13 W. Mountain Street, Room 219 Monday, August 27, 2007 5:30pm Fayetteville City Administration Building 113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219 -PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 22 lot residential subdivision on 5.57 Acres nortlfof Township Street .and .%a mile west of Old Wire Road. PARCEL: 765-11537-000 ..KRODELL, F. D. &:CAROLYN B. 2425 N'COMMON DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703-356 Lot: • Block: Lot Block: Adjoining -Property Address and Parcel Number(s): Subdivision: Subdivision: * Please call the City of Fayetteville- Planning Office at 575-8263 to verify this meeting's date and time' ; ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS (Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped Enclosed Envelope) Project Name: trathtfrifflitia I have been notified of the above meetings for the described project. I do not object to the project described above. n Ido object to the project described above because: LYA1 1 RoDEU petty.Owner (printed) d c„tc t M cc Sigg nature of perry Owner • 111-0 1� UL,- ` a " SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2007 TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS PPL 07-2679 PPL 07-2679: (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1140 TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is for 21 single family lots. Jesse Futcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. He added that the Lots meet all minimum. standards. Staff recommended that the request be forwarded to the Planning Commission with 16 conditions. Staff recommended street improvements 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and sidewalks along the entire property frontage including the existing developed lot that is surrounding by the proposed development. Should the property owner of the developed lot not agree to allow a new sidewalk to be constructed at the Master Street Plan right-of-way on his property, then money in -lieu shall be required for said section. The applicant has reached an agreement with the adjacent property owner to the west to remove the existing curb - cut for the two homes and construct one driveway which will connect to the proposed street within a 30' access easement. The development is located within the Hill/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD) and is subject to all ordinance requirements including all lots having to submit a grading and tree preservation plan at the time of development. Commissioner Trumbo stated !a clarification — each individual lot is required to meet tree preservation requirements. Sarah Patterson, Urban Forester, stated that yes, each individual lot will have to meet the 30% preservation requirement. The applicant, with development of the subdivision, will not only be meeting the 30%, but will be well above, at 55%. She stated that she wants to work with the applicant on trees along Township where street_improvements will occur, as well, to attempt to save those trees. Glen Newman, Staff Engineer, stated that another requirement of the HHOD is the grading permit with each lot development. Tom Hennelly, applicant, stated that he would like for the committee to consider an assessment on Township rather than construction of improvements. He does not contend therecommendation, but would just like it to be considered. He also stated he has no problem with the recommended conditions. Ann Henry, neighbor, stated she owns property on Common Drive, is speaking as a representative for a crowd of nine other homeowners, and that she just got notice of this development. She stated she is concerned with drainage from a totally wooded area. She was blessed to have someone do a subdivision with large lots and have trees preserved. The detention pond would be a mosquito breeding ground. She stated she was concerned about access for fire trucks, school buses, etc. The person that would allow connection to Elizabeth Street has said no. Henry asked if lots are to be sold separately. They would like to postpone this to allow time to visit with the applicants, and they have lots of questions. There is movement on the hillside. She added she respects H2 Engineering, knows them from other projects, and knows they can possibly work things out Elizabeth Bland, neighbor, lives across the street from the development, on the south side of Township. Her concern is with traffic coming out, and wonders if the widening of Township will affect their property. Doug Grave, neighbor, lives at 1208 Township and has lived there since the 1970's, when it was country. Grave stated they believe Township will be widened in the future. Their concern is 22 houses with 50 cars. Ther is also an issue of the location of a property line three feet into their property .His family has been there since the 1970's and they hate to see removal of over 100 -year old trees for a detention pond. Another concern is the detention pond. They live downstream and are concerned of an overflow of the detention pond. Most houses in the area are on larger lots. Would like more time to discuss these issues with the applicants. Diane Warr, neighbor, stated she is part of the Common Drive coalition. Stated she moved to Fayetteville from California 9 years ago. Her biggest concern is what we're doing to the entire hillside in Fayetteville. She loves the nature, hills, and trees in the city. It is what