The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-12-12 - Agendas - Final CITY OF Tay� LY i'I'l e� AGENDA ARKANSAS Final Agenda Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner; Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer City Attorney: Kit Williams Call to Order Roll Call Consent 1. Approval of the minutes from the November 28, 2016 meeting. 2. ADM 16-5665: Administrative Item (731 S. RAZORBACK RD./MOO-LICIOUS ESSPRESSO 1 YR. MOBILE VENDOR, 560): Submitted by CODY BAILEY for property located at 731 S. RAZORBACK RD. The property is zoned UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE, and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is for a 1 year Mobile Vendor permit Planner: Harry Davis 3. CCP 16-5656: Concurrent Plat (SW OF PROVIDENCE DR. & MTN. RANCH BLVD./PARKHILL AT MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. II — LOTS 1-3 & 98, 479): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located SW OF PROVIDENCE DR. & MTN. RANCH BLVD. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 3.00 acres. The request is for 7 single family lots. Planner: Quin Thompson Old Business No Items New Business 4. VAR 16-5666: Variance Item (375 N. RUPPLE RD./OWL CREEK NATURE TRAIL, 478): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL, INC. for property located at 375 N. RUPPLE RD. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 24.08 acres. The request is for a variance to the Streamside Protection Ordinance. Engineer: Alan Pugh Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 5. PPL 16-5643: Preliminary Plat(SOUTH END OF PUMPKIN RIDGE RD./FALLING WATERS SD, 564): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located SOUTH OF PUMPKIN RIDGE RD. The properties are zoned RSF-2, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 2 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 35.30 acres. The request is for 49 single-family lots. Planner: Quin Thompson 6. PPL 16-5574: Preliminary Plat(NE OF 24TH &COUNTRY CLUB DR./MOUNTAIN VISTA SD, 640-641): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NE OF 24TH & COUNTRY CLUB DR. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 54.16 acres. The request is for 52 single-family lots. Planner: Andrew Garner 7. RZN 16-5664: Rezone (1633 E. ZION RD./MAYES, 136): Submitted by TRACIE S. MAYES. for property at 1633 E. ZION RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 0.70 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. Planner: Andrew Garner The following items have been approved administratively by staff: • LSP 16-5348: Lot Split-Property Line Adjustment (309 N. SMITH AVE./SHARP ARCHITECTS, 482): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 309 N. SMITH AVE. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 0.17 and 0.13 acres. The request is to split and adjust 2 parcels into 4 lots containing approximately 0.18, 0.09, 0.12 and 0.09 acres. Planner: Quin Thompson • LSP 16-5619: Lot Split (930 S. COLLEGE AVE./NIEDERMAN, 563): Submitted by BATES&ASSOCIATES, INC.for property located at 930 S. COLLEGE AVE. The property is zoned RSF-18, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.35 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 3 lots containing approximately 0.12, 0.12, and 0.07 acres. Planner: Harry Davis Announcements Adjourn NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address.Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official, staff, or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. 2 Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers. A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. 3 CITY OF Fa Y i'1'1� MINUTES ARKANSAS Planning Commission November 28, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan Absent: none. Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner, and Corey Granderson, Engineering. City Attorney: Kit Williams Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the November 14, 2016 meeting. Old Business: 2. VAR 16-5661: Variance Item (710 N. CEDARWOOD AVE./FLEMISTER, 442): Submitted by RICHIE LAMB for property located at 710 N. CEDARWOOD AVE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a variance to UDC Chapter 166.08, Street Design and Access Management Separation for a new curb cut. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED. No staff report or public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table VAR 16-5661 indefinitely. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayett D�cember 12,em 1 Fayetteville, AR 72701 -2016 Item 1 Y 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 1 of 11 3. ADM 16-5631: Administrative Item (UDC CHAPTERS 161 & 162 AMENDMENTS): Submitted by PLANNING STAFF for revisions to several chapters in the Unified Development Code. The proposal is to create two new zoning districts, a new use unit, and include accessory dwellings as a permitted use in several existing districts. The intent of the code changes are to facilitate greater flexibility in medium-intensity commercial and medium-intensity urban residential development. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Appreciates the changes made, but would like consideration to be given to having the street frontages for one-, two-, three-, and four-family dwellings all changed to the requirement for one-family dwellings. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Agrees with Commissioner Hoffman's comments. Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: Also agrees, and goes further to propose zero side setbacks, with the building code taking care of any fire or safety concerns. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Asks which zoning district Commissioner Quinlan would like to see the side setbacks changed on. Quinlan: Clarifies that she is speaking about the proposed RT-U zoning district. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Solicits staff's opinion regarding the Commissioner comments. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Is in agreement on some of the comments regarding RT- U, but notes that the intent of the NS districts is for less of an urban setting, where not all building typologies may be appropriate. It may be difficult to make these district work in a more suburban areas with the proposed changes. Quinlan: Notes that only 3- and 4-family dwellings are "punished" with a wider street frontage. Garner: Reiterates that it depends on the intent and purpose of the zoning district, and that there are other districts that are more appropriately used for 3- and 4-family dwellings. There is also some staff concern about the potential feedback of adjacent property owners that may oppose more intense residential development. Hoffman: Seeks clarification and understanding as to the staff's proposal for disparate lot widths for one- and two-family dwellings and three- and four-family dwellings. Garner: Notes an example in town that may be appropriate for nonresidential use, but not for an apartment, and thinks this may carry to the rest of the City. Again comments that there are other zoning districts that may be more appropriate for residential uses of more than two-family dwellings in density. Hoffman: Contends that requiring these wider lots makes it effectively impossible to integrate these more intense residential uses into low-density residential. Planning Commission December 12,2016 AgeZ Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 2 of 11 Quinlan: Follows up on Commissioner Hoffman's comments by saying that these lot widths do not get to the City's goal of traditional town form, as they practically encourage parking on the front or side. Garner: States staff's comfort with making these changes. Quinlan: Inquires why the NS zoning districts have lot widths but and lot area minimums. Garner: It is a matter of the right zoning district in the right location. The lot area is to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Continues by stating that eliminating certain lot widths or minimums starts to blur the lines between districts. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Notes that the Commissioners are all in agreement other than a few points. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to forward ADM 16-5631 agreeing with staff's proposal with the change that the lot width minimum in the NS districts be 35 feet for all residential lots. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. New Business: 4. VAR 16-5652: Variance Item (495 W. PRAIRIE ST./PRAIRIE ST. APTS., 523): Submitted by THE INFILL GROUP, INC. for property located at 495 W. PRAIRIE ST. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER, and contains approximately 0.21 acres. The request is for a variance to parking space size requirements and parking lot greenspace requirements. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Matthew Petty, Applicant: Discussed his goals for the project and reasoning for the request. Public Comment: Debbie Marley, Neighbor: Asked about dedicated parking for the commercial space. No more public comment was presented. Thompson: Replied that no parking will be provided for the commercial space, but that 6 on- street parking spaces are proposed, which will be first come first served. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said that the City does not require parking for commercial development, rather, it is provided at the developer's discretion. He said we should loosen landscape regulations in urban areas. Alison Quinlan, Commissioner: Asked Matthew Petty if the green space west of the parking lots is required. Planning Commission December)2,2016 Agenda Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 3 of 11 Petty: No, not sure what that is, staff prepared the exhibit. We intend to put a patio for one of the units in this location. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: We have in the past told developers that they are trying to put too much building on a site where we have a large number of variance requests. I support this one because it's a good project. Janet Selby, Commissioner: Said she supported the variances. Quinlan: Said masonry walls are really expensive, and perhaps we should consider other finely detailed materials for buffering with screen walls. Motion: Commissioner Selby made a motion to approve VAR 16-5652 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 5. PPL 16-5641: Preliminary Plat (SE OF PERSIMMON & BROYLES/SLOANBROOKE SD, PH. II, 477): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located SE OF PERSIMMON & BROYLES. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 28.20 acres. The request is for 103 single-family lots. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. Added condition noting that the approval of this plat does not guarantee any support for any future rezoning proposal associated, or un- associated, with this project. Justin Jorgensen, Engineer: States they are in agreement with staff's report. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Explains that the applicant responded well to the conditions coming from Subdivision Committee. Asks Engineering if it is possible to phase the waterline construction. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Asks Corey Granderson to answer. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Explains how the city can cost-share with the applicant and how the waterline is a staff interpretation, which would need to be appealed to City Council. Hoskins: Asks how many homes were built in the first subdivision. Granderson: Answers 97 lots. Hoskins: Asks Granderson what the policy on dead-end lines are for the City. Granderson: Explains city policy. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asks about where the parkland dedication is on this plat. Davis: Explains that the applicant should answer. Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 4 of 11 Jorgensen: Explains to the room about the location in the floodplain. Brown: Wonders about criteria for accepting parkland in a floodplain. Kit Williams, City Attorney: States to Brown that some of the best parkland is in floodplains and how this would not be an issue. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: States that this area will also include a multi-use trail into the parkland design. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Asks about the average lot width and density of proposal. Jorgensen: Answers. Hoffman: States that they are frustrated by the disparity between the density allowed in the underlying zoning district and how large the lots are in this subdivision, which impact the development's density. Hoffman delves into his overall frustration with perimeter developments like this one where there is huge cost associated over time but little improvement over development patterns previously seen in earlier decades with RSF-4 zoning. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve PPL 16-5641 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Quinlan: Asks staff about the length of the block in north-east. Garner: Answers. Quinlan: Asks if there will be a turnaround for fire trucks. Quinlan wonders about how the stub- out works with areas in the floodplain zoned R-A. Garner: Answers. Explains that the original rezone for this area called for the floodplain to be zoned R-A in order to help conserve area and keep developers from doing major lot development in these areas. Quinlan: Asks if a condition can be made to connect Oldham Dr. into Street 7 to avoid significant development into the floodplain and R-A zone. Davis: Confirms with Quinlan that it is her intention to suggest to the applicant that they loop Oldham Dr. into Street 7. Kyle Cook, Planning Commission Chair: Confirms with Quinlan that they would like to add that to the conditions and have staff work to find a solution with the applicant. Hoskins: Asks if the three lots taken out were located in the conservation area. Garner: Answers yes and that it is not a conservation area, but a zoning district called R-A that would limit the size of development and make it harder to have a subdivision in that area within the floodplain. Hoskins: Asks if the stub-out are appropriate for the area and if the street design is a current issue. Planning Commission DecemberJ2,2016 Agenda Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 5 of 11 Garner: Answers yes that the stub-out are appropriate, but would just like to reiterate to the applicant that they could not develop lots in the same way within this area like they have done for the other parts of this subdivision. If the area were rezoned, they could have something more dense than what is allowed under R-A. The street design is currently OK'ed from city staff. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 6. PPL 16-5642: Preliminary Plat (NE OF 15T" & MORNINGSIDE DR./PARK MEADOWS SD, 564): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NE OF 15T" & MORNINGSIDE DR. The property is zoned with a mixture of NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, and RA, RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 68.00 acres. The request is for 290 single-family lots. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Jesse Fulcher, Applicant: Said the project has taken a long time. He noted that the street improvements are the most important part of this project. The traffic study has provided more concrete information since Subdivision Committee. What we should talk about in terms of concern for traffic study, is that we are generating 5 left hand turns in the AM form Huntsville and 12 in the evening. I can't imagine why the turn lane would be required. The previous developer was proposing 200 lots without significant street improvements. The question is, how much per lot is typical for street improvements. Other developments are coming in in the hundreds of dollars per unit. Our projection is for$3000 per unit. The Links at Fayetteville had the most required improvements, and also the most development. Sub-division Committee was a recommendation, this is a determination, with planning staff recommending denial if the improvements aren't made. Huntsville is more than restriping, but rather adding width to the north side. This is the highest cost per unit required ever for a subdivision. The level of service is currently an 'A' and will remain an 'A' after this development. There is no justification for the added turn lane. It is not rational. We did not realize we needed to add further stub outs, we will look at that. There is flood plain to the east. Public Comment: Kate Conway, Neighbor: Have lived across the street for 37 years. We have concerns about traffic and safety, especially with 600-1200 people moving into the area. There will be no east access, every car will use 15th street and Huntsville. Adding a light at Huntsville and Morningside is very important. There will two streets that are already existing Fairlane and xx and if we could make those four way stops, it would help slow down traffic on Morningside. Bike trails: I like the idea of the park, and that it will be public and people can have access to. There is a lot of wildlife in that field, deer, rabbits, geese, and coyote. What happens to those animals? Are they relocated? What is normally done? Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 6 of 11 Rodney Hicks, Neighbor: My biggest concern is for traffic on Morningside. It is already horrendous. The street cannot handle that traffic. Trees will need to be removed, and a traffic light definitely needs to be installed. Spent 5 minutes waiting at that intersection tonight. Traffic is my main concern. Ralph Nesson, Neighbor: Lived across the street for 37 years. We have known that the land would be developed. We hope that the traffic speed and safety will be taken into account. Speeding is a very serious issue on Morningside. We encourage you to make sure we get improvements and a traffic signal along with this development. The density concerns us, less than .23 acres per lot. This will create a large number of homes on a small area. Would like to see as many traffic safety measures as possible. There is a large amount of wildlife, we hope that preservation will take place. Chris McGill, Neighbor: Thanks to the Planning staff and to the Commission for their concern and looking out for neighbors. This is a big development, and I do appreciate you looking into it in such detail. There is only one chance to get it right. No more public comment was presented. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: How much are parks fees? Thompson: $269,560. Hoskins: parks fees, trail easement, and build the trail? As a developer, I am stunned by the amount of improvements required by staff. I don't see how they can make it work. Huntsville Road is a narrow road with steep ditch. Trees, telephone poles, will need to be removed. I am surprised that we are requiring a traffic signal. I think all three of us thought it was way too much. I can see the improvements on Morningside, without a doubt. Huntsville Road improvements are not warranted. I am amazed by the requirements. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Thanks to the public for the well-considered comments. I think it is important that we maintain and improve the walk ability of this part of town. Morningside: Traffic speeds are marked at 25 miles per hour now, people don't follow that. We need to balance capacity with traffic speed. These are independent of each other. Easiest thing to do is to add on-street parking. Is that being proposed? Andrew Garner, Planning Director: yes. On the east side of the street. Hoffman: Have concerns about traffic calming if we use the 30 foot section. Question to Fulcher: Excited by the number of alley loaded homes. Why can't we have it on the east side too?Would it be possible to get some alleys there? Fulcher: We are being squeezed out of space for more alleys. The small increments of space being removed for easement, street ROW, et c have resulted in small lots. Hoffman: We are asking a lot of these parcels. They will have lame backyards, with 24' wide auto storage at the front of 50 foot wide lots. It would be easier to understand backing off on some traffic related improvements if we are able to provide a more walkable development. I could forego traffic improvements if trail is provided. Planning Commission December 2,2016 Agenda Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 7 of 11 Alison Quinlan, Commissioner: I think you could provide more rear loaded lots. That could be to your benefit. I agree completely with you [Futcher] about no need to improve Huntsville Road. I do support a traffic signal. Why doesn't the developer get credit for parks fees and trail? Thompson: There is not parkland being dedicated. Garner: Actually there is parkland being dedicated. The parks fees numbers are estimates if no land is dedicated. Hoskins: Developers are still paying whether they are dedicating land or paying parks fees or building trail. The developer is paying. I would Ike to understand how creating more alleys reduces a need to street improvements. Quinlan: Alley loaded homes increase pedestrian traffic by creating traditional neighborhood developments. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: I love Disney World and go there often. I would love to live in utopia. Not many people can afford to go to Disney Land often. I don't want to compromise safety ever, while making it as beautiful as it can be without adding cost to the developer and be passed along to the buyer. Morningside improvements have to be done. Tom Brown, Commissioner: What street section is Huntsville Road? Garner: Collector. Brown: This property is unlike other recent subdivisions on the edge of town. It is really close to downtown. We need to do the improvements to Morningside. We do need a stoplight at Huntsville Road. We should not rip up recent improvements to improve Huntsville road. I like the phasing approach. I think that if we don't require the trail, we should still require the dedication of land so that the City does not have to acquire the ROW. Is it possible to move the street by the park to the west a few feet? And add more alleys for rear loaded homes? Quinlan: Are the proposed alleys required to be dedicated or could they be put into access easements? Garner: Either. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Do we have a plan for AHTD improvements? Thompson: Yes. Williams: Why should we approve a plat that may have 11 unbuitdabte lots? Does the street parallel to 15th street meet separation requirements? Garner: Meets street design standards. Williams: is it safe in your opinion? Garner: it meets development code. Planning Commission December12,2016 Agenga Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 8 of 11 Williams: As to trail dedication, the Planning Commission cannot require dedication for trail. It is unconstitutional. Trails have been dedicated as a part of park land dedication. If the trail dedication is required, then we should give them credit towards the parks fees. As to the traffic signal: It is unlikely that it will be built and money will have to be returned. Quinlan: Project should be tabled. Fulcher: If the project is tabled, then we are likely to see the same recommendations from staff and same proposal from Rausch Coleman. I don't think that we have enough direction to be tabled. Garner: I'm not sure what tabling would accomplish. I think this is ready for a vote. Brown: If I get some feedback from the applicant that they will look at the additional alleys. Quinlan: There is a very wide discrepancy in what staff is recommending and what the subdivision committee recommended. Nearly $650,000 Difference. Garner: Discussed traffic safety, re-stating that Huntsville road improvements should be the very last to be removed to ensure that Huntsville Road remains safe. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Said that he had reviewed the traffic study, and noted that City Eng staff disagreed with the applicant's analysis. He said that the traffic consultant misread the report that they generated. He said that the warrants are in fact met on Huntsville road and the Huntsville/Morningside intersection. During peak hours, Huntsville has a vehicle every 4 seconds. Because of high volume, if the tables are read correctly, the turning lane is warranted. Intersection is the first priority for safety, and second the turn lane on Huntsville Road. Tom Hennelly, Applicant's Engineer: Discussed the traffic study, there is no way to read the table as indicated by the City. According to the traffic study and distribution model according to our consultant, the warrants are not met. Perhaps we could decide that we will make the improvements that are warranted. Hoskins: We were discussing rational nexus. We had decided that improvements were necessary to Morningside. Were you suggesting that improvements to Huntsville would be in lieu of improvements to Morningside? Williams: What I was saying was that there is a rough proportionality to improvements, and given that our planning director has said that the Huntsville improvements are the most important for safety, the PC will have to decide which improvement is more important. Mr. Peters has presented to us many times, and I have sometimes disagreed with his analysis. Planning Commission will have to determine what is most important for a traffic safety point of view, and will have to apply the appropriate amount of money to that improvement. Hoskins: I am leaning toward including the traffic signal assessment. Cook: I am going to retract my statement about tabling, and vote to table. Belden: We had discussed a three way stop at the intersection, and it works at Mission and Maple. The transportation division determines where stop signs go. Planning Commission Decemberq 2,2016 Agenda Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 9 of 11 Brown: The improvements to Morningside are critical to the developer and the image of the neighborhood they want to project. They won't just want a ditch in front of those homes, so they are going to do this improvement. Fulcher: On Huntsville, the improvements recommended on Huntsville are only for those turning into and out of our development. There are more turns at the intersection. This is where the traffic is. This should be a balance of safety and cost. The north side of Huntsville has open ditch. Expansion there will be expensive. We should provide turn lanes where they are needed. Motion #1: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to table PPL 16-5642 for two weeks. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-6-0. Motion #2: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve PPL 16-5642 with the following conditions: Street improvements -Improve Morningside Drive as ronE)rnrneR ed by staff -No improvements to Huntsville Road except for a turn lane at the intersection of Morningside Drive. -Payment of assessment for proportional contribution to a traffic signal at Huntsville/Morningside with payment by project phase as recommended by staff. -No multi-use trail improvements are required to be constructed by the applicant. Dedication of land to the city for the planned multi-use trail internal to the site to be provided to the city in a fee simple transaction prior to final plat. Other Conditions of Approval: #1. Approve the block length variance between Fairlane and McClinton Streets and require an additional street stub-out to the east between Street 'H' and Street 'B'. #2. Approve variances for all double frontage lots as requested by the applicant. #3. Recommend a combination of land dedication and money in lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements. This includes the acceptance of land dedicated for the multi-use trail corridor internal through the site to be deeded fee simple to the City as parkland. #. Including all other conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. The following items have been approved administratively by staff: LSP 16-5585: Lot Split (S. OF 3870 BLACK OAK RD./GOFORTH, 762): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located S. OF 3870 BLACK OAK RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 31.26 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 3 lots containing approximately 3.18, 4.50, and 23.58 acres. 1. Reports: None Planning Commission Decembeird 2,2016 Agenda Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 10 of 11 2. Announcements: None 3. Adjournment Time: 8:40 PM 4. Submitted by: City Planning Division Planning Commission Decembeir 12,2016 Age5a Item 1 11-28-2016 Minutes Page 11 of 11 CITY OF Tay% • L Y l a PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director THRU: Harry Davis, Planner MEETING DATE: December 12, 2016 SUBJECT: ADM 16-5665: Administrative Item (731 S. RAZORBACK RD.IMOO- LICIOUS ESSPRESSO 1 YR. MOBILE VENDOR, 560): Submitted by CODY BAILEY for property located at 731 S. RAZORBACK RD. The property is zoned UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE, and contains approximately 0.94 acres.The request is for a 1 year Mobile Vendor permit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ADM 16-5665 with conditions. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 731 S. Razorback Road and contains approximately 0.94 acres within the UT zoning district. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Commercial C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial South Undeveloped Brown fieldllnstitutional UT, Urban Thoroughfare West Undeveloped/Multi-family Residential UT, Urban Thoroughfare East I Undeveloped R-O, Residential-Office The applicant, Moo-licious obtained an outdoor mobile vending permit to operate as a mobile vendor on private property on August 10, 2015. The permit was valid for a year and expired on July 21, 2016, DISCUSSION: Request:The applicant requests a Mobile Vendor Annual Permit to operate their espresso trailer on the subject property for a year. The applicant has submitted a site plan and menu for review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ADM 16-5665, finding that the business meets the minimum requirements and intent of Chapter 178.04, which states: The purpose is to facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors and mobile vendor courts to operate on private property while ensuring such use is compatible with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically appealing streetscape and does not create a dangerous traffic condition. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevi -nan'�n� Fayetteville,AR 72701 Dec g cm2,2016 December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 1 of 10 Conditions of Approval: 1. The permit shall be valid for 365 days from the date of approval of the Mobile Vendor One Year Permit, to allow this business to remain in its current location until July 21, 2016. 2. In accordance with Federal ADA law and City Code (UDC Section 178.04.D.8), the trailer for this vendor does not meet ADA compliance, therefore the general public are not permitted to access/dine in the interior of the trailer. Planning Commission Action: O Approved 0 Forwarded ❑ Denied Meeting Date: December 12, 2016 Motion: Second: Vote: FINDINGS OF THE STAFF 178.04 Outdoor Mobile Vendors Located On Private Property (A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors and mobile vendor courts to operate on private property while ensuring such use is compatible with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically appealing streetscape and does not create a dangerous traffic condition. (C) Mobile Vendor Annual Permit. Mobile vendors are allowed to locate for one year in the same location with approval of the Planning Commission as an administrative item. After the one year period has expired the mobile vendor may move to another location or may request a one year renewal from the Planning Commission. (1) An annual mobile vendor permit may be issued by the Planning Commission after making the following determinations: (a) All of the requirements of 178.04(D) have been met. (See attached UDC section) Finding: The applicant has complied with all requirements of 178.04(D). (b) The applicant has established that the operation of the mobile vendor will foster an aesthetically appealing streetscape and will not create a dangerous traffic condition. Finding: The proposed vendor will not result in negative aesthetic impacts to the streetscape in staff' opinion. Access into this site from the existing driveway on Razorback Road will continue as it has for several years. G:1ETCUevel opment Services Review120161Development Reviewl16-5665 ADM 731 5.Razorback Rd.