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:
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