makes Fayetteville unique. Fayetteville has been receiving awards, such as clean air awards. She doesn't want to see the hillside destroyed. See what Summit Place has done to the mountain. Counterparts north of Fayetteville don't get quality of life awards that Fayetteville gets. Up there is mass destruction, parking lots, paving, etc. They don't get the benefit of quality of life in this City. Commissioner Trumbo asked if the detention pond would be wet or dry. Hennelly stated it was designed to be dry. The pond will have25% overage for storage, and thety could incorporate an overflow on the south side of pond. However, he is confident it won't breach. As for other drainage, for residents of Common Drive (west side), there are 11 acres that currently drain onto them. Construction of this street will divert 9 acres of drainage into the street and then into the detention pond and stone drain system, thus only about 2 to 2 72 acres of drainage will be onto them after development. Commissioner Trumbo asked if each lot will have a grading permit at the time of .. development. Hennelly stated that yes, just like we are doing with development. Commissioner Trumbo asked about the widening of the street. Assessment versus widening? Newman stated that staff would prefer it to be built, not assessed, to contribute to improvements along Township as development occurs. Commissioner Trumbo asked about Ms. Bland's question about street widening. Hennelly stated it would be widened on the north side only, so it shouldn't be on her side. Commissioner Winston asked about street width and a turn lane. Newman stated there were no overall plans for Township, but widening will be 14' from centerline. Hennelly asked about limiting storm drain improvements on Township. Newman stated it would need to be further evaluated before Engineering could make a recommendation. Commissioner Myres stated that there is more of a comfort level because the property is within the HHOD. Each lot will have to maintain a minimum of 30% canopy, which will require some creative design. The project has to go before the full Planning Commission. Commissioner Winston stated that the public needs time to review the project, and recommended it be forwarded to the Planning Commission not for the next meeting, but in four weeks. Hennelly stated he would be willing to set up a meeting with the neighbors, but would prefer to go forward to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Myres stated she disagrees with Commissioner Winston. The time between Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission should provide plenty of time (a week and a half) for them to get together to discuss any issues. • Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2007 TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS PPL 07-2679 • PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by 1-12 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1140 TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.57 acres The request is for 21 single family lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the existing property and the project in detail, which consists of 21 lots on 5.57 acres north of Township Street. The site is within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). Staff has heard numerous public comments regarding issues including traffic, tree removal, drainage, more houses in the area, lot size, the Summit Place development to the west, etc. Summit Place Subdivision (to the west) was developed before the HHOD was adopted and the requirements were implemented for protection of the hillside. With the development proposed, each lot would be required to have a tree preservation plan and a grading permit as they individually develop. Street stub -outs that are proposed will not connect now, but provides opportunity for connecting in the future. The development meets the minimum requirements for development and zoning in the RSF-4 zoning district, including requirements of the HHOD. Staff recommends approval with conditions as noted. These include a Planning Commission determination of street improvements, which were described as 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drains and sidewalks. Improvements were recommended to include those off-site along the lot surrounded on three sides by the proposed development. With regard to the Planning Commission determination of connectivity, staff recommended in favor of stub -outs to the west and north, with a slight modification to move the north stub -out to the east. Tom Hennelly (applicant) representing Randy and Kelly Davidson stated:the !density is 3:77 units per acre, and zoned RSF-4. His clients have no problems with the conditions of .approval. Hennelly stated he agreed at the Subdivision Committee to meet .with :neighbors to address concerns. They did meet and discussed density, runoff, and traffic: The project initially had a layout with a cul-de-sac and no street stub -out. It was :requested by planning to have a street stub -out, and they have done so. They are currently requesting to stop construction of the street 10' before the property line, to provide some trees/buffer for the property owner to the north The stub -out to the west allows for a turn -around for fire and emergency vehicles. By doing so, it reduced. the amount of canopy necessary for removal. As for drainage, currently there