HomeMy WebLinkAbout211-08 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 211-08
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT PORTIONS OF THE APPEAL OF
CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF LSD 08-3037,
VICTORY COMMONS.
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 amends the
conditions of approval of LSD 08-3027 previously approved by the Planning Commission as follows:
(A) Conditions of approval 12, 13, 16, and 18 are deleted and replaced by new Conditions
of Approval 12 & 13 as follows:
12. The detention pond of Tract 2 shall be redesigned to save trees #1166, 1167,
1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172 and all other tree canopy currently shown as
preserved, including trees 11713-1176 and 1195. Mitigation will be calculated
based on these trees being preserved, and shall be planted back on-site in
accordance with the Tree Preservation ordinance.
13. Add this Note to the Plans: No utility service lines, drainage improvements or
any other improvements/disturbance with the exception of hand tree plantings
shall be allowed within the identified Tree Preservation Areas on either the
Victory Commons parcel or in the "Tract 2". No filling, excavating, or other
land disturbance shall take place in tree preservation areas. Storage of
construction vehicles, materials, debris, spoils or equipment is prohibited within
tree preservation areas.
(B) The Planning Commission's decision to allow a right in, right out (only) driveway at
the southern location of the property is affirmed. The full access driveway in the
middle of the property with removal of the concrete nose of the median as approved by
the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department is authorized. The existing curb
cut in front of Parcel #765-14844-044 (.73 acres) may remain as is until either that
parcel or Parcel # 75-14844-04 (.84 acres) is developed or redeveloped at which time
that curb cut shall be closed and a 24 foot curb cut may be allowed for the two parcels
at a more northerly location.
(C) All other Conditions of Appeal shall remain as approved by the Planning Commission
as does its approval of LSD 08-3037, Victory Commons .•°���oRwT R fis,.,
is • • FAYETTEVILLE
▪ ••
By: f I WV00 .4q✓GTOI'iG`,.
/suing mg C'AM/IT/dasst/dr/
Deputy City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of November, 2008.
APPROVED.
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
f &
Lr\eLJvvtt
\J i aA or`I �rnrnQ'�5
,'fir SCY l vy�-Q-Y'1S �
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO.
)e6
City Cou'ncil Meeting of October 21, 2008 % / M3
Agenda Item Number -f ii �lJ�
1000eylme>xs
•To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: October 02, 2008
Subject: Appeal for Victory Commons I (LSD 08-3037)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission approved a large scale development for an approximately
9,319 sq. ft. commercial building located on Razorback Road, south of 6th Street. The
applicant has appealed the conditions of approval numbers 1, 4, 12, 13, 16 and 18 as
approved by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located west of Razorback Road, south of 6th Street and is bordered
by railroad right-of-way to the south. The property being developed with a commercial
building and parking contains approximately 1.29 acres; the property being developed with
detention ponds and proposed access to Razorback contains approximately 3.8 acres. Both
properties are zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The applicant has obtained
approval from the Planning Commission for a 9,319 SF commercial and residential building,
with associated parking. The main points of discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting were access from Razorback Road, a requested greenspace variance along the
street right-of-way, the need for a wetland determination on the site and tree
preservation/detention recommendations. The applicant has appealed seven (7) of the
conditions of approval required by the Planning Commission, as described herein and in
the applicant's letter of appeal.
15 -foot Greenspace Variance Request
1. Planning Commission determination of a variance from Chapter 177.04(D)(2)(a)
to allow less than 15' of greenspace between the parking lot and the Razorback
Road right-of-way.
The applicant requested a variance to allow less than the required 15 -feet of greenspace
adjacent to the right-of-way along Razorback Road Fifteen feet of greenspace adjacent to
the right-of-way is required for all commercial and residential projects, in which street
trees and shrubs are planted to screen parking lots. In general, staff has supported
greenspace variances where unique circumstances exist that result in an unusual hardship
on the development of the property, and where the variance will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the landscape regulation. In this case, AHTD acquired
substantially more right-of-way than required by the City's Master Street Plan (City
Stitch Patomeelamed 44?
'T 4d fro Nth? /46 //4 //a e
City Council Meeting of October 21, 2008
Agenda Item Number
requires 48.5' from centerline and AHTD has acquired approximately 65' from
centerline) to construct the recent Razorback Road improvements, resulting in an undue
hardship to the developer. While the parking lot is proposed to be located on the right-of-
way line, the resulting greenspace between the existing 10' sidewalk and the property line
vanes from 13' to 18' in width. Accordingly, staff recommends in favor of a greenspace
variance with the condition that at least 2' of greenspace be provided between the parking
lot and state right-of-way line. This will ensure that there is approximately 15' of
greenspace between the existing sidewalk and proposed parking lot, which meets the
general intent of the landscape regulations. Additionally, providing a small amount of
greenspace outside of the right-of-way will ensure that all required landscaping and
irrigation can be installed on private property, under City ordinance requirements. AHTD
does not typically allow irrigation systems to be installed within state right-of-way, and
tree/shrub species are usually limited. This requirement would result in the applicant
reducing the parking stall depth of approximately 11 parking spaces at the north end of
the site to compact size. If the Planning Commission approves the variance request as
proposed, requiring the applicant to plant landscaping within the state right-of-way, the
applicant shall obtain an approval letter from the state allowing such plantings. Said
letter shall be provided to the City prior to building permit approval.
Curb Cut Location
4. Planning Commission determination of curb -cut locations.
Access to the site is via Razorback Road. The AHTD recently improved Razorback
Road, in collaboration with the City and University. A central component to the widening
of the road to four- and five -lane section is a landscaped median that serves as a restricted
access to properties along Razorback. The applicant originally proposed a' full access
curb cut onto Razorback Road that would have required removal of a substantial section
of the recently installed landscaped median on Razorback Road. City staff did not support
this initial proposal. After meeting with the applicant, city staff agreed to support a
compromise, which would include (1) a full access driveway on the north side of the
property that would require the removal of a concrete section of the median with little
disturbance to the landscaped median, (2) removal of the far north full -access curb cut
that would be in close proximity to the new full access curb cut, and (3) a right-in/right-
out curb cut to the south of the property, nearer to the railroad. Staff is able to support
the additional full access curb cut, even though the AHTD removed this option with
installation of the median, with the condition that the far northern curb cut also owned by
the same applicant is closed, in order to not have vehicle turning and stacking conflicts in
close proximity. However, prior to the large scale development being reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, the AHTD denied the applicant's proposal to remove the
concrete section of the median, citing concerns with stacking distance and removal of the
median (see attached letter). Due to the ongoing discussions between the applicant,
University and AHTD, staff recommended to the Subdivision Committee and Planning
Commission two options for access to the site, which would allow the applicant to
proceed forward from Planning Commission, without having to return for additional City
review.
City Council Meeting of October 21, 2008
Agenda Item Number
The developer shall construct one of the following:
a. Option I: Construct a right-in/right-out driveway at the south end of the
property, connect the project to the existing driveway in the middle of the
property as a full access curb -cut, resulting in removal of the concrete portion of
the existing median, and remove the northern most driveway. The northern
driveway shall be removed prior to approving a temporary certificate of
occupancy permit for Victory Commons I (see attached diagrams for curb -cut
locations).
b. Option 2: Construct a right-in/right-out driveway at the south end of the
property, connect the project to the existing northern most driveway as a full
access curb -cut, and relocate the middle driveway as a right-in/right-out,
approximately 50' to the south, to align with the east -west drive aisle. The
middle driveway shall be relocated prior to approving a temporary certificate of
occupancy.
Tree Preservation
12. The off-site detention pond proposed for the northwest corner of the adjacent
property shall be relocated such that the existing trees are not removed by
construction activities. Any changes to detention design shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering Department prior to construction approval.
13. All trees on the adjacent parcel are to remain until such time that the parcel is
reviewed for development.
16. No utility service lines or any improvements with the exception of hand tree
plantings will be allowed within the Tree Preservation Area.
18. The Tree Preservation Area should be identified on the easement plat and
include the Tree Preservation Area signature block required for the Urban
Forester. This will accomplish a restrictive easement on the area to ensure that
the canopy is maintained and preserved.
The 1.29 acre site is contains approximately 66% tree canopy. The I-1 zoning district
requires the applicant to preserve 15% of the existing tree canopy; as part of the
development, the applicant is proposing to preserve 8%, which staff is supporting, with on-
site mitigation (13 2 -inch caliper trees). The applicant has also designed two detention ponds
that are located on the adjacent parcel (Tract 2). At the time of the Planning Commission
meeting, the calculations necessary to determine the amount of canopy being removed from
Tract 2 and subsequent mitigation had not been provided, thus staff could not make an
informed recommendation regarding the removal of all of the trees in the northwest corner of
the site. Since that time, the landscape architect for the applicant has submitted the required
information for review. The construction of the larger off-site detention pond in the
northwest comer of the adjacent property will require the removal of additional tree canopy,
from 6.8% down to 4.5%, requiring another 10 2 -inch mitigation trees for mitigation. Staff is
unable to support the full proposed tree removal on the adjacent parcel. However, staff is
willing to support removal of a portion of this canopy. A meeting between the applicant, his
engineer and the Urban Forester resulted in a compromise that involves the reworking of the
proposed detention pond to save the trees listed as 1166-1172, currently shown on the plans
for removal. Trees 1173-1176 and 1195 are shown as preserved, and will remain so at this
City Council Meeting of October 21, 2008
Agenda Item Number
time. This will increase the percentage of tree canopy retained on the site, and will reduce the
mitigation required. With these changes, staff can support the removal of all of the above
conditions, with the following replacement wording:
12. The detention pond on Tract 2 shall be redesigned to save trees #1166, 1167, 1168,
1169, 1170, 1171, 1172 and all other tree canopy currently shown as preserved,
included trees 1173-1176 and 1195. Mitigation will be calculated based on these
trees being preserved, and shall be planted back on-site in accordance with the
Tree Preservation ordinance.