(Moo-licious Espresso) Planning Commission 560103 Planning Commissionll2-12-20161Comments and Redlines December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 2 of 10 (c) The mobile vendor business shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent to and on the same side of the street as the proposed mobile vendor, unless the mobile vendor predates the aforementioned permanent businesses. Finding: The business does not match or duplicate offerings of adjacent permanent businesses. The immediately adjacent properties on the same side of the street include EZ-Mart to the north and the Arkansas Department of Motor Vehicles to the south. BUDGETISTAFF IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: ■ Chapter 178.04 • Site Plan • Menu • Maps WETODevelop ment Services Review120161DeveIopment Rev iew116-5665 ADM 731 S.Razorback Rd.(Mao-licious Espresso) 564193 Planning Com mission112-12-20161Commen ts and Redlines Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 3 of 10 UDC Chapter 178.04: Outdoor Mobile Vendors Located On Private Property (A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors and mobile vendor courts to operate on private property while ensuring such use is compatible with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically appealing streetscape and does not create a dangerous traffic condition. (8) Mobile Vendor Six Month Permit. Mobile vendors are allowed to operate on a temporary basis for a maximum of six months in one location during a calendar year with administrative approval of the Planning Division. Mobile vendors utilizing a six month permit may request to relocate to a different site at least one quarter mile (1,320 feet)from the original location after this-six month period has expired. However, a new mobile vendor application shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for every new location.This permit will expire six months from the date issued and the mobile vending unit shall be removed from the property. The mobile vendor owner also has the option of requesting an annual permit from the Planning Commission at or before the end of their initial six month permit time period. (1) A six month permit for a mobile vendor business shall be approved and issued administratively by the Planning Division after making the following determinations: (a) All of the requirements of 178.04(D) have been met. (b) The applicant has established that the operation of the mobile vendor will foster an aesthetically appealing streetscape and will not create or worsen a dangerous traffic condition. (c) The mobile vendor business shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent to and on the same side of the street as the proposed mobile vendor,unless the mobile vendor predates the aforementioned permanent businesses. (C)Mobile Vendor Annual Permit. Mobile vendors are allowed to locate for one year in the same location with approval of the Planning Commission as an administrative item. After the one year period has expired the mobile vendor may move to another location or may request a one year renewal from the Planning Commission. (1) An annual mobile vendor permit may be issued by the Planning Commission after making the following determinations: (a) All of the requirements of 178.04(D) have been met. (b) The applicant has established that the operation of the mobile vendor will foster an aesthetically appealing streetscape and will not create a dangerous traffic condition. (c) The mobile vendor business shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage i offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent to and on the same side of the street as the proposed mobile vendor,unless the mobile vendor predates the aforementioned permanent businesses. G:IETCOeveiopment Services Reviewl20161Development Review116-5665 ADM 731 5.Razorback Rd.(Moo-licious Espresso) 560103 Planning Commission\12-12-20WComments and Redlines Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 4 of 10 (D)Mobile Vendor Permit Requirements. All mobile vendors located on private property with Six Month or Annual Mobile Vendor Permits shall meet the following requirements and submittals prior to approval: (1) Each application for a permit to conduct a mobile vendor business on private property shall be accompanied by a$100 permit review and processing fee. Mobile vendor permits shall be issued to the owner of the mobile vendor vehicle. (2) Application for a permit to conduct a mobile vendor business shall include the following items in a format acceptable to the Planning Division: (a) Name, address, contact information and signature of both the property owner and the mobile vendor requesting to locate on private property. (b) A valid copy of all necessary permits required by State and County health authorities which shall be conspicuously displayed at all times during the operation of the business. (c) Proof of application for remittance of HMR tax to the City of Fayetteville, when applicable. (d) A detailed site plan roughly drawn to scale showing the location of the property lines, each mobile vendor location, building setback lines, vehicle parking spaces, the sidewalk location and any proposed dining or sitting areas. (e) Written authorization, signed by the property owner or legal representative of record, stating that the mobile vendor is permitted to operate on the subject property for a specified period of time. (3) The mobile vendor has the responsibility to dispose of all wastes in accordance with all applicable laws. Mobile vendors are not permitted to dispose of their trash in public trash receptacles. (4) The mobile vendor permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner. (5) The mobile vendor permit issued shall be conspicuously displayed at all times during the operation of the mobile vending business. (6) The proposed use must be a permitted use-by-right within the underlying zoning district. (7) Mobile vendors shall maintain compliance with parking lot requirements for the existing business and the proposed mobile vendor business. The number of required parking spaces is determined by the use and size of the proposed mobile vendor business and by the use and size of the existing business. The use of parking for a mobile vendor may not reduce the number of spaces below the minimum required for other uses occurring on the property. The location of the mobile vendor shall not impede traffic flow or create a dangerous traffic condition, as determined by Planning Division upon review of the site plan. (8) Mobile vendors shall comply with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements if the public has access to the interior of any mobile vending unit. G-\ETCOevelopment Services Review1201MDevelopment Review116-5665 ADM 731 5.Razorback Rd.