are 11 acres of run-off to the east onto Common Drive. With construction of the proposed street, roughly 8 acres will be collected in the street, go to a detention pond with a controlled release, and routed around homes into storm drains. This will reduce that runoff from going to the east on Common Drive. He stated he doesn't think density is an issue, as the project meets those minimums. Traffic would yield 42 more vehicle trips at peak hours and should not affect Township greatly. As requested by Engineering, they also checked sight distance along Township, and it is more than sufficient. Ann Henry (citizen) stated she represents most of the residents on Common Drive. She stated she was surprised that Common Dr. is zoned RSF-4. Their development on Common Drive is a good example of how a development can be done on a hillside. She is concerned about RSF-4 in this area, that it is not appropriate for this area on the hillside. Street stub -outs that are requested don't seem to make sense. One goes to a private street, or to an area platted many years ago, that will not be connected. She is affected most by drainage from the property. Summit Place, to the west, is a good example of a bad way to do it. Development here will denude the site. There is a lot of wildlife in the area. Where will it go? Does the city have the manpower to monitor hillside development, or is it up to the neighbors? Generally it is up to the neighbors to get it enforced. Another issue is compatibility of homes in their area. There is no variety in the homes. Narrow setbacks, affordable housing is proposed. Henry discussed the availability of housing in the market in the City. As a Planning Commission, you have the responsibility of attracting people here. If development only meets the minimums, why is there a Planning Commission? At King's Drive, where Mr. Graves lives, how much is the City going to spend on that fix? And on Mission with Lake Lucille. Park Place has had a lake recently filled in as well. Doug Graue (citizen) stated that he lives on Township, and is surrounded on three sides by the development. Graue discussed the history of his parents living at the house for many decades, when Township had very little traffic. He discussed the 50 homes at Summit Place, with 500 vehicles per day; 21 homes would add 210 more trips per day on Township. He requested a moratorium on future development that accesses Township. Do we need houses? Graue began discussing the housing market, economy, trends in housing... Commissioner Trumbo reminded the public that the Planning Commission can't consider economic issues for a development. Graue acknowledged Trumbo's statement. He read from chapter6.6 under:Land Use in City Plan 2025 regarding removal of vegetation, runoff, and soil types. Since the land was rezoned to RSF-4, which happened in the 1970s, the City must have notified through the paper, because his family didn't know. The Commission should carefully evaluate these projects. Graue described the Summit Place development, which should be a wake- up call. The City should not rezone anything to RSF-4 in the HHOD. The density is actually not 4 units/acre at 0.19 acres per lot, with a detention pond. He referred to graphic, and stated the developers were trying to shoe-hom 21 houses into 5 acres on the site. He referred to the tree preservation plan, trees going away and those preserved. The detention pond will remove trees, but engineering requires it. Engineering rrequires it.. Engineering doesn't live under the detention pond. All the trees will be gone there. Graue discussed tree preservation requirements, and fencing. Five of the lots have trees in the center of the lot, and you can't build a house and meet tree preservation requirements. Drainage east of the street will be intercepted. The detention pond may fail. He discussed soil suitability. What will a big pond facing Township look like? There is a surplus of houses in the area, drainage issues, detention pond, Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District and RSF-4 are mutually exclusive, and loss of trees, etc. are the issues. He requests the item be tabled to address these issues. He requested that 21 lots not be allowed, 5-8 be approved. Graue also asked that the storm drain along Township collect all drainage. John Weiss (citizen) referred to the drawing, lots west of the development have not given permission for anyone to have street through their yard. Commissioner Trumbo explained that street is not currently proposed to be constructed, only stubbed out in case they sell their property or choose to extend the street at some point in the future. Weiss stated that he just didn't want the property condemned, that he wanted to clarify that. Robert Ginnavin (citizen) stated that if Fayetteville seeks to have connectivity, is it practical this will occur? Is there a likelihood the streets will go through? If you want them to go through, it will require condemnation and draw political fire. He referred to the map, where will stub -outs even go? :If the street is a dead-end street, like on Sherwood, as it is drawn, is it safe for emergency vehicles? Can fire trucks turn around? Jack Claiborn (citizen) asked about the houses — will there be garages, driveways off the street? He indicated he was disappointed with the development. It is the same density from Jimmie east to Crossover. It is likely trees and undergrowth will get removed, and they will have runoff. Anna Mullis (citizen) lives on Common Drive. She stated that water drains downhill and doesn't know how the drainage they propose is going to work. With an additional 50 cars along with Summit Place, why are we adding more traffic to our east -west connection? Bob O'Connell (citizen) lives on Sherwood Lane, and questioned the stub -out on the west. If ever developed, will it ever? come over to Sherwood Lane? Their covenants and developments say that if Sherwood ever connects two public streets, it must be brought up to current public street standards at the expense of the property owners. He discussed the tree preservation plan; existing tree canopy is 93%. 