13. Add this Note to the Plans: No utility service lines, drainage improvements or any
other improvements/disturbance with the exception of hand tree plantings shall be
allowed within the identified Tree Preservation Areas on either the Victory
Commons parcel or in the "Tract 2." No filling, excavating, or other land
disturbance shall take .place in tree preservation areas. Storage of construction
vehicles, materials, debris, spoils or equipment is prohibited within tree
preservation areas.
Wetland Determination
22. The applicant shall present a wetland determination by the appropriate federal
agencies and meet the performance criteria of section 170.07(4) of the UDC
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Chapter 170.07(B)(4) of the UDC states that "Areas defined as `wetlands' by the
appropriate federal agencies shall be protected from adverse changes in runoff quantity
and quality from associated land development. Staff has repeatedly requested for a
wetland determination for this site, dating back to the initial submittal and carried
forward at each iteration of review. If there are indeed no wetlands identified on the site,
the proposed drainage may function as it is currenity designed without change. If,
however, wetlands are identified, modifications to the drainage may be warranted or
required. A variance of the provisions of the Stormwater Drainage and Erosion Control
ordinance may be granted, if there are special circumstances applicable to the property or
its intended use, and the granting of the variance will not result in an increase in the rate
or volume of surface water runoff, an adverse impact on adjacent properties,:wetlands,
etc., degradation of water quality, or otherwise impair the attainment of the objectives of
this chapter. To this point, information has not been presented by the applicant as to why
a wetland determation should be submitted, other than it will take additional time to
obtain such a determination, and that based on the development company's experience, it
will handle this matter sensitively. Staff is not supportive of this variance, and does not
agree that any unnecessary, undue hardship has been created, as the ordinance
requirement is a published document, and the requirement has been made known to the
applicant since July 16, 2008.
City Council Meeting of October 21, 2008
Agenda Item Number
DISCUSSION
On September 22, 2008, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-1 on a motion to approve
the large scale development, finding in favor of staff's recommendations, with
Commissioner Anthes recusing. The applicant has appealed Planning Commission's
determinations as noted above.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
10/3/2008
Paradigm Development Enterprises, Inc
Tracy K. Hoskins - President
City of Fayetteville
Jeremy Pate - Planning Division
RE: Request for appeal to the City Council of certain "conditions of approval" by the Fayetteville
Planning Commission for Victory Commons Phase One
Jeremy,
As anticipated, I wish to appeal certain conditions of approval imposed by the Planning
Commission on Victory Commons Phase One, on September 22nd, 2008. Listed below are the
specific conditions we wish to appeal and our reasons for which each should be granted.
15 feet of greenspace required;
1. Planning Commission determination of a variance from Chapter 177.04(D)(2)(a) to
allow less than 15' of greenspace between the parking lot and the Razorback Road
right-of-way. In general, staff has supported greenspace waivers where unique
circumstances exist and the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the landscape regulations. In this case, AHTD acquired substantially
more right-of-way than required by the City's Master Street Plan (City requires 48.5'
from centerline and AHTD has acquired approximately 65' from centerline) to
construct the Razorback Road improvements, resulting in an undue hardship to the
developer. The resulting greenspace between the 10' sidewalk and the property line
varies from 13' to 18' in width. Accordingly, staff recommends in favor of a
greenspace variance with the condition that at least 2' of greenspace be provided
between the parking lot and state right-of-way line. This will ensure that there is
approximately 15' of greenspace between the existing sidewalk and proposed parking
lot, which meets the general intent of the landscape regulations. Additionally,
providing a small amount of greenspace outside of the right-of-way will ensure that
all required landscaping can be installed on private property, under City ordinance
requirements, and that an area will be provided for an irrigation system if desired by
the applicant. AHTD does not typically allow irrigation systems to be installed
within state right-of-way. If the Planning Commission approves the variance request
as proposed, requiring the applicant to plant landscaping within the state right-of-
way, the applicant shall obtain an approval letter from the state allowing such
plantings. Said letter shall be provided to the City prior to building permit approval.
•
9/22/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL GREENSPACE.
While we appreciate staff recognizing the value in allowing the project to be located closer to the
right of way in keeping with the intent of our CityPlan 2025, requiring a full two feet between the
parking lot and right of way presents challenges. Either parking spaces must be shortened to 17
feet, or the building must be shifted west by two feet if Staffs expectations are to be met. We
have already incorporated multiple compact parking spaces upon Staffs recommendation,
therefore we feel it's not a good idea to shorten any more parking spaces. We can not (and
should not) narrow front drive isles thereby creating potential difficulties for fire department
access through a busy parking lot; and moving the building west two feet will narrow the rear
drive/fire lane which provides 360 degree access to fire and solid waste trucks. The building has
10/3/2008
been shuffled around the site many times and is currenty placed in the location that all
departments can a ree on.
_tvOnanvaase aaaaro' 01'l 7-n11 PIA
10/3/2008
The above graphic illustrates that the "green" area (shaded areas) between the sidewalk and lot
at the north end departs from the intent of the ordinance by approximately 2.5 feet or 12.5 feet,
slightly less than the 15 feet required. However, the majority of the frontage either meets the
intent of the ordinance or exceeds the intent, approximately 3.5 feet MORE than the 15 feet
required. If we were to consider the "square footage" of green, we are short by 161 square feet at
the north end, while the southern area provides 586 excess square feet. Therefore, we are
actually providing a net 425 square feet of extra greenspace. If staff truly believes there must be
space outside of the ROW for irrigation, we do not agree it takes two full feet to install a less than
one inch plastic irrigation supply line. Six inches of clearance is ample space to install irrigation.
As for Staffs concern if planting within the ROW is permitted, the inserted email from Jacky
Baldwin below clearly demonstrates the AHTD is agreeable. _
t From Baldwin; Jadprt?ad1Y B a<kanu as igtxvays can `. %seM w ed /?o38e 20AM
, Subject: RE: [BULK) Question
The: parking lot can not encroach dghtof way but it can be built right up to the Ii e. The landscaping on the rightof way is
allowed (only for certain types of trees,and'scrubs). A letter (equesting -your placement of landscapingwithin the right of
way along with details of the types.of trees and/ar: scnibs to include the full,giawth height and full growthcircumference of
the trees will 6e required before an issuance of a permit. There will be a•band'amount on this type of.permit.
Jacky "Jeb'' Baldwin
District Four Permit Officer
P.O. Box 1424
Fort Smith: AR 72902.
(479)646-5501 Office
(479)646-8286 Fax
original Message-----
From: Tracy K Hoskins(rnaiko:tithoslansOparadiginnvia:com)
Sent Tuesday, July 29, 2008 i1:21 Am
To•:Baldwin, Jacky
Subject: DMA) question...
Importance: Lova
Jets,
I hove a, question for you:: Along Razorback; the State•fook a inordinate amount of ROW along my frontage.
There's lots of green space beh6een ray proposedparking lot andthe back of thesidewalk, inhere Me ROW
normally ends. So that Icon -move my parking Ring, same, therel y?avoiding kiiling"same trees, would -you dllcw
'me to plant Seme:landscapirtgto thebuteredge of the ROW?.
Please let'me know&
BTW..I have worked auto -plan with the city ?airier den't have to completely f ill your ROW as they: once
wanted me to do. Yee:hdw.
7titi•..
SYe�tai 1grab:+tmf9;g1
4- 007 eg 4,q9)-.4•"11-
10/3/2008
Further, my own project at 3155 N. College demonstrates the AHTD has supported the practice
for some time, as we relayed to Staff very early on and on several occasions throughout this
process. Therefore, we respectfully request the City Council to reverse the Commission's
requirement to move the parking lot two feet east to provide "an area will be provided for an
irrigation system if desired by the applicant" or modify the requirement to 6 inches as to not
significantly disrupt drive lanes or project design.
Curb Cut -Median Cut and existing driveways;
4. Planning Commission determination of curb -cut locations. (The subject development
was submitted prior to the adoption of the City's new access management ordinance.)
Since the development will have to obtain AHTD approval for curb -cut and median -
cuts along Razorback Road, staff has recommended two options, so that the
development may proceed forward after Planning Commission and AHTD review,
without having to return for additional City review. The developer shall construct
one of the following:
a. Option 1: Construct a right-in/right-out driveway at the south end of the
property, connect the project to the existing driveway in the middle of the
property as a full access curb -cut, resulting in removal of the concrete
portion of the existing median, and removal of the northern most driveway.
The northern driveway shall be removed prior to approving a temporary
certificate of occupancy permit for Victory Commons 1 (see attached
diagrams for curb -cut locations).
b. Option 2: Construct a right-in/right-out driveway at the south end of the
property, connect the project to the existing northern most driveway as a full
access curb -cut, and relocate the middle driveway as a right-in/right-out,
approximately 50' to the south, to align with the east -west drive aisle. The
middle driveway shall be relocated prior to approving a temporary certificate
of occupancy.
9/22/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION.
There has been much discussion about the removal of a portion median to incorporate at least
one full -access drive along the near 700 linear feet of highway the fully developed project will
eventually front.
Our originally submitted design was of course opposed by Staff. In the spirit of cooperation, we
resubmitted a revised design (that Staff themselves wanted), to the AHTD. The AHTD stated that
any design should be one that is supported by the UA and the City; and unfortunately, the AHTD
did not support Staffs design. Therefore, alternative designs are being explored.
On 9/30/08, we met with Chamber and UA officials to discuss the project and appropriate access.
As it turned out, all supported a design very similar to that we originally proposed in June of this
year; the same design that Staff did not support. Therefore, we are continuing to work with the UA
and AHTD on this issue.
Our objection to Staff's inclusion of either of the above "options" is as follows.
Option 1 — "*...The northern driveway shall be removed prior to approving a
temporary certificate of occupancy permit for Victory Commons I".
Staff was fully advised well in advance that first, the property is currently leased. If I were to
remove any access to the tenant's business, I would surely be sued, nor do I have the
10/3/2008
authority to remove any access of a building that is two parcels away and under separate
ownership. Further, Staff has obviously not thought through their requirement very well.