(Map-licious Espresso) Planning Commission 560\03 Planning Commission\12-12-201MComments and Redlines December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 5 of 10 'y i �• `�i 1 r� . '� 50' r ` ` Oki � i w rill _ 1, q i�f Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 6 of 10 731 s razorback road fayetteville ��lre off �V L12,1Z min •l(�t. � YET � ',�.� �� r -l a� r T` �•� �i� _- �iF �'�!'� ■y - Fa;r?� i r yy 4 k . •�:w r ' NIP �� 3. :fir:•"� _2• �tY � :f. 77.i 1 � ..,t i��...'�•.�_,moi''• y ..-. ![��.'+':r � f 1 3 Imagery 92015 Arkeneas GIS,DiukalGlobe.Washington County,Map d8180201 5 GOagle 50 ft Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 7 of 10 Moo-Licious Espresso Is a 9X16 mobile vendor that is a drive thru coffee shop. Espresoo,coffee and can soda is sold at this vendor. We also offer pre packed food items as well. Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 8 of 10 ADM 16-5665 MOO-LICIOUS ESPRESSO Close Up View P-1 Subject Property 9 i IPJOIAAI TRL R-O �+ RMF-2d a rn Q S sq s fi NORTH Legend RMF-24 a r Planning Area l-t Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial Resioential-Office r ' Fayetteville City Limits C-2 Feet ll[Gan Thoroughfare Shared Use Paved Trail w•Community Sefnces Q 7rj 50 3t7� 4 � �d� 0'Commercial,Industrial,Residential Trail{Proposed} P-1 Building Footprint 1 inch = 200 feet Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 9 of 10 ADM 16-5665 IVIOO_LICIOUS ESPRESSO One Mile View NORTH CPZb 0 0.125 0-25 0.5 Miles RSF-4 i P-1 RMF-l8 ..1j v w 7 Subject Property II S C-t w2 %RIEL C R Y zd a v RPZD LU � O UJ rn � ?yA,C �P� zFNfTH Lp A� YXi 1 I ILS-- $nunn o PRIVA 1369 l-2 CROWNE DR _« c EKTn crnN Legend - REMDENTALSINGLS-faFAL. CoxxeracML ----- FSF` L " ��Planning Area Fi. FORM RnsE601siglcTs L_ _ Fayetteville City Limits -� d. ••• Shared Use Paved Trail ❑ REGMEAMLMIA MANLY Trail(Proposed) Design Overlay District ----- - ---- �R� P"NNW ZDMNads„RICTO Planning Area - wousTwxnsrnuraxaL R Building Footprint ille City Limits . �.ro•�". Fayetteville .v- . Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 2 16-5665 Moolicious Espresso Page 10 of 10 CITY OF Ta • L L Y l a PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew, Garner, City Planning Director FROM: Quin Thompson, Current Planner Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer MEETING: December 12, 2016 SUBJECT: CCP 16-5656: Concurrent Plat (SW OF PROVIDENCE DR. & MTN. RANCH BLVD.IPARKHILL AT MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. II — LOTS 1-3 & 98, 479): Submitted by JORGENSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located SW OF PROVIDENCE DR. & MTN. RANCH BLVD. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 3.00 acres. The request is for 7 single family lots. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CCP 16-5556 with conditions of approval. Property and background: The subject property contains 4 lots on 3 acres within the Mountain Ranch Phase If development. The Property was recently rezoned (Ord. 5922, November 1, 2016) from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family to NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted on Table 1. Table 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Single-family Residential R-PZD, Mountain Ranch Phase 1 South Undeveloped RSF-4, Single Family Residential East Multi-family Residential RMF-24, Multi-family Residential West Residential/ Undeveloped RSF-4, Single Family Residential Proposal: The proposal is to re-plat four existing into seven smaller lots. INFRASTRUCTURE: Wafer and Sewer System: The property has access to existing public water service and sewer service via 8-inch mains on Mountain Ranch Boulevard and Providence Drive. Adjacent streets and right-of-way: This site is adjacent to Mountain Ranch Boulevard, a Master Street Plan {MSP} designated 'Collector' street and to Providence Drive, an MSP designated 'Local' street. Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevI0beewkwd2,2016 Fayetteville,AR 72701 Agenda Item 3 16-5656 Parkhill at Mtn Ranch Page 1 of 13 Street Improvements: The Planning and Engineering divisions do not recommend street improvements. All adjacent streets are safe, fully improved streets and have capacity for the very slight increase in traffic volume that will be created by this proposal. Tree Preservation: There are no trees on the subject property, a tree preservation plan waiver has been submitted. Parks: Previous re-plats of the subdivision have resulted in a net loss of lots. No additional parks fees are due. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CCP 16-5556 with conditions. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff does not recommend street improvements given the site's location adjacent to fully improved streets. Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of Street Improvements. 2. Individual curb cuts to Mountain Ranch Boulevard, a Collector Street, shall not be permitted according to UDC 166.08. The proposed shared driveways shall be within platted access easements as indicated on the final plat- a. Lots that are 50 feet wide or less are subject to the small lot design standards (UDC164.23). 4. All tree preservation, landscape, engineering and fire department conditions included herein shall apply. All revisions shall be addressed prior to Planning Commission hearing. Standard conditions of approval: -- 5. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 6. If applicable, a business license shall be obtained prior to opening the business to the public. 7. 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, and Cox Communications). 8. Staff approval of final detailed pians, 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 piat 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. 9. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut-sheets are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission G:IETC1Development Services Review120161Development Review116-5656 CCP SW of Providence Dr. &Mtn. December 12,2016 Ranch Blvd- (Parkhill Ph II-Lots 1-3,98)479103 Planning Commissionll2-12-20161Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 3 16-5656 Parkhill at Mtn Ranch Page 2 of 13 10. 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. Freestanding pole signs and electronic message boards (direct lighting) are prohibited in the Design Overlay District. 11. Development approval shall be valid for one calendar year. 12. 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. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area and all utility and access easements. c. Exterior lighting package must be provided to the Planning Division. d. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. e. Project Disk with all final revisions f. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements"to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approved O Forwarded ❑ Denied Meeting Date: December 12, 2016 Motion: Second: Vote: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Engineering Division comments ■ Urban Forestry Division comments • Parks comments ■ Applicant's request letter • Site Plans • Close Up Map • One Mile Map Planning Commission G:1RTC1Development Services Re view120161Development Reviewl16-5656 CCP SW of Providence Dr.&Mtn. December 12,2016 #ranch Blvd. (Parkhill Ph II-Lots 1-3.98)479103 Planning Comm ission112-12-20161Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 3 16-5656 Parkhill at Mtn Ranch Page 3 of 13 CITY OF 'Fay le ARKANSAS Date: November 28,2016 Subdivision Committee Staff Memo To: Quin Thompson, Planner From: Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer Re: Plat Review Comments Development: CCP 16-5656 Parkhill Phase II Engineer: Jorgensen &Associates Plan Comments: 1. Clearly show a single service connection for water and sewer for each proposed lot on the plat. Please see engineering comments from the Technical Plat Review meeting for reference. 2. Drainage exhibit and calculations are acceptable and have demonstrated compliance with the original drainage assumptions for the overall subdivision. Standard Comments: 1. Water and sewer impact fees will apply for the additional impact to the system. The fees will be based on the proposed meter size and will be charged at the time of meter set. Mailing Address: ENGINEERING 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 3 16-5656 Parkhill at Mtn Ranch Page 4 of 13 CITY OF Fay%! —Ile ARKANSAS LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS-Chapter 177 To: Straker Development,Jorgensen+Associates From: Lee Porter, Urban Forestry CC: Quin Thompson, Planner Date: November 23,2016 Subject: CCP 16-5656: Park Hill Phase Ii : Subdivision Committee Review Comments Applicable Requirements: Y Site Development& Parking Lot Standards Y Street Tree Planting Standards NA Stormwater Facilities Plan Checklist: Yes=submitted by applicant No=required by City Code but not included on submitted plan NA -not applicabie Tech Plat SC PC All Landscape Plans Yes Yes Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib 100'o.c. 177.03A.7. & 177.04.B.3.a Yes No Species of plant material identified ij177.03.A.7.d &e Yes Yes Size of plant material at time of installation indicated minimum size 2"caliper for trees and 3 gal. shrubs 4177.03.A.7.b&c Yes Yes Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed 177.03.C.6.b Yes Yes Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds (177.03.C.6.c&d) NA NA LSD and Subdivisions plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect,others by Landscape Designer(177,03.13) NA NA Planting bed contained by edging(177-03 C.6-f) Yes Yes Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual(177.03.C.6.g) Mailing Address: URBAN FORESTRY 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar av Fayetteville, AR 72701 Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 3 16-5656 Parkhill at Mtn Ranch Page 5 of 13 Tech Plat SC PC I Site Development&Parking Lot Standards Yes Yes j Wheel stops/curbs(177.04.8.1) Interior landscaping(177.04,C) Yes Yes Narrow tree lawn(8'min width, 37.5'min lengthl 7 tree per 12 spaces)PR Tree island(8'min. width, 78.7'min. lengthl7 tree per 12 spaces) All rking lot trees must be deciduous (177.04.C.3 Yes Yes Placement of Trees(177,04.0.2) Either side at points of access (entrancelexit) Perimeter landscaping(177,04,D) Side and rear property lines(5'wide landscaped) Front property line(75'wide landscape)(177.04.D.2.a) Yes Yes Shade trees planted on south and west sides of parking lots(177.04.D.2.e) Parking lot adjacent to R.O.W.-continuous row planting of shrubs-50%evergreen. Remaining landscaping to be ground cover and l or turf.)(177.04.D.4a) NOTE: Shade trees are described in street tree plaay2q standards Tech Plat SC PC Street Tree Planting Standards (time of F.P. orpermit)(177,05 Yes Yes Residential Subdivisions- 1 large species shade treel lot tree planted within R.O.W. if possible NA NA Nonresidential Subdivision-1 large species shade tree130 L.F. tree planted within 15-25' reens ace NA NA Urban Tree Wells-urban streetscape only-8'sidewalk,trees every 30 L.F. 177.05.13.3.a- NA NA Structural Soil-if urban wells are used a note or detail of structural soil must be indicated on the landscape plan and inspected at time of construction. NA NA Timing of planting indicated on plans(subdivisions only) 177.05.A.4 NA NA Written description of the method for tracking plantings(177.05.A.4.e) Plan contains 3-year Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement.The owner shall Yes Yes deposit with the City of Fayetteville a surety for approved landscape estimate. 177.05.A.2.e Tech Plat SC PC Stormwater Facilities (time of F.P. or ermit) 177.06.A—C NA NA 7 deciduous or evergreen tree/3000 square feet NA NA 4 large shrubs or small trees(3 gal)13000 square feet NA NA 6 shrubs or grasses (1 gal)f 3000 square feet NA NA Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified NA NA 50%of facility planted with grass or grass like plants Landscape Requirements Table 4 Miti ation Trees 3-year surety required 7 Street Trees 3- ear surety required 0 Parking Trees 0 Detention Large Trees 0 Detention Small Trees 1 Large Shrubs 0 Detention Small Shrubs 2 Planning Commission December 12,2016 Agenda Item 3 16-5656 Parkhill at Mtn Ranch Page 6 of 13