55% is preserved with infrastructure. Putting in a house, :driveway, sewer lines, etc. on an 8,100 square foot lot doesn't seem to be feasible for homes. Is it in the purview for the Planning Commission to look at people's property values? Bill Bishop (citizen) lives at 1016 E Township. The developer would have to take part of his driveway for the street to come. through. Township has become.:,a main artery, though it wasn't intended to. Traffic is backed up to Sherwood, 10 cars past. They need to visit Township, see the real world. Rick Osburn (citizen) represents,Caywood, LLC, own east, north, and west side. It is their intention not to allow a street in any case on this property. 4 Dr. Morris Henry (citizen) stated there is a steep slope on this property. They don't have drainage problems right now, but will have if this development cuts all the trees on the property. There are families here, and children won't have a place to play except in the street. Drainage will do damage to their property. The Planning Commission is responsible to make a better place to live. Consider putting this off until more careful consideration is given. Brandon Kairn (citizen) stated he sent a letter in, and did not want to repeat all of the comments already stated. He stated his opposition. Seeing no more public comment the floor was closed to public comment and brought back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Trumbo asked the City Attorney to remind them what the Planning Commission is to consider and not to consider. Kit Williams, City attorney, read from Chapter 166 Development, the reasons for denial of a preliminary plat. The most applicable in this case, since the development meets all the code requirements and they agree with the improvements and conditions, is will the project "create or compound a dangerous traffic condition?" The Planning Commission cannot consider the affect on value of adjacent property with a development proposal. They can do so with a rezone, but not a development. Williams cited a previous court case that states a development meeting minimum standards must be approved. Commissioner Myres stated that the applicant did a good job of meeting requirements of development in the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, but that she is not voting, however, to approve a development until infrastructure is in place to support it. Commissioner Graves stated he could read verbatim from Ruskin Heights; this is a good project, except that it emptied onto a 2 -lane street that. is not improved. No one is even talking about improvements, to.. Township; ::Traffic problem is the concern. He is •.. discounting the housing market comments; property values, those are not things a Planning Commission should consider. He stated. he doesn't know enough about drainage, and trusts staff to take care of that. King's. Drive and other places were in place before a lot of the ordinances that .are in place:today and that is probably the reasons for those issues. He is discounting the soils issue. He is discounting the stub -outs; there is no plan to extend these streets onto someone else's property with this development. The Planning Commission always plans stub -outs. A lot of the reason for Township being the way it is now is because of dead-end streets. These stub -outs , if ever connected, will help complete the grid, and help the connections. The issue is traffic. Every littleproject contributes to that. Traffic concerns trump the others right now . Commissioner Cabe stated that he commends the developers for giving it a shot. It is an infill project, which we encourage. He doesn't like the project because it disregards the contours of the hillside, and destroys the site. They will keep 55% of the trees, but will remove trees that were on this property before people were here. He stated it is hard to support the project. Commissioner Winston stated that he thanks the community for their questions, which were insightful. We need answers before pursuing. He doesn't know the impact in this area from other developments' traffic, and cannot support it until we know. Commissioner Cabe stated he would be willing to table, if the applicant is amenable to tabling. Hennelly stated he doesn't know how tabling would help, after hearing the comments. The perception is that no matter what they can come back with, they would still vote against it. He described the traffic condition and how a traffic study would work. But if a traffic study proved that it would not change the level of service, would it still be voted against? Commissioner Graves stated they are not going to say "no'.' at this point, they