Staff has imposed a condition that provides for the full construction of VC -1, but may not be
able to obtain Certificate of Occupancy once complete. I know of no business person, let
alone any lender, that would take such a risk; incest over $3m on a structure that could set
empty was completed?
Option 2 — Option two is no option at all. To locate a full access driveway that close
to Highway 62 is nothing more than a disaster waiting to happen. The north drive would not
serve as a full access driveway because no one would be able to tum left due to the stacking
of traffic waiting to tum left on highway 62. This notion was discussed with UA and
Chamber officials during our site visit. -There was one issue that all could agreed on, that the
idea of a full -access drive in this location is a really, really bad idea; that congestion and
accidents would be inevitable.
The fact is, the AHTD is the authority having jurisdiction over these matters. Ultimately, they
will dictate what is to be constructed. It is very likely the AHTD will choose neither option
outlined by Staff, thereby making Staffs requirements impossible to adhere to. Further, it
could be some time before the AHTD makes a decision of any kind. It's possible that a court
of law may have to determine if cutting off full access to an existing commercial property is
appropriate. Regardless of what decision is made or when a decision will be made, it is
inappropriate for Staff to interject a condition of approval of this LSD, on a matter in which
the city has only very limited authority. If Item #4 above is to remain a condition of approval,
Victory Commons can not be built for reasons made obvious. Therefore, we respectfully
request that Council overturn condition #4 in its entirety.
Tree Preservation Conditions:
12. The off-site detention pond proposed for the northwest corner of the adjacent
property shall be relocated such that the existing trees are not removed by
construction activities. Any changes to detention design shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering Department prior to construction approval.
9/22/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE DETENTION
POND DESIGN AND LOCATION BE WORKED OUT WITH STAFF PRIOR TO
DEVELOPMENT.
13. All trees on the adjacent parcel are to remain until such time that the parcel is
reviewed for development.
The design we have submitted includes master -planned storm water control for the entire Victory
Commons project, fully developed. The current placement of the offsite pond is to catch storm
water entering the property from upstream and detain it as to not exacerbate an existing
drainage problem south the of existing railroad tracks. Our design is a proactive approach that
incorporates plans for the future; an attempt to stave off messes such as the current drainage
issues north of Wedington Drive where the hotels are currently being built. The drainage facilities
have been adjust, moved, changed, etc. on several occasions over the last couple of years. Now,
it's difficult to tell if the design will even function properly.
10/3/2008
There have been several statements by Staff as to how many trees we are proposing to remove.
One claim was "approximately 20-30 trees in the southwest comer " of which we corrected
Staff. Then, I believe the Urban Forester claimed we were proposing to remove 33(?) trees, and
that pictures I presented to the Commission illustrating the obvious "underbrush -like" nature of the
trees was not an accurate representation of what actually exists. I have conveyed to the Urban
Forester that I am not intelligent enough to take pictures of somebody else's scrub trees on
another site and pass them along to the commission. We further explained at Commission the
intent of the design, and that of the TWELVE trees present, we were proposing the removal of 10;
five of which were in poor health (one with three trunks another with thirteen trunks), and none
were of high value, mature, or specimen species.
16. No utility service lines or any improvements with the exception of hand tree plantings
will be allowed within theTreePreservation Area.
18. The Tree Preservation Area should be identified on the easement plat and include the
Tree Preservation Area signature block required for the Urban Forester. This will
accomplish a restrictive easement on the area to ensure that the canopy is maintained
and preserved.
' I have 'learned I should pay much closer attention to the conditions that are created throughout
.the process and should become more demanding for copies of Staffs reports.Unfortunately, I
was apparently asleep at the wheel on these two conditions. I was so busy :arguing various
"special" conditions of approval, I failed to recognized the "fine print". I have .yet to find any
appropriate location for any tree "preservation" area. The very few (all of unhealthy, diseased, low
quality/priority), Hackberries, Maples, and Elms that will remain after construction are not
desirable trees, or ones that should be "preserved". They indeed should be "protected" 'and not
removed if they are slated to be retained. However, "a preservation easement" is a far, far
different thing than "protecting" trees, as is required by ordinance and we have. -committed to
doing.
The area in question has been inundated with water since the reconstruction of Razorback Road.
We,did not cause the demise of the many declining trees; of which several will be removed and
mitigated with this project. We do not feel it is appropriate that we are made to mitigate for trees
that were effectively destroyed by the construction of Razorback Road. But that's another
argument. The remaining few inundated trees will surety face the same demise as the others.
Therefore, a "tree preservation easement" is unwarranted and is clearly an unjust taking of
valuable property only to insure the property owner gives up his rights to landscape, maintain, or
further develop his property in the future. A preservation easement effectively removes any rights
a landowner has of his own property. Further, the same area is a detention facility with
constructed drainage. Detention and drainage facilities must be maintained, sometimes repaired.
Drainage easements and tree preservation easements can not occupy the same space, as the
UDC provides. We feel this condition could be construed as a method for the city to acquire
additional greenspace that is not mandated by Code; in a manner in which the City would not
have to purchase the property. For all the reasons described, we respectively request that along
with item 13, the City Council remove these unjustified, burdensome conditions of approval,
items 16 and 18; in their entirety.
Engineering Division Conditions:
3. The applicant shall present a wetland determination by the appropriate federal
agencies and meet the performance criteria of section 170.07(4) of the UDC prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
10/3/2008
Engineering has potentially made an unreasonable request. The inclusion of this condition is the
result of one or two "enlightened" citizen's call to arms because cattails are present at the far
south point of the property. This is the same area of the development that Engineering first
wanted me to fill by several feet.
Having extensive experience in jurisdictional wetlands, I have conveyed to Engineering, on
several occasions, that it is my opinion that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on site, and I was
willing to contact the USACOE for delineation. And, I have since sent all necessary information to
the USACOE.
The problem we have with this condition is that is could take several months for the USACOE (or
someone certified by the same), to assess the site, and several more before making a report.
This condition requires I have a delineation in hand prior to grading. We can not afford to wait,
potentially 8 to 10 months, to start the project. The submitted plan obviously reflects that the area
in question is not subject to development, and is to remain undisturbed. Therefore, Engineering
has included a condition of approval that creates unnecessary, undue hardship on the viability of
the project. We are a responsible, knowledgeable development company, who has much more
experience in conditions such as these and how toappropriately handle such matters with
sensitivity. We ask that the City Council overturn this condition to allow Victory Commons to move
forward.
With the above, I respectfully request my appeal be heard by the Fayetteville City Council at the
earliest meeting available. Please let me know when my request may be heard
Thank You,
Tracy IC Ijoskms -pnt
CDa3P'"A
3155N. College Ave, Stile 20 Fayette0Ile; kkaesas 72703
(179):571-7007 At - (479)2x -6M cell
•
ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY
AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT FOUR
4019 TOWSON AVE. • P.O. BOX 1424 • FORT SMITH, AR 72902-1424 • TELEPHONE (479) 646-5501 • FAX (479) 646-8286
WASHINGTON - CRAWFORD - FRANKLIN - SEBASTIAN LOGAN - SCOTT - POLK
September 3, 2008
Mr. Tracy Hoskins
Paradigm Companies
3155 N. College Ave., Suite 201
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Re: Access
Highway 112, Section 0
Washington County
Fayetteville
Dear Mr. Hoskins:
RECEIVED
SEP t+ 5 2008
ENGINEERING DIV.
The review of your request for potential access improvements to your property on the west side of
Highway 112 in Fayetteville is now complete. The proposed improvements would result in the removal
of the concrete portion of the median island to allow left turns in and out of the southern of two
existing accesses and construction of a third access near the south end of your property.
Removal of the concrete portion of the median island would result in the grassed island beginning
immediately south of the access to your property. The proposed modification would not provide
adequate storage in the center turn lane for traffic turning into your property at this access. Storage
could only be provided by removal of a portion of the grassed island, therefore, improvements as
proposed in the area of this drive are not acceptable. Furthermore, removal of this grassed island and
•
landscaping will not be allowed. '
During the review, it was noted that the proposed southern access is within an area of the right of way
that has been landscaped with trees. Any access should be located in the areas between trees so as
not to disrupt the tree spacing.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact this office.
C: Assistant Chief Engineer -Operations
State Maintenance Engineer
Roadway Design
University of Arkansas, Mr. Mike Johnson
City of Fayetteville, Mr. Ron Petrie
Since
Jo - Ship
District Engineer
Victory Commons
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 22, 2008
¶ttv!1e
AR'KANS'AS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of September 22, 2008
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Committee
FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: September -I-872008 Updated October 01, 2008
LSD 08-3037: (VICTORY COMMONS, 560): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for
property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, 500 -FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH
6TH STREET. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COM MFRCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and
contains approximately 1.29 acres. The request is for a commercial development. with 18 attached
dwelling units and 9,319 s.f. of commercial space with associated parking. Planner: Jesse Futcher
Findings:
Property Description: The subject property is located on Razorback Road, south of 6th Street and is
bordered by railroad right-of-way to the south. The property contains approximately 1.29 acres and
is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a three-story building with 18 residential units and
approximately 9,319. s.£ of commercial and restaurant space. Surrounding land uses are shown in
Table I.
Table 1: Surrounding Land Use and Zonin
Direction from
Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
Frost Oil Company
I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial
South
Rail Road ROW
1-1 Heavy Commercial/Light
Industrial
East
Undeveloped
RMF -24, Residential
Residential
Multi -Family and R -O,
Office
West
Frost Oil Company/RR ROW
I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Razorback Road (Principal Arterial).
Right-of-way: Sufficient right-of-way has been obtained by the Arkansas Highway Transportation
Department to meet the minimum requirements of the City's Master Street Plan.
Water/Sewer: Water and sewer service is available to the site.
Street Improvements: Razorback Road has been fully improved at this location with the widening of
Razorback Road to a boulevard.
Parks: The Parks Recreation and Advisory Board recommended accepting money in -lieu of park
K: IReports120081PC Reports118-September 22I SD 08-3037 (Victory Commons ljdoc
land dedication on July 7, 2008. Fees in the amount of $12,240.00 are due prior to building permit
approval.
Landscape/Greenspace: The applicant requests a variance of the requirements of Chapter
177.04(D)(2)(a) to allow less than the required 15' of greenspace adjacent to the right-of-way. In
this case, AHTD acquired substantially more right-of-way than required by the City's Master Street
Plan (City requires 48.5' from centerline and AHTD has acquired approximately 65' from centerline)
to construct the Razorback Road improvements, resulting in an undue hardship to the developer.
Due to the excess right-of-way purchased by AHTD to construct Razorback Road improvements, and
the approximately 15' of greenspace between the proposed parking lot and the existing sidewalk,
staff is supportive of the request, with a few minor adjustments to ensure screening and irrigation can
be installed.
Access/Connectivity: The applicant is currently proposing to utilize one of two curb -cuts on an
adjacent parcel to the north, also owned by the applicant, that were installed by AHTD during the
widening of Razorback Road (see attached site plan). This curb -cut is proposed to serve as full
access to the site, but will require the removal of the concrete median and potentially require
modification of the tree -lined portion of the median. The other point of access is proposed to be a
right-in/right-out driveway near the south end of the property with no changes to the median. Staff is
supportive of the proposal with the condition that the northern driveway, adjacent to the existing
building, be removed with development of this project. The existing driveway will provide adequate
access to Razorback Road for the proposed development and for future development on the adjacent
tract. Staff is not supportive of the median being removed and a full access curb -cut being installed
if the adjacent curb -cut to the north remains, finding that stacking is not adequate for both and
turning movements could create a dangerous traffic condition.
However, the AHTD has to approve all proposals for median cuts and driveway installation within
state right-of-way. Therefore, denial of the proposal to modify the existing median would require the
applicant to utilize the northern driveway that is adjacent to the existing building, if full access to the
site is to be provided. Staff is also supportive of a proposal to use the northern driveway along with
the limited access driveway at the south end of the site. With the condition that the middle driveway
is relocated approximately 50' to the south as another right-in/right-out, aligned with the east -west
drive aisle. -
Tree Preservation: Existing Canopy: 65.97%
Required Canopy: 15.00%
Preserved Canopy: 8.00%
Mitigation: 13 two-inch caliper trees
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of LSD 08-3037 with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of a variance from Chapter 177.04(D)(2)(a) to allow
less than 15' of greenspace between the parking lot and the Razorback Road right-of-way. In
general, staff has supported greenspace waivers where unique circumstances exist and the
variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the landscape
regulations. In this case, AHTD acquired substantially more right-of-way than required by
the City's Master Street Plan (City requires 48.5' from centerline and AHTD has acquired
K: IReports120081PC ReportsL'8-Seplember 221LSD 08-3037 (Victory Commons 1).doc
approximately 65' from centerline) to construct the Razorback Road improvements, resulting
in an undue hardship to the developer. The resulting greenspace between the 10' sidewalk
and the properly line varies from 13' to 18' in width. Accordingly, staff recommends in favor
of a greenspace variance with the condition that at least 2' of greenspace be provided
between the parking lot and state right-of-way line. This will ensure that there is
approximately 15' of greenspace between the existing sidewalk and proposed parking lot,
which meets the general intent of the landscape regulations. Additionally, providing a small
amount of greenspace outside of the right-of-way will ensure that all required landscaping
can be installed on private property, under City ordinance requirements, and that an area
will be provided for an irrigation system tf desired by the applicant. AHTD does not
typically allow irrigation systems to be installed within state right-of-way. If the Planning
Commission approves the variance request as proposed, requiring the applicant to plant
landscaping within the state right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an approval letter from
the state allowing such plantings. Said letter shall be provided to the City prior to building
permit approval.
9/11/08: THE SUDBVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL GREENSPACE.
9/22/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN . FAVOR OF STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATINO FOR ADDITIONAL GREENSPACE.
2. Planning Commission determination of a variance from Chapter 177.04(D)(3)(a) to allow
Tess than one tree per 30 linear feet along the Razorback Road right-of-way. The applicant
proposes to install 9 of the 13 required street trees, since street trees were already planted
with the improvements to Razorback Road. Staff finds that the proposed spacing is
appropriate and meets the intent of the landscape ordinance, given the location of the
existing trees.
9/11/08: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE.
9/22/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE
3. 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.
9/11/08: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS.
9/22/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS.
4. Planning Commission determination of curb -cut locations. (The subject development was
submitted prior to the adoption of the City's new access management ordinance.) Since the
development will have to obtain AHTD approval for curb -cut and median -cuts along
Razorback Road, staff has recommended two options, so that the development may proceed
K.:IRepons120081PC Reports 18-Septentber 221LSD 08-3037 (Victory Commons 1).doc
forward after Planning Commission and AHTD review, without having to return for
additional City review. The developer shall construct one of the following:
a Option 1: Construct a right-in/right-out driveway at the south end of the property,
connect the project to the existing driveway in the middle of the property as a full
access curb -cut, resulting in removal of the concrete portion of the existing median,
and removal of the northern most driveway. The northern driveway shall be removed
prior to approving a temporary certificate of occupancy permit for Victory Commons
I (see attached diagrams for curb -cut locations).
b. Option 2: Construct a right-in/right-out driveway at the south end of the property,
connect the project to the existing northern most driveway as a full access curb -cut,
and relocate the middle driveway as a right-in/right-out, approximately 50' to the
south, to align with the east -west drive aisle. The middle driveway shall be relocated
prior to approving a temporary certificate of occupancy.
9/11/08: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION.
9/22/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND [N FAVOR OF STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION.
5. Should the associated conditional use (CUP 08-3097) for additional residential square
footage above that allowed by Chapter 164.03 be denied, the applicant shall be required to
submit a revised set of large scale development plans for further review by the Planning
Commission.
6. Parks fees in the amount of $12,240.00 are due prior to building permit approval.
7. The driveway(s) that will be utilized on the adjacent property shall be located within an
access easement, providing cross -access between each lot and from the west property line to
Razorback Road.
8. The existing median may not be removed or altered in any way until the City of Fayetteville
Engineering Department receives a letter of approval for removal/modification from AHTD.
Any tree removal or relocation for curb -cuts shall be coordinated with the Urban Forester.
9. Trash enclosures are required to be screened from the right-of-way with materials that are
complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building (brick, EFIS, etc).
10. The following revisions shall be made prior to building permit approval:
a. Contact the Solid Waste Department regarding expanding the dumpster enclosure to
allow for cardboard recycling.
b. Update the square footage for each floor and residential area.
c. Revise tree preservation calculations.
Tree Preservation Conditions:
11. Provide new tree canopy calculations for the tree damaged by Tropical Storm Ike. Percent
canopy shall not drop below 7% for continued approval.
K: IReports120081PC Repor:s118-September 221LSD 08-3037 (Victory Commons t).doc
12. The off -site detention pond proposed for the northwest corner of the adjacent property shall
be relocated such that the existing trees are not removed by construction activities. Any
changes to detention design shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department
prior to construction approval.
9/22/08:
THE
PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT
THE DETENTION POND
DESIGN
AND
LOCATION
BE WORKED OUT WITH STAFF PRIOR
TO DEVELOPMENT.
13. All trees on the
adjacent
parcel are to remain until
such time that the parcel is reviewed for
development.
14. Replace the tree preservation retaining wall on Sheet C2.1 with the same one depicted on
Sheet L101.
15. On Sheet L101 remove the grading lines from the tree side of the retaining wall.
16. No utility service lines or any improvements with the exception of hand tree plantings will be
allowed within the Tree Preservation Area.
17. Revisions to Tree & Natural Area Standard Notes
a. Note 10: correct the word trunk
b. Note 13: change name from the National Arborist Association to Tree Care Industry
Association
18. The Tree Preservation Area should be identified on the easement plat and include the Tree
Preservation Area signature block required for the Urban Forester. This will accomplish a
restrictive easement on the area to ensure that the canopy is maintained and preserved.
19. Mitigation is required on the site in the amount of 13 (2) inch caliper large species trees. The
applicant has requested and been approved to plant these trees on -site. If all trees can not be
planted on the site, the remaining amount will be paid into the Tree Escrow Account for
future planting.
20. All mitigation trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.
These trees can not be located within any utility easement. A 3 -year bond, letter of credit, or
check of shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville before issuance of a certificate of
occupancy
Engineering Division Conditions:
21. All comments on the attached Engineering comment sheet are to be addressed prior to
construction permit approval.
22. The applicant shall present a wetland determination by the appropriate federal agencies and
meet the performance criteria of section 170.07(4) of the UDC prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.
K:IReporis120081PC Reports\18-September 22I SD 08-3037 (Victory Commons !).doc
Standard conditions of approval:
23. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance.
24. 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).
25. 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.
26. All exterior lights shalt comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut -sheets
are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall
be located underground.
30. Large scale development approval shall be valid for one calendar year.
31. 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.
32. 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
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
K:IReports12008WC Reporls118-September 221LSO 08-3037 (Victory Commons l).doc
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.