would have, to consider what was brought to them. Hennelly stated that any development addition will have some impact to the traffic. It is a subjective decision, whether it will create a dangerous traffic condition. He is willing to table to do a traffic count, and show how this development would really impact Township. If it is a fraction of the traffic, we can show that impact. Commissioner Myres stated she is bothered the most by 44 more cars: The development is being penalized by development down the street. It is the aggregate of development, and things planned and under construction. The road is not designed for traffic it is carrying now. She stated she doesn't.think tabling to provide a traffic study would change her mind. Commissioner Winston stated a traffic study. would need to include other developments •t . approved,and coming onto Township: A.traffic study would mean something then. Improvements to the street won't necessarily make it function better by widening 2 feet. He stated he has a list of questions for.the.developer if this is tabled. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current. Planning, discussed traffic issues and that staff recommends a traffic study be conducted for 100 lots or more; this development has 21 lots, with approximately 210 vehicles per day, which is very low, 1/7`h of the Walgreens the Planning Commission approved an additional access onto 6th street for two weeks ago. There are no sight distance issues in this area, either. Street improvements that are recommended are typical of this size. development,�, and represent what staff feels is....::. roughly proportional to the traffic impact being projected: This particular developer can't be penalized for other developments that come through and add traffic to Township. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to deny the preliminary plat. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the addition of.200 vehicle trips per day doesn't seem to be a substantial increase in traffic, to the detriment of traffic safety. There are no sight distance issues. The project meets all city ordinances. He agrees with staffs recommendation, and will vote against the motion. - G _ i(f/ : T I I i rye' i X '` S E MEADOMLIFF DR J-1rr-t t � x r - �tvSe q E WOODBROOK DR •'ter s' a d r— r � f\ r 111 ' t It \ 11 - 4 S ?----- ---H - ECENTURYDR f 'I,Y r 1: J o- • T •r I' 1 f r'�j3Z.., ,F•�I �' i � += ,Y � VS. _ Act �YY �. � ♦` [ �t H. ETOSHIP ST 4'1 ['� 1 �}� J� � It n U � I 4_ilr±! r j- x i t rt erp � A r I •a ' 1 i 4 l Y . s � .i 1�, .�+.,. » �!^• '° pm.+ _ ,4. i M��t. d ' iy •Lr6y' t _m I. Ik PEELSI + R ��t+ .. _. ,, »s '' SICWARf 5;1 - titt :T.:,�' � v 1. p. diatr:l J .tF ", IU PPL07-2679 TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS One Mile View Q DEVONSHIRE: pL RSF< w RSF-0 EI AINE AVE JRSF<Z RS -0 MORA SHARON ST THORNHILL DR RSF- ^'N Z-STIIROLEF[FLD RD RSFJ ''r > WARWICK k5F RSF4_RSF-0 R RSF4 OR HAROLD ST HAROLD Si 'A R- F-0 RSF4 J Dy9p RSF4 S �.p� R0.[ARCLIFP SFR0.fARCLIFF 5i RSF4 y FS aN'A` Q RSF-0 COR P-- RA:� :. RSF4 RSF-0 RAND ST COETON DS ST PRI TL Jt03 DR RBF-0 £ RSFA 4 w ETON STRSFd ETON ST s FLSF-0 RSF-0 x P-1 RSF m mRSFJ FURMAN ST Fl £ w a RSFJ 1 RSFJ ^!}RSFJ R'ROLLING HILLS R ,a �u2x¢�.r_, O N> RSF-0 .aa a.n a.r,o.Y✓..ai.\0. NN Lay u OAKCLtFF ST � RSF-0 3 it � RSFJ'= RSFJ RSF-0 o DAk 9@m w < t MNTF CV ROSEMONEST J CLIFF ST ( P~C :. O RSFJ 2 m SUBJECT PROPERTY RSFJ j a nv94.-a Ii u -. PSF-a T"0, RSFJ X00 L l VANWYk �W y Op �P a -.PR RSF-0 ASHBRO ah � j � Q P 9 RSFJ P E {. ? WOOD BROOK DR GNOJN Rs -4 Ny p w c RA W a 98£TH AVEOiy C�NFY RSF pDd 9.' RY DR i PRSFJ RSFJ N 2 O RSF4 PO B[p HAMPTON CT RPZD OkO pD NSHIP SrTOWNSHIP ST m. RSF-0pOlN LANCER ST P_1 TOwrvs+m Sr 0 .. pFl TOWNSHIPSr `3 RSF-0 O N S<1V RS -4J RSFRSFJ RSFJ GENTLE OAKS LN R IST AKS Of < y AlMIC( R 3RSFJ BOIS DE ARC LN N L__- ' U RSF-0ZPv STEWARFST RSF-0 J RSF .7 -I NOY RS KSDR z CARDINAL <P0.O1 OO�EN a _ RSFA RSF-0 U RSF-0 RSFLL OAKS OR J SUSAN D0. GOLDEN OAKS DR 0 RSF4 r N > £ RRFNT IN '•' z � yRSFA 0 RSF-0 ¢. OVERCREST SF RSFElM J µAN w 'RAFQ Ut ST . . in ,i i 3 .J RSF-0 DR N a� 0 F2FRMF2 <� WE DRa.'cKE t F a} .. • 'a f < ELMW O0RSFJ 0 RSF m R -O NBAUcjn LN RSF-4 NVATE 1927 OR u RSF4 yOj' AMBER OR pS`UA 0 C = x k mvSF-0 C-1 5DR RSF-4 > ¢O' RSF-0 R -a R IN RPM& m 4i < A, AMBEROR < - ♦ry DEBRA R 2 I MISsiON BLVD � 01 EI ii 1- J AMF 6Y. W A ASH ST "SrRA �JO 401 0 Ct ,,jj�� w .a` a �fii` RSF4 m • RSFJvRP a.,R . a SO RRSfAi tR5' ZUNIR FDNA ST l BRISTOL pL VE RSFJ O RSFJ \^. SF -0 O RSFJ ROADV WE RA :10Th !Fly R LLSL TUIHP CT Cl RSF-4 i RSF4 ELD PL RSF4 P 1 r RSFJ < a ALYIN ST o� 0 O U1 �� UC RSF4 x n n p a HAMMO p ibIRWIN5 Z - x s 9i,F x SF -0 - RSF-0 R OtR0L Ay < RSF4 RSF-4 RSF4- g Overview Legend Boundary Subject Property 0"l Plamirg Area - ❑ ® PPL07-2679 0 -"" a Ovoday Disbict Mpo0O 0 oWide city Legend � Hillside -Hilltop O erlay District 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Al A/ kayffievilk ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTE\'I.LLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267 To: Mayor Dan Goody, City Council From: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Date: 31 October, 2007 Subject: Township Heights Traffic Study Attached you will find the attached independent traffic study submitted by the applicant for the appeal of this proposed development. Please review this study, as well as staffs