Planning Commission Action: - J Approved O Denied O Forwarded
Meeting Date: September 22, 2008
Motion: Myres
Second: Winston
Vote: 6-0-1 (Anthes recused)
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. IReporis12008V'C Reponsll8-September 121LSD 08-3037 (Victory Commons ]).doc
aY, etd e Y 1e PC Meeting of September 22, 2008
ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
THE CITY QF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone:(479)444-3470
LANDSCAPE REVIEW FORM
To: Bates and Associates
From: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Date: September 16, 2008
ITEM # 08-3037: Large Scale Development (Victory Commons)
Applicable Requirements:
Plan Checklist:
Y= submitted by applicant
N=requested by City of Fayetteville
NA= not applicable
.el �
S
i
N
Y
Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib
Y
Y
Species of plant material identified
Y
Y
Size of plant material at time of installation indicated
N
N
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
Y
Y
Wheel stops/ curbs
Y
Y
Interior landscaping
Narrow tree lawn (8' min width, i/ min length/ i tree per 12 spaces)
Tree island (8' min. width i tree per 12 spaces)
Perimeter landscaping
Side and rear property lines (5' landscaped)
N
Y
Shade trees as described in street tree planting standards,
Parking lot adjacent to R.O. W.- continuous planting of shrubs -at least
8 per tree- and ground cover -50% evergreen)
NA
NA
Greenspace adjacent to street R.O.W. (25' wide)
NA
NA
Large street trees planted every 30' L.F. along R.O.W.
NA
NA
25% of total site area left in greenspace (8o% landscape)
NA
NA
Parking lots and outdoor storage screened with landscaping
NA
NA
Residential Subdivisions- i large species shade tree/ lot tree
planted within R.O.W. ifpossible
N
N
Nonresidential Subdivision- i large species shade tree/30 L.F.
tree planted within 15-25'greenspace
' reens ace
NA
NA
Urban Tree Wells -urban streetscape only -8 foot sidewalk
NA
NA
Structural Soil -if urban wells are used, a note or detail of structural
soil must be indicated on the landscape plan
NA
NA
Timing of planting indicated on plans (subdivisions only)
NA
NA
Written description of the method for tracking plantings
N
Y
i 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 (i gal) / 3000 square feet
N
Y
Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified
N
Y
50% of facility planted with grass or grass like plants
Conditions of Approval:
1. Before construction document approval, the landscape plan must be
stamped by a Landscape Architect licensed within the state of
Arkansas.
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
signature of Final Plat.
3. A 3 -year maintenance bond for all mitigation trees is required prior to
signing the final plat.
TayeVIPC Meeting of September 22, 2008
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS e:(4 AR 1270!
9
Telephone: (479)444-3470
TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Greg Howe, Urban Forester
Date: September 17, 2008
ITEM # LSD o8-303'7: Large Scale Development (Victory Commons)
Requirements Submitted:
Initial Review with the Urban Forester
✓
Site Analysis Map Submitted
F
Site Analysis Written Report Submitted
T
Complete
Tree Preservation Plan Submitted
Canopy Measurements:
•
b'7Ji1.1��
1 a y?o 3 9Ds_W :0te jif �_
*LIK1tJC11
• •
✓rPifi
FINDINGS:
Numbers are not correct.
See Note I below.
The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or
species.
• This site is over half covered by canopy. A water holding area is
located on the southern portion of the site. This development has not
set aside the minimum 15% (8,438 square feet) tree canopy.
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 this site. A proposed
Tree Preservation is planned in the wetland.
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.
• Canopy removed will have little effect on adjacent neighbors due to
separation of the parcel by industrial use, railroad and highway right-
of-ways. However, new residents of the proposed structure will have
visual and noise abatement lost by removal of the trees to the west
and south
Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
• None were presented for consideration
Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
• The size and shape of this lot does affect 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 good to fair with a few poor trees.. - .
The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of
the property.
• There will be trees cleared with this development. The applicant will
be saving some canopy along the southern portion of the lot.
The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing,
replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities..
• Trees shown for preservation should not be affected by utilities.
Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and
routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
• Topography is not an issue on this site.
Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives.
• No off -site alternatives have been provided. In the far northwest
corner of the adjacent property under the same ownership the
submitted plans include the placement of a detention pond. This pond
as designed will remove almost ioo % of the tree canopy of that parcel
The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives.
• There 13 trees proposed for on -site mitigation required on this site.
The effect other chapters. of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the
development design.
• Engineering, Fire and Utility constraints have affected the
developmental design
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 with the following conditions;
i. Provide new tree canopy calculations for the tree damaged by
Tropical Storm Ike. Percent canopy shall not drop below 7% for
continued approval.
2. Remove the detention pond (#1) from the northwest corner. Place a
temporary detention pond on that adjacent parcel outside of any tree
canopy areas and with Engineering approval.
3. All trees on the adjacent parcel are to remain until such time that the
parcel is reviewed for development.
4. Replace the tree preservation retaining wall on Sheet C2.i with the
same one depicted on Sheet Lioi
g. On Sheet Lioi remove the grading lines from the tree side of the
retaining wall.
6. No utility service lines or any improvements with the exception of
hand tree plantings will be allowed within the Tree Preservation Area.
7. Revisions to Tree & Natural Area Standard Notes
a. Note 10: correct the word trunk
b. Note i3: change name from the National Arborist Association to
Tree Care Industry Association
8. The Tree Preservation Area should be identified on the easement plat
and include the Tree Preservation Area signature block required for
the Urban Forester. This will accomplish a restrictive easement on
the area to ensure that the canopy is maintained and preserved.
9. Mitigation is required on the site in the amount of 13 (2) inch caliper
large species trees. The applicant has requested and been approved to
plant these trees on -site. If all trees can not be planted on the site, the
remaining amount will be paid into the Tree Escrow Account for
future planting.
io. All mitigation trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a final
certificate of occupancy. These trees can not be located within any
utility easement. A 3 -year bond, letter of credit, or check of shall be
deposited with the City of Fayetteville before issuance of a certificate
of occupancy
aVje L vI11e
f ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
TO: Jesse Fulcher, Planner
FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner
DATE: September 8, 2008
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 444-3469
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Review Comments
******************************************************************************
Meeting Date: September 11, 2008
Item: LSD 08-3037 (Victory Commons, 560)
Park District: SW
Zoned: I-1
Billing Name & Address:
Paradigm Companies
Current Land Dedication Requirement
Money in
Lieu
Single Family
@ .024 acre per unit = acres
@
$960 per unit =
$
Multi Family
@ .017 acre per unit = acres
J0 __@
$680 per unit =
$ 6,800
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed this project on July 7a' 2008 and
recommended accepting money in lieu of land to meet the requirements of the
development.
• Tsa-La-Gi trail corridor is located to the north of this property. Park Staff would like to
work with the developer to obtain land for the trail when the property develops.
• Fees for 10 multi -family units are due prior to the issuance of building permits.
LSD 08-3037
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 West Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 479-575-8206
To: Jesse Fulcher, Planner Date: September 8, 2008
From: Glenn E. Newman, Jr., P.E.
Staff Engineer
Re: Plat Review Comments (July 30, 2008 Subdivision Committee Meeting)
Development: LSD — 08-3037 —Victory Common
Engineer: Bates & 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. Provide written permission to grade on the adjacent property. (Specifically the Rail Road
to the southwest of the parking lot)
3. Indicate the scale of the off -site detention pond on sheet 3. The pond appears to be
located on the adjacent property. Relocate the pond so that the 3:1 slope is more than 5 ft
from the property line or provide a private drainage easement from the Rail Road to allow
the detention on their property.
4. Identify the finish floor elevation for the building north of the proposed off -site detention
pond. Ordinance required the structure to be 1 ft above and 20 ft from the 100 yr wse.
Drainage Report:
5. Review CN numbers selected. Provide supporting spreadsheet showing pervious and
impervious areas with the appropriate CN values to support the values used. The values
in the table 2.3a are based on a specific amount of impervious area. (This may limit the
development of area lb to 75% impervious)
6. Review the Tc for the DA 2. The entire sheet flow area is not grass.
7. Review the Tc for the DAlb. The site is assumed developed but the Tc indicates existing
conditions.
8. The distribution for Post DAla should be Type III.
9. Revise the offsite pond so that the 100 yr event does not exceed predevelopment flows.
10. Provide a standard scale for the Drainage Area Maps (Bar scale provided is not correct).
11. Indicate the amount of excess storage available for off -site detention pond. If this is less
than 25%, document the proposed percentage and the reasoning for consideration.
Engineering Comments Page 1 of 1
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-575-8206
ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
I U: manning Commission Members
FROM: Glenn E. Newman, Jr., P.E., Staff Engineer
DATE: September 17, 2008
SUBJECT: Victory Commons — Wetland Determination
Staff has requested a wetland determination for the southern portion of the Victory Commons site
that holds water and supports vegetation commonly seen in "damp" areas at the first technical plat
review meeting July 16th. Even though this site is not immediately adjacent to a creek and is fed by
overland flow from the adjacent gravel parking area, staff has concerns that this area may be a
wetland. Attached is a map indicating hydraulic soils are present at the site which is also an
indication of potential wetlands. At this time staff, does not have any record, either formal or
informal, indicating whether this area is a wetland.
Without a determination and/or delineation of wetlands within the limits of the project, engineering
cannot evaluate the requirements of the Unified Development Code 170.07 Performance Criteria (4)
Drainage into wetlands:
"Areas defined as "wetlands" by the appropriate federal agencies shall be protected from
adverse changes in runoff quantity and quality from associated land development."
Nor, can engineering be assured the development is not
occurring
in a
wetland, which would require
a Corp
of Engineers permit for site development, which
may alter
the
site layout.
Friday September 12, Bates and Associates presented a letter indicating, in their opinion, a wetland
determination is not required since, the limits of construction is a "safe" distance away from the area
identified by the developer as possible wetlands. (see the attached documents)
Please note, the letter presented is not a determination or delineation of wetlands by the appropriate
federal agency, only thq opinion of Bates and Associates.
Wednesday September 17, the Developer stated he has submitted a request to the Corp. of Engineers
for a wetland determination of the site and is waiting for a response from the Corp of Engineers.
Based on the above statements by the developer and the opinion of Bates and Associates, engineering is willing to allow the project to move forward provided a condition is added requiring
applicant to present a "wetland determination" by the appropriate federal agencies and to meet the
performance criteria of section 170.07 (4) of the UDC prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
(which may require an environmental filter system assuming the applicants exhibit is correct and
there are wetlands on site)
From: Brian Pugh
To: Fulcher, Jesse; Garner, Andrew; Sanders, Dara
Date: 9/8/2008 12:41 PM
Subject: Subdivision Committee 9-11-08
LSD 08-3037 (Victory Commons) Enclosure at 15' x 12' is correct size for one dumpster. Solid Waste recommends
considering a cardboard dumpster as well to provide recycling service. Double enclosure should be 30t x 12' . Please call
Solid Waste to discuss.
Brian Pugh
Waste Reduction Coordinator
Fayetteville Solid Waste and Recycling
479-718-7685
479-444-3478 Fax
-N. 1
Mr 4
Ni z
a _� r :. + � i � 'f
1 1.
yyyy
! _ JK _. .
s
-t �S'��aA'Y6�M1.-�y`-.-.aE-�a:')iaY'T � 1 s'• H. .gyp
k -n i ' Exskknn.
L } �nc�2 T b f°` of
of
99
. Ii'f
.Q ..
3wk m
f,
�
may, r
y� ]
ySrlr
- �.� ` i Jam.
C
N
E
m
m
C
a
a
L
m,
/
I
I
1 I
i I
1 i
i I
1 �
q e
LSD08-3037 VICTORY COMMONS
Close Up View
1
n P
O J Ff [ f tit L N♦ K Fr F R�
#`• ,'� v; ° SUBJECT PROPERTY
} av- T �. Iiny
aye. n. �. v
t�.
i �♦ 1: �0^ 1Y' a :�
l /
f A t 'T3y1
i rs
y♦ 1 r 4 + x 2'J'u Y b
yy i
f r ?r � Y
Rn f r r / T.:. cart fi >ii'.•.
•e ..i 1 r w:•<a, ry v�4 ♦
rS
. ..
w atel
V J I r' + r � L '♦! f$5 �::R a FE a X. `'�$ X. 4iA(:F.r:.
r lr+
S {i .w�
- .. i _l f l �♦
` i
� Ifl♦, �.A ] Vl
! Y
% r ' -_.
f-
is F
i
Y b
r t4f v. ii��� .+ ♦l n i -
♦
d ♦ I'Aa
Ley '.t
Lf
b
a
........♦ A
: Vl
.-.
.i b YfY A � •
o iiK •Yr y .+ I( ' S -
Overview
--
me
0
37.5
75
150
225
300
:,..
a_.
Feet
•
I Y`
A ft W
I.
I F •♦ F� p y
7•
l,' 5
R 4
•
L'
Y
1 1 v� a v � � � '� 1•.
____ ____ -pr
LY:j\\, gjTr___
�. u.
sue.
�° v , e a
Y , .. vii .. 0. i r�. aF�� {• I - • . • � 1,1�•
Victory Commons
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 2008
Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 12 of 26
CUP 08-3097: (VICTORY COMMONS, 560): Submitted by TRACY HOSKINS for property
located SOUTH OF RAZORBACK ROAD, N OF THE ARKANSAS -MISSOURI SPUR. The
request is for additional square footage of residential over the percentage allowed by the UDC.
LSD 08-3037: (VICTORY COMMONS, 560): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for
property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, 500 -FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH
6TH STREET. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains
approximately 1.29 acres. The request is for a commercial developmer}tkwath 18 attached dwelling
units and 9,319 s.f of commercial space with associated parking.
Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, d.
The conditions are virtually the same as was discussed at
of a Conditional Use Permit to add additional resident
conditions of approval as recommended by staff, in lift
requested reduction of street trees, Commercial D i
The only condition added since Subdivision Commi er
which is causing the removal of additional trees on the sit
this issue.
Tracy Hoskins, Paradigm Development (aplir
Mitchell Oil Gas Company property. We doCCRave
ft of right-of-way at north on the landscape varia
driveway with this develo m iiit�and 3) relocate
discuss the off -site detenfi nn p° which is off-!
an optimum place,)O, en an d'd block built
development. We fel i s 1prop ately located,
trees we would lose Reg ert o' to c
g
we are 13 ay?ay Nnorth f the it, a
redesig ' g the parkifig"{ooNo accTh date that shift, if that's what the Planning Commission wants.
We wJ want to leave e: lan aSiJ. are providing more square feet of greenspace. As for
plan m 'rrigation, we h t knowltfl�t to be an accurate statement. Assuming we are using the
right type. plants we nee::e State has sent an email stating they are OK with it. Hoskins
discussed the't -cut/access o iginal proposal, the planned proposal, and the AHTD response of
denial. We have d to re ve a portion of the median (concrete nose) to create a full access to
this project — we c�4 . rany commitments on removing the driveway to the north, and we ask
that to be struck from l e conditions. We can look at it at a later phase.
No public comment was received.
;s oth posals at the same time.
' ion Co ttee. Staff is supportive
t the pro3 t. Fulcher discussed
the requested lan c pe variance, the
ida?yd�s,and curb -cu cc tlocations.
rI eg�5�r j g the off -site j e ention pond,
E, rban Forester is present to speak to
stated that t ie prre ct was located on the old
e.items we w�la like to discuss further. 1) 2
e'c b ui location and removal of north
id redesi o detention pond. We would like to
on a piec of property we own. The pond is in
and railroad tracks in a remote part of the
tat the advantages of planning outweigh the
.hnent on the greenspace at the north of the lot,
south end we are 18 feet. We don't mind
Commissioner Myres stated that on the curb cut issue, if under condition #1, can we require
removal of curb cut to the north?
Pate stated yes, it is owned by this property owner. The same property owner is asking the City to
consider approval of an off -site detention pond, removing trees off -site of the property, and a portion
Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 13 of 26
of the proposed driveway off -site of where the building is located. Staff would certainly reconsider
our recommendation for option #1 (removing a portion of the median to create a full -access turning
movement) if the north curb cut remains full -access. The highway department, when they
constructed this median, left one full -access curb cut open. They constructed a second curb cut to the
south, however it's right-in/right-out only because of the existing median. We don't believe that was
by chance. In discussing this issue with our city engineer, Mr. Petrie, this afternoon, it is clear from
earlier meetings with the applicant that our recommendation is that we cannot support a full -access
curb cut that close to another full -access curb cut, removing the median . pert with that proposal.
You see in the conditions two different options presented by staff, b e v ied to accommodate
several different options. Option 1 includes a south right-in/right- t ll-access curb cut, removing
a portion of the concrete median, and closure of the very nortrb t most across from Indian
Trail. The reason the applicant is requesting a second optionto _ aniro 's that we have received
a letter that the highway department may not be suppc
that they are not supportive of removing any trees or
Granted, the design drawings have not been presene4l
work with the applicant to talk to the highway
However, if that option does not occur, we have prese
cut access points to the overall property,,Lnaintaining
the north, and two right-in/right-out cur13'^I
response from AHTD this soon in the prods
we will have to bring something back befot
trying not to have that delay for this project,
rti T.t iis'blan as prOpased. The letter states
median whatsoever 's point in time.
t, t is sim a concept, answilling to
ent a u this option, as a support it.
rte to £&i op ion that will allow three curb
a full Se s point adjacent to the building to
s to this o e We don't typically have a
e recommeRs ething and AHTD says no,
)division Co tee to reconsider it. We're
e ,u �p tions for you to consider.
Commissioner Myres a e'*as in agreennnt with staff that a change needs to be made to
access. She supports_ ft's reconun of option 2 in order for this to work.
Pate clarified that staff's
the other.
not recommending choosing between one or
Hoski ski stated he agree viTh staffMn7hr irrb cut access, just not the proposal to remove the curb
cut o t orth. He disc L the s ory of Razorback Rd. improvements. Trying to plan a
driveway a e two properties away seems like a reach. Our opposition is that we don't have full
plans develop = or the entirt�s te.
Commissioner Myre )tamed she supports staff's decision.
Commissioner Winst n asked about Indian Trail.
Pate discussed curb cuts to the north at the gas station being very close.
Commissioner Lack stated that on the 2 ft. strip of land associated with the landscape waiver he
would support staff. It is appropriate that plantings be on land you own. The fact that AHTD
purchased more land than they need does not preclude them from using it in the future. I also agree
with staff on the curb cuts. A lot of what goes into this decision is far beyond the distance between
Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 14 oJ26
curb cuts, but also proximity to a very busy intersection, Indian Trail, and the railroad tracks. I hope
that option #1 works, it seems to be a winning option for the developer. On #12, the detention pond,
I would like staff to clarify the specific trees we are talking about from a preservation standpoint.
Pate gave a brief history of the site's issues. In general, a detention pond was not located where it is
now, it was to the south. The applicants have designed a site with a runoff coefficient that they have
stated would accommodate full build -out on this property, located in the far west comer where the
railroad used to be and where it is, between the block building and th • er. The only problem
with that from a development standpoint is that is the only locatioiiFflFere are also trees. It
would cause removal of several trees. This proposal came before Subdivision Committee for
the first time, and there has not been the typical time to revieSt
Greg Howe, Urban Forester, stated that the Commissi2fbe awar there is the actual
project where the structure will be built, and then they an off -site detention n For the on -site
building location, we've had a plan in and a site a lflis, a site oil, and a tre�p ation plan
turned in. For the off -site detention pond, we've not re ei•. , d an o ose things, w •haze required
by Code. I've not had anything to review for this project jo. off -site part of it. Regarding the
photos submitted by the applicant sho g the condition o th trees, there are 34 trees that I've
counted that will be taken out by this det pond. The tree a have in front of you are 3 or 4
trees within that group and they are the woifl5Iin ones. There't e t ral other trees within that
group of 34 that are in much better condition an eon ou see.' we're not just talking about
some poor -looking trees that will come out. S • my a =i that tiff has not -had a chance to fully
review the off -site detenj2pcnd plan since J has ne .e been formally presented. Howe
directed the Planning C is 'o ttention to a tree pres ation plan, sheet L10I, showing two
large groupings of tr Sib the top I ft and comer flat are X'd out where the pond is going. None of
those groups are lis ed i th table . n the tree prese - on plan. Some of the significant trees are,.
but not all of the canopy wi n't a usst rece've is prior to this meeting, earlier this week, with
all the othe gra' e s a. evelo nt info ti So there hasn't been due diligence done on this.