comments in the City Council memo, as traffic danger was the only cited reason this development proposal was denied. K. UeremyO007 CorrespondencelBoard MemosllVoodstock Amendments.doc Traffic Impact Study — Township Heights Development Type. Single Family Development (21 Lots) Purpose of Study. This study looked at the impacts of the proposed development on Township Street. Existing Traffic. Currently the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Township is 12,500 (AHTD 2006 ADT Counts). The City of Fayetteville provided existing traffic counts for Township. The counts are attached to the report. Trip Generation for development was established using ITE's Trip Generation Handbook for Single Family Detached Housing. The trip generation rates for the development are listed below. Supporting data is attached. 24 Hour Driveway Volumes — 247 AM Enter — 6 Exit — 18 Total — 24 PM Enter —17 Exit — 10 Total — 26 LOS Existing. The existing Level of Service (LOS) for Township in the AM is D with a v/c of 0.38, while the PM LOS is C with a v/c of 0.36. LOS Existing plus Development. Combining the existing traffic with the trip generated traffic for the development, the AM LOS is D with a v/c of 0.39 and the PM LOS is C with a v/c of 0.37. Sight Distance. Using AASHTO's — A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the stopping sight distance for Township with a speed limit of 25 mph is 155 feet. The sight distance at the proposed driveway for the development provided an average sight distance of 18 seconds (approximately 900 feet) eastbound and 17 seconds (approximately 875 feet) westbound. Findings. The development will not significantly increase traffic on Township. The existing traffic on Township is 12,500 and the development will add an additional 247 vehicles. The sight distance is more than adequate for the posted speed on Township. HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1d Brian L. Vines Carter & Burgess, Inc. 10816 Executive Center Drive/Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 223-0515 E -Mail: brian.vines@c-b.com Fax: (501) 223-2470 o -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst Jason Burton Agency/Co. Carter & Burgess Date Performed 10/5/2007 Analysis Time Period AM - Weekday (Existing) Highway Township From/To College Ave(US71B)/Old Wire Rd Jurisdiction City of Fayetteville Analysis Year 2007 Fall Description Township Heights - 21 Lot Single Family Development nput D Highway class Class 2 Shoulder width 2.0 ft peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 2 % Terrain type Rolling % No -passing zones 100 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 1047 veh/h Directional split 72 / 28 % verage Travel Spe Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.99 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.988 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1230 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 886 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free -flow speed, BFFS 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 2.6 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free -flow speed, FFS 40.4 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 2.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 28.8 mi/h rcent Time -Spent -Following Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1203 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 866 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 65.3 Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 10.7 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 76.0 1 of Service and Other Performance Measur Level of service, LOS D Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.38 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 0 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 0 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 0.0 veh-h Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. r HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1d Brian L. Vines Carter & Burgess, Inc. 10816 Executive Center Drive/Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 223-0515 E -Mail: brian.vines@c-b.com Fax: (501) 223-2470 Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysi Analyst Jason Burton Agency/Co. Carter & Burgess Date Performed 10/5/2007 Analysis Time Period AM - Weekday (Proposed) Highway Township From/To College Ave(US71B)/Old Wire Rd Jurisdiction City of Fayetteville Analysis Year 2007 Fall Description Township Heights - 21 Lot Single Family Development nput Da Highway class Class 2 Shoulder width 2.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.0 mi % Recreational vehicles 2 Terrain type Rolling % No -passing zones 100 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 8 - /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 1071 veh/h Directional split 72 / 28 Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.99 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.988 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1258 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 906 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free-Flow,Speed: Base free -flow speed, BFFS 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 2.6 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 2.0 mi/h Free -flow speed, FFS 40.4 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 2.