The site ysis froTh Tb gina eehh Plat has not been updated and sent to myself in regards to this
Chang , ngr has the site sis repbit'�I
Commissi5- ack stated a seeing a number of 2"/5-8" elms enumerated in the plans here —
hasthat Chan •d.
Howe stated that e new since Subdivision Committee. One of the other things that has
happened on -site wher a building structures are proposed, is that a tree came down during a recent
storm, and we asked f& a new calculation for the canopy number, and we have not received that.
Commissioner Lack asked if there was a Subdivision Committee report.
Commissioner Cabe gave a Subdivision Committee report on the detention pond and tree removal.
In general, we agreed with staffs recommendation, and asked staff and developer to sort through
these issues. A lot of this is new information tonight. We were not aware that drawings have not
been submitted. I agree with staff's recommendation to relocate the pond in order to preserve the
Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 15 of 26
trees.
Pate stated that the information about the trees had not been provided at the Subdivision Committee
meeting; we were not aware there were trees in that area, we simply asked for that information. The
Subdivision Committee directed staff and the applicant, asked if we had enough time to work that
out before we got here, so now we are discussing details that would normally be worked out by
Subdivision Committee.
Commissioner Lack stated that at this point, I would have to suppeCio
that. I'm looking at
trees listed in the table, and have some pause with placing a highonsome of these trees such
as the hackberry and cherry, but certainly respect staff's reco en that.
Hoskins stated that on September 17th, a report was i
calculations were including the tree that had been di
mitigation on the Victory Commons site whatso er•f
planned to be removed, so it did not change the caicuu
Thursday of last week. There were a few things that neei
by Monday morning of the following we*_j Engineering
As far as the recalculation of trees, etc, •i off -site
required. On page L101, which was the re- ubmi on Monday, ffiflubb flittal was drawn from Mr.
Howe's meeting with our landscape archite Al Os e . This plaThis the result of their meeting.
There are not 30 trees out there, and the pi tures er ?o you are a cross section of
everything that is out there ' uding the one Ti trunks. n this new submittal, originally the
tree numbers went up t + 1. and beyon iflect the , ees up in the north. comer, where the
off -site detention poj i o be loc to . There are trees; we are saving 2 of the 12.. Of the, 10 that
are to be removed, 5 are or he , , they are hate ' /elm, etc, low -priority, and the. other five
are hackberry trees in fair die u p j j . If the Urban Forester feels that we need to
mitigate
cR to the City's Fayetteville, new
by the storm. i of change our
1 was a tree tnat'naa ady been
is bdivision Co ttee was on
e wo ked out, including detention,
Iii working on detention pond issues.
We will mitigate for whatever is
Lack
:s vs.
mitigation, reT'""'ding the r
canopy be mainor is
we are ha — o do so. But as far as a revised plan, it has been
)nceVnth the priority level of the trees and the importance of
for em. There is a provision in the ordinance that allows for
species and priority of the trees; is it appropriate to require the
more appropriate?
Howe stated that it see ike a slippery slope. If we start looking at every tree on every site, to this
conditions — I've not Kecessarily agreed with all of the health conditions. The Code is set up to
preserve trees, it is not a tree mitigation code. It would be difficult to support them to be completely
removed. He discussed the health of trees. I think we're walking a fight rope in what we're calling
preservation and mitigation. Howe discussed mitigation survival rate for other projects — it does not
appear to be working, with a 31% survival rate. There are 12 significant trees on this site, but 34 that
make up this canopy. They would be taking these trees out and only leave about 6 on the entire
proposal. Part of the reason to recommend they stay now is because there appears to be no reason to
take them out. A future development might ease that, but haven't had the time or information to
Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 16 of 26
support that at this point.
Commissioner Lack stated that he has some difficulty with the idea of going against that
recommendation from an ideological standpoint, but I would personally find some favor in the idea
of being able to mitigate at least some of these trees. There is a grouping in the lower right-hand
corner, it might be that there could be some reforming of the pond that could do better and save some
of these trees. There might be some middle ground on that, but I wouldn't feel comfortable sending
this forward to the City Council with the potential for them to be doi ubdivision Committee
work. I would either want to concur with staff and say move the pondor ybe table the issue to
work out that issue.
Commissioner Winston asked how the Urban Forester
Howe stated he would look closer at the condition aQj
mitigation shown doesn't reflect all of the trees
priorities and classification. Realistically, we don't
parcel. I would like to see those calculations; and take
Commissioner Winston asked if it is po si I to send the
after we have worked out these issues.
given more time.
of the individudl tr" des. I believe the
ere. He discus'tf'low level
a63y calculation to e iew for this
.r' 'took at the -health of these trees.
to Subdivision Committee
Pate stated that it could, but it would have to d Umatety ckto the Planning Commission for
approval.
Hoskins stated he d ave trees e southeast o mer by reconfiguring the detention pond. With
off -site tree removal like i the C rovides tha 'e Urban Forester can make any call he feels is
appropriate. We've offere o. gate of one the calculation because we have to wait for
the Urban F aer's gision 10 .we can gate out how many trees we have to mitigate for. We
believe an save e tre at th ` o theast corner, the trees in the middle are gone no matter what.
Plc d 't table or re e proj c adk to Subdivision Committee. We would prefer to be
denied.
Commissione ck stated t a he wanted to clarify that he would not want.to deny, but would lean
toward going wit wi e information presented now.
Commissioner Kennel asked if the recommendation is to move pond altogether, or modify it?
Howe stated that his recommendation would be to move the pond and make it temporary, because
we know there's other development to come to this site. My concern is with saving the trees on the
edge of the pond now, or on the more interior part of the development. I see this as being unlikely in
the future development to be the trees that would be saved. It's more likely that the trees up in the
corner would have a higher percentage chance of being saved with future development of the site. If
we save those trees now in the corner, redesign the pond, go through that process, and then a year or
two years from now we come in with a hotel that might be going in to that site, and take them out
Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 17 of 26
anyway for parking spaces or something else. That's what I was trying to say before about the fact
that you're trying to do some future forecasting, and trying to look at something you don't have
everything to be able to look at what's going to happen to that site.
Motion:
Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the Conditional
listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the moti,
passed with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Anthes recusi4
Motion:
Commissioner Myres made a motion to
conditions #1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and all other ci
Winston seconded the motion.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated•
staff can do — maybe you should 1
engineering and planning staff.
Pate stated that he can add that to the conditi3
Commissioner Lack ed for lication on
as the applicant has o sed, or o feet as ste
Commissioner
Large Scale
YI
it with conditions as
roll call the motion
in favor of
do there needs to be something that
of the e• location on approval of the
1 #1 — whether it is a reduction to zero feet
)nnsed-
Uponl'call the a vote of 6-0-1; with Commissioner Anthes recusing.
II
{I
ICI
II
I
[
:1:,'
1.,
GeeI
NI
yfi
€
���3
fRislud�,�
d_
ppsa'€€
xq
q%
Q
p�•,1
aA�:xRd
RHF
I
y)
yp,
_ M1 r „„�� 1'.
. 2i ,"1 . d
•• SS
, ofi a.,^1 yy .jj
ARrnvsn g°i�(n�fie
'
R1R'VANFS ASPIp LT ROAD
f�;H-
••
I'll
a
R N
S '
Y €
_ QQ
..
ep€
g !�
^ Lry'E
.
� ♦�
�s
y
S LL
N
1 €
BHIsa
'Ac
L
H
TI�Y�®
I•Y yy 161Y®,AWO
le4 b.�[T I1,41.4{agN
M-_bYDi
IN. yIN I�rIWY1,4M4LL YIiT
bS•fl Pt
YM ra.0 ues
rlr.Y ne,�lLenl..wLw
w•• t IT CYO
VICTORY COMMONS REM PONS I°•R
S e Bates& LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT .I'rc
Ng Associates,lnc.
R SITE & UTILITY PLAN
CM Eam� & Snnfl1
,,,•_ ,�„•_,,,L,.m M,s Ma m FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
a I Bates&
r 6 6
o Associates,inc.
cNA EIImwft&&n t
N. .r A& -.me. m.nm r.mm.m
j \ 1
-�
I,
$
Q y l: I II \ ♦\\ I
i„ ♦
III\ \
.I
•,J,i I I � / 1
$5 _ IrFi LtiJN
1 'I
v II
s $ ; \I \ ♦ \\II ft \ 4
r
jp I '�
�^3$ I i S¢
3 s �I ''P
It
I'. I I
I ::1
' W h\ .%t17: ii
n 11
711 rt r {' 1l` a' j(11 -f
r r �
r ! I 411 11/
�� k '' 4:::�` } ,1`k„I III,
`r I ;. � S a 1 y10. f
t - jj�. -... 5 w
41 1.1 r' Illy rJ 11 qq' '
... _. ate na. .. .. ._.
]II' r II
......
. X .
P t' * ✓ M
s
fle j'i
$ qq¢
ON, F. mT O
C0MM0NSDEVEL0PMENT
NALYSISER7,2008r
E
ARKANSAS
P.NAE,
_____
,�
O.PO
VICTORY COMMONS RE "SIONS
r a s Bates & LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
--� 4 ASSociates,Inc. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN (1)
cM Ei,gi q & S.nfl OCTOBER 7, 2008
FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS -
nw ma.r nwun.•
B
e
I91
C
e
e
u
-.
Ii1J!1!H4
�s
aF3
O
S
aIg
I.
Ls
te^
g
&
6
I?
fg
po
iF
w
pe
p0�.
nLFjy Q9�
C y
S mT n```J
NZ
0 `
y i
i 14
o
( I I
Y N Y m N -. • ••• ! • N Y
yy I.O. a s $� F �aF�d�i
FP97i w I I'It WU i �: IIiIIill11
.. ; °i FFal:eflt# �ipg9 y �� d t !i�a�lll �e flBye I ! E 7 n � �a�}F��, ���=F;Ig Fa t ���_¢� �e III I} = fl
1111w! }1 F i 1 Q g g
gg gg fl�in
a {F1f ��gi°E�d Lqa ° F� 'p� F gg3
e F i," ���44gg gndS��
� �y`6 i a ga n 99fl ;� ;33e� a F7 ii v 1 ag1° F #g m
m
VICTORY COMMONS
r s e Bates c. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
Associates,inc. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN (2)
NE •^"•°°°""'_c. CM EnoovinO &swvnw OCTOBER 7, 2008 - pw^uP.wima
FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS �"""
i
I
aI.
4'
vim.\ \ 2`•uScyJY J(✓�} ivr 11�1 .I In Iy'
I NV
I II
le �
JI /
,, ��I t Il
y
r.. -� If, °ix 11 J TAT I �•_\
f�/lYC
R�
I
+v Yl.f
ARI
CK ROAD
p.n., nnnn 1'gnY
VICTORY COMMONS """°'°"S I
r e e Bates c& LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT --
o
.ssociateS,Inc. LANDSCAPE PLAN (1) —
cmftyyMng&$in llp OCTOBER7,2008 m, �^'"
,,,,�„ „� ,,, „„ FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS --:--.' - ,,,,;;
e .p 0Y. -m
P . n101 S.l.
VICTORY COMMONS REVIS'ONS Iwn
Bates& LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT =- - _--�`-- •
AsSociateS, Inc. LANDSCAPE PLAN (2)
nfl OCTOBER?, 2008
•
0
a. _ —�.e..
FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS
er. __ mmw "� ee.ew.
N � t
G
■ k O`4S. i �°■ r u�
r O tll T` p J O`
m N ?
J
• w - t•. •VENDOR DR /I
M 3lN 098
t r
'... _ .r ..I �. ♦ 4 .1
p 1-
-
a.,
''se //
I
'
�� w � ' 1 FI f•
w
b m i y
.f ` {iY
a�
N � 1
r % l - T. ♦IF J
� I � � i � Y .� � a • O.i
•
♦ r y
_ a ♦ a f\� it . fir. '- � _�� ]���_' h. - ♦ f r.
t ZY
RAZO BACK RD ♦ / .
t �
ti
at N.
4 't
TcI
RAz BACK RD RAZORBACK RD
T
:' :;: - j.u. N'. 4'
0
Q tJlJl ltl�'I
31r0 SNOISInaa
S
II
0
ME9111Y11.... YYIS MAW =•.1.V ••V®1
ImGY.1IIL I Im-1(TI-•1 .1•. PM e
kww gx
IIk sI
Iy I�pi!?
C) o to
r� GY
(U Il s
SVSNVNaV 13111A3113AV.
NVId A11lun 311S
1N3WdO13A30 31VOS 398V1
SNOWWOO A2101OIA
Y'v! ICY o.1 n..b of OU W6l.rugl. .11"..°y...IP•J 11 •I
Su)ASMnS 2p BupeeupBu3 IWO •..<Iwn.w.r...
°ou l `sa}eioossd
2 sewe8
RI[f N +em.w.o 41•..11] Q, warp. 5r1A
!°J V NY .l EWV www —0
QI SN.@YS S
1014 F Tr hltvj IFL.OI 1 [11 A`M0 STI •z1-M19t =F P.0
•.n.x ]Iware n un •I.w .� wmmi
neo-lrn�5 r �L•119( +aw Py S /
ir. M 6
v®®;
Siaee! f 3;.
Stltrr? s
QVON 1IVHdSV SW)ivAA1111.
ZI IMAVAWDIH 3E V1 ggVSNVJINV' h
g6 AVON AJV671°Zy>1
/-
s -- o
1 C� M rd - g:r
5- " b. J N -1a <
zQt• er WS, a s\ z^
tip,
Igpg • !C• I
________ L rj. H '.7:
• 6
.AM [ g
IMU
I e=� 1�'a $ 0 FI /
i/
za p g 1 °
x ilw Ci e�.79� SRe o b d
2R i
��.�;� a .� = gal
Cr
x
x
/� tl
w
0 F .
' I =
ovii
/ v K' 2 999 O F Y lu+•" see
/ /
x
}
x /
/
I k /
x
I k /
L-x-xJ /
/
a
#
Y6Y6
i69
GG
3dd
�dd�
`T
y
�
►y1
��
IyY$
[
tltltl
I
IQQ
&��gi
!!
8i6
W�
"�a
ggtt
egg
��"EY�BaCBBd�
'.
k`ee�E�ee
3AA����833sd§$Ia
R�es:a.oee
1
I
�
.
:i
1
11
:
I
I
;i
,
�
n
11
.f
17
ySi
11
I`t)
sa
I
i�.:19
I
_
"e
:r8
I
I
I"•
�
°
I
rI"t
I
I
ii
11
1
1
1
II
1
u
1
`
11
1
I
7
I
I
F
Y
1
1
=
II
1
I
II
w.,a.l,3,w3
wl wl1:3KN3
w,rl vp'\ln\
Mr 1,w
v]31N13.gMPan
3.VQ SNC S ^.3a
It
W
8
8
SVSNV)fV 3311IA3113,1V3
8001 L ZI380100
SIS,l1VNV 31lS
1N3wdO13A30 31VOS 3O V1
SNOMOO A O1OU1
$ F F
'vi i^ fit mint
-
Rw
r
0
LL
OUIASAJIIS upOeuiwj IIMJ V,Ci000MUMMM
•ou 1 `se:eioossd
SOWS
t
fa
Ass
Z
O
O
Y
x
j
AA
w,n b
MT t,n.
W' i1MDM.IgMxV1
SVSNV)IdV '3111A3113AV3
8003 'L 21380100
(1) NVId NOLLVAd3S3dd 3341
1N3wd013A30 31VOS 30 V1
SNOMOD Ad0131A
�ulhnJnsV UPflhJIOU31140 YYDVDMYMMM
-ou l'seleioossv
soles
ih-
cm
-4-Ck: Cu C. _____
f-
/ I
r _
q fp ____
p
P W
. . . . _
•
H \: =r3
.
.mllullllIuIHouilHIl:lHlIohlErluhlllol:1Il
Lmh;,;'
11111111111111111111
IIIlIlIllllllIHIlllII
F"
11110111
1111111
111
-
•
-
]JJJJ;JF
•
•
•
•
T
JUUUH
'6
.EM...
WW
..
nfl
IT
I
on In m s+l
WI'[ere�e wC.1d
KIPI `p •t11i
LA . Me
SaOWHY
31t� SNOISIAJ
SYSNYNdV '3111A3113Ad3
9002 L 21390100
(Z) NYld NOUVAb3S3ad 33x1
1N3wd013A30 31VOS 39ad1
SNOW IO3 AdO1OIA
OUI RS BuvaeulB°3 IW3..lo] 3U1S2jDQOMu'MM.1
-ou `soje000ssd
soeg
il
' age 9 ��g �r s
33 $d3 Ek i bm M�9 2 S ��iS LN. c ` q ! It
of
ES a q' E hill g,� b m�g, 5u vic c o3 c Bn 3 `m' ¢ c
Hi1� 8 d sir
H 41
3F_ '° R�R@
�$e �$n3;a 8mEg eg �=%fig
g888IP
e- J- pp 7 3wintq �� $0 9 affi 9 0,xg
N 1'1 y N ♦ • • • b • • ♦ • A 6 Ol !• ^ H CI
L
e
^
I
e
9I�8!
W<n
)r
all
Il
n
�e
"liii"
NO�
C
gg
?
33
EE
^
�
n
n
nflOttH
n
tWWt
J3J
Ellit
MIIM.Mm XY,
N31TNm� 3NM�
.IMS, . p
WISIOSV 04'1
II
'1
41
3iya sN017IA36
/1
I
z
p
O
a
N
�
L
n
SVSNV)ad '3IlbA3113Ad3
8002 L 2!380100
(l) NY1d 3dVOSONVI
iN3wdOl3A3a 31VOS DdYl
SNOMOO tkdO1OIA
OTINI3VH oz tiV
Ux2id
BUIfuung V BUN96UIBu3 8M0 woo' ouisojagoMu'MMM
3U `Sa1.e93OSSb/
2 Saie9
� �.14 I.
Qa
4) h_-rv� N'G .-mim mZ
z f5
O G ^ N
m e ICK�i
J p Q J p q b
ryn� �Q�yy i�. nipp i� 1IQQ1I..��QQ o 0o
V,NV 8Ra{OO—In
pp -40 b
8m Sn 8e � Qm Qi Qd e ^ Q8m Q8r $8m� p 2
O O O l Z G G G
eiriof j
q �&n_� nsa _ Z
0 S€
~m
I� ca���
gg N N t9
IH
0
a
SVSNV)IbV 4311IA3113AVd
M I !•I• T,
Ga' MIif ifO1
WvL
—an VA
31Y0
CD
Z
Y
i
9001 'L x390100
(Z) NVId 3dVOSGNV1
IN3Wd013A30 31VOS 39V1
SNOWWOO AeJOlOlA
Uu"LsMns GJ 6uUO.UIBU3 IV40'..:0J' OUIGYIDQOMV' MMM
-ou I `saa.eioossd
sale
o
C
7
z c
z
o
w i
a a
0
Page 1 of 1
Clarice Pearman - Res. 211-08
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Pate, Jeremy
Date: 11.13.08 3:31 PM
Subject: Res. 211-08
CC: Audit
Attachments: Audit
Jeremy:
Attached is a copy of the above resolution passed by City Council regarding Victory Commons. Please let me know if there is
anything else needed for this item. Have a good day.
Thanks.
Clarice
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\cpearman.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\491 C4837F
11.13.08