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 28.7 mi/h ercent Time-Spent-Followi Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1231 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 886 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 66.1 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 10.4 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 76.5 Level of Service and Other Performance Measure Level of service, LOS D Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.39 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 0 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 0 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 0.0 veh-h Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1d Phone: Fax: E -Mail: -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analys Analyst Jason Burton Agency/Co. Carter & burgess, INc. Date Performed 10/5/2007 Analysis Time Period PM - Weekday (Existing) Highway Township Street From/To Colleg Ave(US71B)/Old Wire Rd Jurisdiction City of Fayetteville Analysis Year 2007 Description Township Heights - 21 Lot Single Family Development nput Da Highway class Class 2 Shoulder width 2.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.6 mi % Recreational vehicles 2 % Terrain type Rolling % No -passing zones 0 Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 0 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 1017 veh/h Directional split 59 / 41 % age Travel Spe Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.99 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.988 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1155 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 681 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free -flow speed, BFFS 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 2.6 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 0.0 mi/h Free -flow speed, FFS 42.4 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 33.4 mi/h cent Time-Spent-Followin Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1130 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 667 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 63.0 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 63.0 % Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.36 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 170 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 610 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 5.1 veh-h Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is -F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1d Phone: Fax: E -Mail: o -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analys Analyst Jason Burton Agency/Co. Carter & burgess, INc. Date Performed 10/5/2007 Analysis Time Period PM - Weekday (Proposed) Highway Township Street From/To College Ave(US71B)/Old Wire Rd Jurisdiction City of Fayetteville Analysis Year 2007 Description Township Heights - 21 Lot Single Family Development r Input Data Highway class Class 2 Shoulder width 2.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 Segment length 0.6 mi % Recreational vehicles 2 Terrain type Rolling % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi - 0 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 1043 veh/h Directional split 59 / 41 % verage Travel Sp Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.99 PCE for trucks, ET 1.5 PCE for RVs, ER 1.1 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.988 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1185 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 699 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free -flow speed, BFFS 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 2.6 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 0.0 mi/h Free -flow speed, FFS 42.4 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 33.2 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.0 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1159 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 684 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 63.9 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 63.9 % of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Volume to capacity ratio, v/c Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. C 0.37 174 veh-mi 626 veh-mi 5.2 veh-h MetroCount Traffic Executive Event Counts EventCount-65 - English (ENU) s i .� cnr ;I a �/ 1 • ;1 ' • 1 1 1 IIt ti •. 11• 1 'IK 1 ub I I Profile: Filter time: 7:38 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 15:42 Friday, September 14, 2007 Name: Factory default profile Scheme: Count events divided by two. Units: Non metric (0• ml, Ills, mph, lb, ton) in profile: Events = 56608! 56608(100.00%) - - - - - - - 23 320 281 291 323 305 333 438 374 391 291 218 160 93 73 38 - - - - - - - - 0 83 73 78 6 94 85 109 78 74 69 45 48 29 25 12 6 - - - - - - - - 0 76 71 67 73 70 92 125 89 113 83 60 40 16 12 8 4 - - - - - - - 0 0 80 72 73 77 62 65 118 95 108 76 67 34 24 13 12 0 - - - - - - - 0 23 81 65 73 87 79 91 86 112 96 63 46 38 24 23 6 3 I iII1. i�V .l la ill .9 il� 7 , 11IL1i= P, 6 4 3 2 3 B 44 122 247 72 63 74 74 83 76 93 86 110 68 63 52 29 22 11 9 4 2 3 3 5 10 44 169 175 82 66 79 74 86 63 116 83 109 88 50 51 31 17 3 3 0 2 0 3 2 28 62 197 122 80 64 86 95 80 66 110 105 86 80 44 34 25 13 11 2 3 2 1 4 5 37 98 247 104 79 66 64 118' 79 92 90 112 99 62 56 42 36 14 7 6 AM Pak 0730 -0810 (866), AM P1ietffi PM Pefk 1830.1730(436), PM P1ff-W097 1: IPq\ .,, a," AI i K jI11 11:14' I • I1. 9 4 3 2 2 9 fl.105O7 101 16 85 9i 80 65103 93 93 80 63 44 29 20 10 2 3 1 4 4 7 14 55 173 176 88 69 77 86 90 80 143 98 109 81 62 35 33 25 9 11 2 2 1 3 7 19 78 230 119 83 76 80 83 86 70 112 83 94 79 47 35 38 18 4 3 6 5 3 1 7 29 97 243 143 85 84 74 112 88 88 97 113 81 70 43 28 30 14 10 6 AM Peak 0770 -0830 �), AM PW�38 PM Peak 1680.18/0 (456), PM P1ff�d0 • Friday, September 14, 2001=3170 (Incomplete) minute drops 0000 0100 0200 ..15 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800.0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2100 2200 2300 2000 O 14 1• 14 90 75 236 748 491 349 319 339 358 308 302 _ _ _ _ - _ _ 2 2 3 2 5 5 38 102 189 64 85 86 98 19 . 94 - - - - - 11 5 4 2 2 12 40 174 126 82 81 79 101 75 67 63 - - - - - 3 4 4 5 8 24 65 212 65 89 Si 88 73 59 75 1 - - - - - 6 3 4 5 5 34 95 260 111 94 96 86 108 76 81 - - - - - - AM Peak0715-0815 �3s , AM PHFcO90 MetroCount Traffic Executive Event. Counts Eventcount-" — English (ENU) 1., fr—:. 1 .. • .... ute :..o f 1 .. a I_ • ' . ja � •fl • • • ..r 1 IK 1 . •. SI •1 • .'Events i i 1': i 1.1 Csr Tuesday, September 11, 2007=4686 (incomplete) ,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 - - - - - - - - 14 202 194 269 332 320 312 459 493 602 490 352 300 201 92 60 - - - - - - - - 0 46 44 49 92 86 60 114 120 156 135 110 91 54 27 21 13 - - - - - - - - 0 53 44 67 93 74 80 80 110 163 123 81 74 62 23 14 11 - - - - - - - 0 0 57 40 78 81 81 85 133 131 168 106 83 79 47 27 12 12- - - - - - - - 0 14 46 66 75 66 79 87 126 132 115 126 78 56 38 15 13 3 PM Peak 1645-1745(619). PM PIfU22 * Wednesday, September 12, 2007283,15 minute drops 13 4 6 2 2 2 7 24 74 56 56 64 06 85 72 112 105 141 131 78 -S]8 27 16 10 11 1 7 0 2 0 7 60 85 31 46 60 80 68 86 % 126 158 109 79 69 54 30 14 9 12 7 1 1 2 6 15 61 70 57 57 62 61 75 90 117 124 171 102 78 74 47 27 17 11 3 2 2 2 2 10 23 62 67 46 47 72 75 65 111 140 116 143 102 94 64 43 21 9 8 AM Fe6k1130-12701390), AM NW 2r PM Peat 1700- 1900 4613) PM PIWa.90 ' Thursday, September 13.2007=5320. 15 minute drops 10-4 4 0 4 31 64 45 45 71 89 84 77 103 134 140 132 85 78 52 58 15 9 9 3 5 1 4 5 9 39 59 44 52 58 87 82 77 83 118 154 120 106 71 55 26 2.3 12 11 1 O 2 3 3 15 65 54 43 62 61 90 85 89 123 119 157 91 76 68 49 36 17 12 8 6 3 4 4 3 14 72 44 47 68 78 81 76 100 144 121 152 99 84 64 5528 12 10 AM Mat 114$- 1245(344 AM Pri�96 PM Peak 1700-1100(611) PM PNFW.97 • Friday, September 14, 2007-2561 (Incomplete) minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 .15 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 2400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 43 18 15 4 10 21 53 182 280 212 204 318 341 296 386 - _ _ - _ _ _ _ 9 4 4 1 2 3 6 34 73 53 5 78 89 68 96 124 - - - - - - - - - 22 2 4 2 2 6 9 39 88 55 49 63 84 75 B4 38 - - - -- - - - - 12 B 4 1 4 6 16 53 62 57 45 74 87 76 94 0 - - - - - - - - - 10 4 3 0 2 6 22 56 57 53 53 103 81 77 112 - - - - - - - - - - I Township Development Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 21 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing October 03, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 11.78 0.00 1.00 247 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.29 0.00 1.00 6 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.86 0.00 1.00 18 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 1.15 0.00 1.00 24 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.79 0.00 1.00 17 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.46 0.00 1.00 10 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1.25 0.00 1.00 26 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 11.56 0.00 1.00 243 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.76 0.00 1.00 16 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.65 0.00 1.00 14 Saturday Peak Hour Total 1.41 0.00 1.00 30 .. Note: A zero indicates no data available. The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24 -Hr. 2 -Way Volume: LN(T) _ .92LN(X) + 2.71, RA2 = 0.96 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: T = .7(X) + 9.43 RA2 = 0.89 , 0.25 Enter, 0.75 Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) _ .9LN(X) + .53 RA2 = 0.91 , 0.63 Enter, 0.37 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T = .7(X) + 12.05 RA2 = 0.89 , 0.26 Enter, 0.74 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .89LN(X) + .61 RA2 = 0.91 , 0.64 Enter, 0.36 Exit Sat. 2 -Way Volume: LN(T) = .94LN(X) + 2.63, RA2 - 0.93 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: T = .89(X) + 10.93 RA2 = 0.9 , 0.54 Enter, 0.46 Exit Sun. 2 -Way Volume: T = 8.83(X) + -9.76, RA2 = 0.94 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) _ .89LN(X) + .44 RA2 = 0.88 , 0.53 Enter, 0.47 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS (11.14.07 Clarice Pearman - Ord. 5072, 5075, 5076 & Res. 190-07 Page 1 ' From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 11.14.07 9:15 AM Subject: Ord. 5072, 5075, 5076 & Res. 190-07 Attachments: 5076 VAC 07-2733 Physician's Surgery Ctr.pdf; 5075 C-PZD 07-2726 Sunshine H ouse.pdf; 5072 VAC 07-2722-Menninger.pdf; 190-07 PPL 07-2679 Township Heigh ts.pdf CC: Audit; GIS Jeremy: Attached are three ordinances and one resolution passed by City Council, November 6, 2007. Please let me know if there is anything else needed. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice