Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout234-16 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 234-16 File Number: 2016-0445 APPEAL OF LSD 16-5488 THE MACEY DRIVE TOWNHOMES: A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF TIM BRISIEL OF LEGACY VENTURES AND TO APPROVE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 16-5488 MACEY DRIVE TOWNHOMES. WHEREAS, Tim Brisiel of Legacy Ventures presented his proposed Large Scale Development 16-6488, Macey Drive Townhomes to the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, this Large Scale Development proposed was reviewed by the Planning Department after consultations with the Engineering Division, Fire Department, Recycling and Trash Division, and others; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department determined that Large Scale Development 16-5488 Macey Drive Townhomes complied with all applicable development regulations in the Unified Development Code and would not create or compound a dangerous traffic condition and therefor recommended its approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, a majority of the Planning Commission denied the Large Scale Development arguing the design of the Pine Valley Subdivision's street network would create a dangerous traffic condition if more traffic from this development was allowed to access those streets which were the only feasible access to Mount Comfort Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of Tim Brisiel of Legacy Ventures and approves Large Scale Development 16-5488, Macey Drive Townhomes as compliant with all of the Unified Development Code's requirements. Page 1 Printed on 12121/16 Resolution: 234-16 File Number.' 2016-0445 This approval is subject to the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Department. PASSED and APPROVED on 12/20/2016 Zc.i• a;r5 Attest: = r f,017 e'W Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer Page 2 Printed on 12121116 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2016-0445 Agenda Date: 12/20/2016 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: B. 1 APPEAL OF LSD 16-5488 THE MACEY DRIVE TOWNHOMES: A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF TIM BRISIEL OF LEGACY VENTURES AND TO APPROVE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 16-5488 MACEY DRIVE TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, Tim Brisiel of Legacy Ventures presented his proposed Large Scale Development 16-6488, Macey Drive Townhomes to the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, this Large Scale Development proposed was reviewed by the Planning Department after consultations with the Engineering Division, Fire Department, Recycling and Trash Division, and others; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department determined that Large Scale Development 16-5488 Macey Drive Townhomes complied with all applicable development regulations in the Unified Development Code and would not create or compound a dangerous traffic condition and therefor recommended its approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, a majority of the Planning Commission denied the Large Scale Development arguing the design of the Pine Valley Subdivision's street network would create a dangerous traffic condition if more traffic from this development was allowed to access those streets which were the only feasible access to Mount Comfort Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of Tim Brisiel of Legacy Ventures and approves Large Scale Development 16-5488, Macey Drive Townhomes as compliant with all of the Unified Development Code's requirements. This approval is subject to the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Department. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 12121/2016 LEGACY VENTURES P.O. BOX 8216 FAYETEVILLE, AR 72703 September 19, 2016 City Clerk's Office 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Appeal of LSD 16-5488 The Macey Drive Townhomes To Whom It May Concern, Please accept this letter as a formal request to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to deny LSD 16-5488 The Macey Drive Townhomes. I respectfully request this project be placed on the City Council's agenda for the next available date. Our justification for the appeals is as follows: 1. We have complied with every ordinance, statute, and law necessary to develop property in the City of Fayetteville. Our intended use is aligned with the City's long term plan for the property evidenced by the existing RMF -24 zoning condition. 2. All City of Fayetteville departments involved in this project have recommended it for approval (engineering, planning, fire, solid waste, etc.) and see no issues. 3. The Planning Commission denied the project based on subjective analysis and the assumption that a possible traffic safety issue existed within the Pine Valley Subdivision. There is no conclusive evidence that any traffic safety issues exist. 4. The newly completed intersection at Shiloh Drive and Mount Comfort will safely and easily control traffic entering and leaving this area. The intersection was designed and built with additional capacity to handle increased traffic counts related to new rooftops being built in this part of town. Based on the above information, we feel strongly that our property rights are being unjustly hindered by denial of this proposed development. Again, we have received approval from all departments within the City of Fayetteville and have met or exceeded any and all ordinances governing development of this property. I hope you will agree with our position and allow The Macey Drive Townhomes to be heard in front of the City Council. We believe this development is a positive addition to the City of Fayetteville and hope that the City Council will agree. Together we will leave our Legacy one Venture at a time. Sincerely, Tim Brisiel (ftm, VENTUMS CITY OF Tay V CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ARKAN�Ile AS MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO: Mayor, Fayetteville City Council THRU: Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Harry Davis, Planner DATE: September 16, 2016 SUBJECT: LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD./MACEY DR. TOWNHOMES, 363): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING for properties located in the 2900 BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY — TWENTY-FOUR (24) UNITS PER ACRE and RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY — FOUR (4) UNITS PER ACRE, containing approximately 6.51 acres. The request is for 11 new structures with 57 multi -family units and associated parking. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning staff recommend approval with conditions of a proposed multi -family development in the 2900 block of Mount Comfort Road as requested by the applicant and as shown in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. Planning Commission has denied the proposal based on traffic safety. The applicant has appealed this decision to City Council. BACKGROUND: The subject property is an undeveloped portion of land south of a tributary to Hamestring Creek and north of Pine Valley Subdivision. The property on which the proposed Large Scale Development is located is a 6.51 acre flag lot off Mount Comfort Rd. The development will be accessed from Macey Dr. through Pine Valley Subdivision. Request: The proposal is to develop eleven new residential structures with 57 multi -family units and associated parking. As part of the project, the applicant will be extending Macey Dr. approximately 150 feet into the site to provide street frontage for the development. Public Comments: At the August 11, 2016 Subdivision Committee, members of the public spoke that are concerned about the density in this project and the likely increase in traffic on Mount Comfort Rd. Subdivision Committee forwarded this project to Planning Commission in order to let the full commission discuss traffic impacts as a result of this development. At the September 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, a member of the public spoke in favor of the development upon understanding that the project would not front directly onto Mount Comfort Rd. The citizen then stated that more traffic in Pine Valley would slow down car speeds. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 DISCUSSION: This project was tabled at the August 22, 2016 Planning Commission to allow the applicant to modify architectural elevations and for staff to use traffic accident data and analysis to determine if this project will compound or create a traffic hazard. Upon reviewing data for the intersection of Mount Comfort and Shiloh in comparison to other similar intersections across Fayetteville, Planning and Engineering staff find that this new development will not compound or create a dangerous traffic hazard (see attached data spreadsheets). Accident data in Fayetteville is based on proximity to intersections. For example, although there were 5 accidents near the corner of Mount Comfort and Shiloh in 2014, those accidents may have happened along Mt. Comfort going east or west. They may also have taken place north of said intersection. It is not conclusive that accidents originate from traffic generated in the direction of Pine Valley. Staff also reviewed accident data within the Pine Valley Subdivision in order to assess conditions within the neighborhood (see attached data spreadsheets) and have made the same conclusions. This proposed project will not compound or create a dangerous traffic hazard. Planning staff have collectively toured this neighborhood and developed an opinion that the winding and topographically -varying nature of Wildwood Dr., W. Glen Meadow, and W. Marigold Dr. would contribute to traffic calming. This would be to the benefit of both current residents and future drivers seeking to go from the proposed development to Shiloh Dr. Planning and Engineering staff would like to further address concerns related to making the developer cross the creek to the north and connect with Mount Comfort Rd. by stating that the connection would not be reasonable. The cost to cross the creek and connect would be economically infeasible for a project of this size. Bridging the creek and building nearly a fifth of a mile of roadway, even at the bare minimum of streets without storm drains and curbs, would not be a reasonable requirement for 57 new dwelling units. Many potential users of that connection would still need to use the Mount Comfort and Shiloh intersection, thereby not substantially diverting traffic away from the perceived issue in question. On September 12, 2016, the Planning Commission heard the proposed project for a second time with the new traffic analysis information. Commissioners generally had the same concerns and attempted to table the project to allow the applicant more time for additional information. The motion to table failed with 3-5-0. A motion was made to approve the project, which also failed with 3-5-0. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Planning Commission approval of compliance with the Urban Residential Design Standards. Subdivision Committee gave no recommendation on this issue. Staff finds that, with the revisions provided by the project architect, the 11 proposed multi -family buildings provide enough variation between building types. UDC Section 166.23(D)(2) requires that no building type may be repeated more than three times in a development. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal gives adequate variation between building types. 2. Planning Commission approval of parkland dedication or payment of fees in lieu. Subdivision Committee made no recommendation on this issue. On June 29, 2016 the Parks and Advisory Board reviewed this project and recommended accepting money in lieu of land dedication to satisfy the park land dedication ordinance, Parks fees in the amount of $31,920 for 57 new residential units are due prior to singing the final plat. Final fees will be assessed dependent on the total number of units actually constructed. 3. Planning Commission approval of street improvements. Subdivision Committee gave no recommendation on this issue. Staff recommends that this project extend Macy Drive into the site approximately 150 feet into the site as proposed on the submitted site plans. 4. Right-of-way dedication is required in the amount of 50 feet in width for the extension of Macy Drive into the site. Right-of-way dedication is not required along Mount Comfort Road as adequate street frontage exists along this road. 5. Conditions of approval from Engineering and Urban Forestry are included in the official conditions of approval, attached hereto. 6. Revisions shall be made prior to construction as outlined in the attached redline and department commentary documents. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 7. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 8. 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). 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year 13. 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. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Exterior lighting package must be provided to the Planning Division. c. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. d. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include tree preservation areas. 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. g. Completion of an easement plat. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: ■ Exhibit A ■ Exhibit B ■ Application ■ Planning Commission Staff Report • Draft September 12, 2016 Planning Commission minutes LSD 16-5488 MACEY DR TOWNHOMES C'O8e Up View EXHIBIT 'A' NORTH zMEADOWLARK DR WEsrBURv sr X � Y x w MOUNT COMM -ORT Rip Subject Property k a w a SAUTER LN It. '-d R�tF'23 ELUEANN WAY WILDWOOD DR MARIGOLD DR n' 1� C� Legend IL - -� Planning Area - - Fayetteville City Limits RSF-a Shared Use Paved Trail Feet ® R RMF ResidenUai Two and Three-larni9y -24 Trail (Proposed) P-1 0 112.5 225 450 675 000 Design Overlay District 1 inch = 300 feet Building Footprint EXHIBIT 'B' REVISED TRACT "B" SURVEY DESCRIPTION A PART THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE1/4 OF SECTION 06, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT POINT LOCATED ON THE MOUNT COMFORT RD SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING S02'1 1'26"W 38.52 FEET AND S87'1 5'56"E 70 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SE1/4 OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF- WAY S87'1 5'56"E 252.92 FEET TO A 1/2" REBAR; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT -OF- WAY AND RUNNING S03°19'25"W 255.16 FEET TO A 1/2" REBAR; THENCE S85°23'52"E 209.48 FEET TO A 1/2" REBAR; THENCE NO3°19'25"E 261.99 FEET TO A 1/2" REBAR LOCATED ON THE MOUNT COMFORT RD SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE S87'1 5'56"E 137.46 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF- WAY TO A 1/2" REBAR LOCATED ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT; THENCE S02°53'02"W 950.19 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO A 1/2" REBAR; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE AND RUNNING N87°21'57"W 593.87 FEET TO A 1/2" REBAR; THENCE NO2°31'33"E 951.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 11.78 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE UTILITY EASEMENT FILED IN BOOK 888 AT PAGE 897, THAT RUNS EAST TO WEST THROUGH THE CENTER OF SAID PROPERTY, A CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FILED IN BOOK 2005 AT PAGE 26510 THAT RUNS PARTIALLY ALONG THE EAST LINE, A FIFTEEN FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT SOUTH OF AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE MOUNT COMFORT RD SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE THAT RUNS ALONG THE NORTH LINE (BOOK 2009,PAGE 10904), AND ANY OTHER RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD OR FACT. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR ST,1 FF USE ONL Y Dale Application •5'ubrrjitte6I Dute Accepled as Complete: Project Akumber: perhlic• Hearin Date. LSD FEE: Sign FEE: Tech Plat Resubmittal FEE. Tree Preservation FEE'. 82110.00 - $800.00 $5. 00 per sign 8200/resubmittal $120.00 S-7' R: pp' : 7,one: Please fill out this form completely, supplying all necessary information and documentation to support your request. Your application will not he placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished. APPLICATION: Indicate one contact person for this request: Applicant Representative Applicant (person making request): �Representative (engineer, surveyor, realtor, etc): `:WOO k nri,-(rciv ifir?,I .s,c)m �. E-mail:_ jp t,i t @ c i i t r I T. 5t -OM Address:} �... j~ „Dill!: 4d ci £alt:! ui Address: t3ertircar`-- Y t s:. lAK ..' 7 •.. fhurte:� , : - - _ y -. _ � Phone t'ax: Fax: Y(c Address i Location: Curren! Zoning District: Date of Preliminary Plat -"scssor's Parcel Number(s) for property: 1'I)Yal Acreage:________.__,_ m -Number of Lots 0. umber orDwell ing Units: FINANCIAL INTERESTS The following entities and / or people have financial interest in this project: APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVE: i certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements and answers herein made all data, information, and evidence herewith submitted are in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct- 1 understand that submittal of incorrect of false information is grounds for invalidation of application completeness, determination, or approvals. l understand that the City might not approve what 1 am applying for, or might set conditions of approval. Name (printed).--- / S Date. cT (i e fii - PROPERTY 0WNER(.S) /AUTHORIZEDA ENI'. I/we certify under penalty of perjury that 1 anVwc are the owner(s) or the prc. pc r- that is the subject ofthis application and that Uwe have read this application and consent to its filing. (If signed by the authorized ap,ni tetter from each property owner must be provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on her/his behalf.) Andress: t4 t, ..ror\t Cf)r.I,,\ vl e. C. ' r Date: Phonclr 4 -1 1 Narrlc (pnnted):— .__--' Address:--- Phone: ddress:__„Phone: LSD Checklist; Attach the rallsrs2+ry items to this application: (1) Payment in full of opplirable fees for processing the application; LSD LSD Non -Residential Non-residential (5000 square feel or less) $400.00 Non-residential (More than. 5000 square feet) $800.00 I Residential Residential (10 residential units or less) $200.00 Residential (25 residential units or less) $400.00 Residential (More than 25 residential units) $800.00 Technical Plat Resubmittal (tabled items only) $200.00 per Tree Preservation $120.00 Public Notification Sign Fee (per slan) _— _ $5.00 (2) Correspondence in the form of a written letter to Planning Staff describing the scope, nature and intent of the proposal. Variancies from requirements of the Unified Development Code will be reviewed and processed in accordance with the procedures set forth therein. Please indicate in the letter to staff If any variances are sought and if so, justification for the request. Most variances require a Planning Commission decision. (3) A copy of the county parcel map from the Washington County Assessor's office or from the Washington County website (wh,rro.co.washington.ar.us). The subject property and all adjacent parcels should be identified on this parcel map. The owner's name, official mailing address, and the parcel number for every adjacent property shall be shown on this map. (4) A copy of the written decision from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding park land dedication requirements (residential projects only). May 2016 APPI-ICANTIREPRESEN7Arlm 1 certify under penalty of perjurythat the roregoing statements and answers herein made all data, information, and evidence herewith submitted are in all respects, to She best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I understand that submittal of iincorrcct of false information is grounds for invalidation of application completeness, determination, or approvals, 1 understand that the City might not approve what I am applying for, or might set conditions of approval. Name (printed): Si att : PROPERTYOWNER(S) /AUTHORIZED AGENT. Uwe certify under penalty of perjury that I am/we are the owner(s) of the property that is the subject of this application and that I/we have read this application and consent to its filing. (If signed by the authorized agent, a letter from each property owner must be provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on her/his behalf.) :r. I . /1 Name {prinycd) G �l /-), t+�C 6 Address:_ 41 r-Or\t FDr Vf e. w� (.p - 1 e4 - r Le Name (minted): --i�og—:P c —4 � -, -4 F r ✓ LSD Checklist: Attach the following items to Ihis (1) (2) (3) (4) May 2016 Phone Address: Fq��v'r l�tv Phone: Payment in full of applicable fees for processing the appticaliom LSD Non-Residentlel Non-residential (5000 square feet or less) $400.00 Non-resldential (More than 5000 square feet) $800.00 Residential Residential (10 residential units or less) $200.00 Residential (25 residential units or less) $400,00 Residential (More than 25 residential units) $800.00 Technical Plat Resubmittal (tabled Items only) $200.00 per Tree Prttervation $120.00 Public NotiBeatlon Slsn Fee (per stgn) $5.00 Correspondence !n the form of a written letter to Planning Slaff describing the scope, nature and intent of the proposal, Variances from requirements of the Unified t7avekspment Code wf be reviewed and processed in accordance with the procedures set forth lhereln, Please indlgte In the letter to staff if any valances are sought and if so, justification for the request Most variances require a Planning Commission decision. A o sit of the county parcel map from the Washington CauntyAssessors ofOce orlrom the Washington County website {www.co.wasfsi ton.ar.us ,The subject property and all adjacent parcels should be identified on this parcel map. The owner's name, official mailing address, and the parcel mumberfor every adjacent property shall be shown on this map. A copy of the written decision from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding park land dedication requirements (residentlal projects only). APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: I certify under penalty of perjury that the fore,90ing statements and answers herein Reade all data, information, and evidence herewith submitted are in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I understand that submittal of incorrect of False information is grounds for invalidation of application completeness, determination, or approvals. I understand that the City might not approve wltal I am applying far, or might set conditions of approval. Name (printed):__,_ •- �_ Date: PROPERTY OWNER(S) /AUMORIZED AGENT: I/we certify under penalty of perjury that I am/we are the owners) of the property that is the subject ofthis application and that Vwc have read this application and consent to its filing. (If signed by the authorized agent, a letter from each trope: o;.� : =at be pru�;ded indicating that the aeenL is authorized to act on h�n,ia t,Pt,str l Narrte (prittled): Q oiiML? A� 1 AddL r,_.� 1. �, � _ �y� Address: Dater Phone: Vli G — L1 LSD Checklist: Adach the following items to lhis applkatloa.- (1) Payment in full of applicable fees for processing the application: LSD (2) (3) (4) May 2016 ININ Non -Residential Non-residential (5000 square feet or less) $400,00 Non-residentlal (More than 5000 square feet) $800.00 Residential Residential (10 residential units or less) $200.00 Residential (25 residential units or less) $400.00 Residential (More than 25 residential units) $800.00 Technical Plat Resubmittal (tabled items only) $200.00 per Tree Preservation $120.00 Public Notification S19 fee (per sign) $5.00 Corr#sspondaticein the form of written letter to I'lannintd StafidescrlbIng the scope, nature and lntantof the pfoposal. Varfanoes from req ulremonts of the Unified Development Code will be reviewed and processed in aocardance wllh the procedures set forth lherein, Please indicate in the Iattar to staff if any variances are sought and if so, jusOwtion for the request. Most variances require a Planning Commission decision. A cepy of the county parcel reap from the Washington County Assessor's office or from the Washington County website (wv w,co.washirmton.ar.usi. The subject property and all adjacent parcels should be identified on this parcel map. The owner's name, official mailing address, and the parcel number for every adjacent property shag be shown on this map. A copy of the written decision from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding park land dedication requirements (residential projects only). CITY OF Fay% le PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director FROM: Harry Davis, Planner Jonathan Ely, Staff Engineer John Scott, Urban Forester MEETING: September 12, 2016 UPDATED WITH PC RESULTS SUBJECT: LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD./MACEY DR. TOWNHOMES, 363): Submitted SWOPE CONSULTING for properties located in the 2900 BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY — TWENTY-FOUR (24) UNITS PER ACRE and RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY— FOUR (4) UNITS PER ACRE, containing approximately 6.51 acres. The request is for 11 new structures with 57 multi -family units and associated parking. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of LSD 16-5488 based on findings contained herein. AUGUST 22nd DISCUSSION AND RESPONSE: This project was tabled at the August 22, 2016 Planning Commission to allow the applicant to modify architectural elevations and for staff to use traffic accident data and analysis to determine if this project will compound or create a traffic hazard. Upon reviewing data for the intersection of Mount Comfort and Shiloh in comparison to other similar intersections across Fayetteville, Planning and Engineering staff find that this new development will not compound or create a dangerous traffic hazard (see attached data spreadsheets). Accident data in Fayetteville is based on proximity to intersections. For example, although there were 5 accidents near the corner of Mount Comfort and Shiloh in 2014, those accidents may have happened along Mt. Comfort going east or west. They may also have taken place north of said intersection. It is not conclusive that accidents originate from traffic generated in the direction of Pine Valley. Staff also reviewed accident data within the Pine Valley Subdivision in order to assess conditions within the neighborhood (see attached data spreadsheets) and have made the same conclusions. This proposed project will not compound or create a dangerous traffic hazard. Planning staff have collectively toured this neighborhood and developed an opinion that the winding and topographically -varying nature of Wildwood Dr., W. Glen Meadow, and W. Marigold Dr. would contribute to traffic calming. This would be to the benefit of both current residents and future drivers seeking to go from the proposed development to Shiloh Dr. Planning and Engineering staff would like to further address concerns related to making the developer cross the creek to the north and connect with Mount Comfort Rd. by stating that the connection would not be reasonable. The cost to cross the creek and connect would be Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 economically infeasible for a project of this size. Bridging the creek and building nearly a fifth of a mile of roadway, even at the bare minimum of streets without storm drains and curbs, would not be a reasonable requirement for 57 new dwelling units. Many potential users of that connection would still need to use the Mount Comfort and Shiloh intersection, thereby not substantially diverting traffic away from the perceived issue in question. BACKGROUND: The subject property is an undeveloped portion of land south of a tributary to Hamestring Creek and north of Pine Valley Subdivision. The property on which the proposed Large Scale Development is located is a 6.51 acre flag lot off Mount Comfort Rd. The development will be accessed from Macey Dr. through Pine Valley Subdivision. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1. birection from Site North South East West Table 1 Surroundina Land Use and Zoni Undeveloped, Single -Family Homes Pine Valley Subdivision Pine Valley Subdivision Undeveloped, Single -Family Homes Single -Family — 4 units r acre RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units ,per acre RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — 4 units per acre Proposal: The proposal is to develop eleven new residential structures with 57 multi -family units and associated parking. As part of the project, the applicant will be extending Macey Dr. approximately 150 feet into the site to provide street frontage for the development. INFRASTRUCTURE: Water and Sewer System: The site has access to public water and public sewer. Adjacent streets and right-of-way: This parcel currently has frontage onto Mount Comfort Rd., but the development will extend Macey Dr. from the south to create frontage and access. Adequate right-of-way exists on Mount Comfort Rd. and the extended Macey Dr. is to be dedicated as a public street, with 50 feet of right-of-way. Street Improvements: Mount Comfort Rd. is fully improved. The Macey Dr. extension will be fully improved and meets Master Street Plan requirements. The applicant shall construct new street lights at a spacing of no less than 300 feet between lights. Tree Preservation: Canopy minimum requirement: 20% Existing canopy: 63.4% Preserved canopy: 24.6% Mitigation required: 1,800 Sq. Ft. (Eight 2 -inch caliper trees planted on-site) Access Management/Connectivity: Access to the site will be provided through an extension of Macey Dr. from the south with a curb cut off this extension. The proposed street design and curb cut meet the access management requirements for curb cut separation. The applicant is not proposing connectivity to nearby properties within the development. The extended Macey Dr. will GAETC1Development Services Review120161Develop ment Review116-5488 LSD 2900 Block Mt. Comfort Rd. (Macey Dr Townhomes) 363 dead-end at the back of a parcel, which will allow for a future extension to the west across the creek to the north, if desired. Public Comments: At the August 11, 2016 Subdivision Committee, members of the public spoke that are concerned about the density in this project and the likely increase in traffic on Mount Comfort Rd. Subdivision Committee forwarded this project to Planning Commission in order to let the full commission discuss traffic impacts as a result of this development. approving RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendsfoiv; irk LSD 16-5488 with the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission approval of compliance with the Urban Residential Design Standards. Subdivision Committee gave no recommendation on this issue. Staff finds that, with the revisions provided by the project architect, the 11 proposed multi -family buildings provide enough variation between building types. UDC Section 166.23(D)(2) requires that no building type may be repeated more than three times in a development. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal gives adequate variation between building types. 2. Planning Commission approval of parkland dedication or payment of fees in lieu. Subdivision Committee made no recommendation on this issue. On June 29, 2016 the Parks and Advisory Board reviewed this project and recommended accepting money in lieu of land dedication to satisfy the park land dedication ordinance, Parks fees in the amount of $31,920 for 57 new residential units are due prior to singing the final plat. Final fees will be assessed dependent on the total number of units actually constructed. 3. Planning Commission approval of street improvements. Subdivision Committee gave no recommendation on this issue. Staff recommends that this project extend Macy Drive into the site approximately 150 feet into the site as proposed on the submitted site plans. 4. Right-of-way dedication is required in the amount of 50 feet in width for the extension of Macy Drive into the site. Right-of-way dedication is not required along Mount Comfort Road as adequate street frontage exists along this road. 5. Conditions of approval from Engineering and Urban Forestry are included in the official conditions of approval, attached hereto. 6. Revisions shall be made prior to construction as outlined in the attached redline and department commentary documents. Standard conditions of approval: 7. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 8. 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). GAETC1Development Services Review120161Development Review\16-5488 LSD 2900 Block Mt. Comfort Rd. (Macey Dr_ Townhomes) 363 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year 13. 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. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Exterior lighting package must be provided to the Planning Division. c. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. d. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include tree preservation areas. 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. g. Completion of an easement plat. Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2016 Motion: Brown Second: Autry Vote: 3-5-0 O Approved 19 Denied 0 Tabled MOTION TO TABLE PROJECT - FAILS MOTION TO APPROVE Motion: Autry, Second: Hoskins 3-5-0 MOTION FAILS, PROJECT DENIED GAETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5488 LSD 2900 Block Mt, Comfort Rd. (Macey Dr Townhomes) 363 BUDGETISTAFF IMPACT: None. Attachments: ■ City Attorney memo ■ Planning Division comments ■ Engineering Division comments ■ Urban Forestry Division comments ■ Parks Division comments ■ Addressing comments ■ Accident data Applicant's request letter ■ Site Pians ■ Elevations ■ Close Up Map ■ One Mile Map G.-WTODevelopment Services Review12016%Devef©pment RevIew116-5488 LSD 2900 Block Mt. Comfort Rd. (Macey Dr. Townhomes) 363 Existing Features: Proposed Features: .. ........... ... .. 811 111MIRM PERM- ]aaYatN.ai 9l•' 4aAXJfU Cao milk— oo as 'v= ...Awm Fri. U, 77� AAll­­U ft 01 KM 0 IlM, ­14—IIAT A.Kllmit_� A u "IIIIIINC, Willi HIM -M—AJ )—il'u- AGS—K-11-1-011:11 IlV-11 I Kul'u,l LICT , 110 I< M a ILI, fo.z Crl;l f I I I C 11 IrK A ICK' I T 1, ,1 1 I�III ' 11 lill TI AILIL III 1:01-LI1 1111 Ill' �IJAII �I I ell."ll Kul 11:j", 111 10" %K1,1111 ll 11 1x T IS I LIII Isni I Al I �'I 1,N I I'! 1 11 100 C1'.0 CITY OF Ta*y4 . �1 I e ARKANSAS Date: August 8, 2016 To: Harry Davis, Planner From: Jonathan Ely Development and Construction Manager Engineering Division Re: Plat Review Comments Development: LSD 16-5488 Macy Dr. Townhomes Engineer: Swope Consulting Planning Commission Staff Memo Plan Comments: 1. On street parking showing on the west side of Macy Drive, will not be striped as shown. Removing striping from site plan. 2. Show all adjacent topographic information within 100 feet of the property boundary. This should include buildings, driveways, sidewalks, streets, fences, utilities, landscaping, etc... 3. A portion of the property is located within the floodplain, so an elevation certificate will likely be required, unless pad elevation is shown to be in excess of 10 feet above the BFE. Coordinate with Alan Pugh for further information. Drainage Comments: 1. Site Design Credit for Vegetated Channel does not meet the minimum criteria as proposed on the drawings. In order to obtain this credit, the criteria listed in section 4.3.2.3 of the Drainage Criteria Manual must be met. Otherwise, the water quality calculations will need to be adjusted to accommodate the full water quality volume. 2. Post Developed Drainage Map must show the contributing area to the Vegetated Channel, and bioretention area. 3. Runoff Curve Numbers and time of concentrations calculations for each basin must conform to tables and guidelines established in Chapter 3 of the Drainage Criteria Manual. There are discrepancies in the drainage report that must be corrected prior to engineering approval of the project. 4. There is a small section of new impervious area shown in Post Developed Area B. This area must meet minimum standard #l, or provide justification for why it is not feasible to capture and treat this area for water quality. Standard Comments: 1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets and drainage). Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements, and al l proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. 2. Any damage to the existing public street due to construction shall be repaired/replaced at the owner/developers expense r.hadir a ' eWiez :: ENGINEERING 3. 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. 4. Fire Line monthly fees will be applied based on the size of the riser penetrating the slab. See Chapter 51.136 of the Unified Development Code for table of fees associated with pipe diameter. 5. Commercial structures that may require a fire sprinkler system must obtain a fire flow study submitted and approved by the fire department prior to approval of the project. 6. Prior to engineering approval of the building permit, either the required public improvements must be installed and accepted, or performance bonds in the amount of 150% of the construction cost for all public improvements must be submitted, accompanied by a unit price estimate approved by the Engineering Division. 7. Note, the following portions of all projects will typically not be reviewed by the Engineering Division until time of construction-level review (unless specifically requested at plat review): o Storm Sewer pipe/inlet sizing, gutter spread, profiles, or utility conflicts o Sanitary Sewer pipe sizing, profiles, or utility conflicts o Waterline fittings, callouts, or utility conflicts o Street profiles o Fine grading/spot elevations 8. The Engineer of Record shall: a. Review and approve material submittals. Approved submittals shall be submitted to the City for concurrence before grading permit is issued. b. Perform "Full Time" Inspection for the utility installation and shall be "In- Charge" of the approval testing. c. Provide a qualified representative for all testing and inspection. d. Schedule testing with the Public Works Inspector. e. Authorize geotechnical testing laboratory to provide reports directly to City in PDF format. Reports shall be submitted in a timely manner. f. Prepare material data sheets and test reports required by the specifications. g. Insure that daily inspection reports and data sheets are submitted to the City of Fayetteville's public works inspector weekly in PDF format. 9. 2012 Standard Water & Sanitary Sewer Specifications & Details apply 10. Demolition shall not begin until the appropriate erosion control measures and required tree preservation fencing are installed 11. Prior to Project Acceptance (Final Plat, Certificate of Occupancy, or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) the following items must be performed or provided to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department: h. The work shown on the civil site package must be complete and the items on the final punch list completed. i. Vegetation must be established and perimeter erosion controls removed. j. One (1) set of as-built drawings of the complete project (excluding details) as a hard copy, digital file dwg, and PDF format; i. Public infrastructure and services shall be surveyed after installation in relation to easements, property lines, and rights-of-way. 1. More than 2 ft deviation of design alignment of shall require new easement dedication or adjustment of the utility/storm drain. ii. Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Drainage (Including Private) elevations must be verified and updated. (Elevations out of design tolerance must be corrected) iii. Street Centerline, Width, Profiles and Cross slopes shall be verified. 1. More than 6 inches deviation of design alignment of shall require new right of way dedication or adjustment of the street section. iv. Adequate verification survey to confirm accuracy of drainage report_ v. As-buills shotrld include: [lie following inti}rmation in a table, Linear Feet of new publie streets. sidewalk (ya a orixed by width) waWrline;, acrd s;rniiarV sewer. Square feel ul'newiv Elcdicared right-of-way. k. Unit price construction costs for review and approval and a single 2 year maintenance bonds in the amount of 25% of the public improvements; 50% of water & sewer infrastructure. I. Certification that the streets, sidewalk, storm sewer, water, fire line, and sewer lines, etc., were installed per approved plans and City of Fayetteville requirements; i. Provide all Inspection Reports; approved submittals; Data Forms from Utility Specifications (Including Consultants sewer TV report); compaction test results, etc... m. Certification that the designed retaining walls were installed per approved plans and City of Fayetteville requ iremen ts (Inspection and Testing Reports required); n. Cross Sections, Volume Calculations, and Certification Retention/Detention Ponds are in accordance with the approved Drainage Report. o. Surveyor's Certification of Compliance for monuments and property pins. p. The As Built Final Drainage Report in PDF format updated per as -built invert, slope, inlet opening, road profile, cross slope, etc... q. Bond, guarantee, or letter of credit for all sidewalks not constructed prior to final plat approval (150% of the estimated cost of construction); r. Cross sections Contours. spot elevations. and CertiCeation that the site: has beeni. -pet,_thc. approved NiRWiP within the right ol'way, drainage casements, and utility casemetats. .xis[en r FcarLrcs, Proposed �caturc5 =ROPOSED LEGEND PLANT SCHEDULE - - R .,,.. �.x } I:a - ,a,.,..,....o.,. ..,. .. ,,.�w.,,,r cu.nwe sen.[ r•u`7+3 ..,.•.,e,., n t .. ,,. s,d. 'w:�oo .... W.. ....,-. •q. ., ��-=z= 57 r .w,......,....,..•,... ,,..-r.r... k, .._�`� _ ..' ft..�r ! -] ... '� y4'"SS's res ... �. _.............. J IN, 0 —;F —sico +i - r t= ;� :.rrt r � ;, ..., �._�. .. . _. —...r _ . r� . T � - - •--__ .w<wecw.�x. ' ' '.3 11'x• _ r Ib •`A['E: .. �,Jo.. r-R' r IA 5 V�. ....' �• - _ .� •. _ . - , J� NJ - '� .... y'� ! . 1 � w y .. -- . Proposed leatur s ' w = r� ,m,l•,:.Y I - a...a - rr..n. r- ,m... -. +rY n.e,r � - - — - ; -� �Y....��yy e hr..tl•.L rW44WAra,�n.r ew.wn.lr iar { y I �� _ � _s � r}. -v -Y rr 1�'++NA W+'V.ta+wlwd=wsY��fJ..ea NIK+F uN. H4n .Y we•IM��vf 11 r _m_ -__... '_— _ �. I i. d«..�.N..A,+�n,a r11W Mvree..p•Iliµ � ... w�YJri..YL miry A..r 4J .� I -"'ter°""- ..� ...-���— — ;. h+an•.'- Y.1.I. u JIIv J Y MY I.>•.JAn. -.. ,w..4V n.xvl 1l.w - "_'rF�, _..` _ ' .W I W.f,GKe«a A..J moron^lru _ 11 �.. 1 'j, p..M. p,y.. LPL 9 +: o �'��. v I.v .n,>4 6 ••i t yae.e.�rsta. ^-rw vni,.v ,n vW.11 .N IS. v}u +41A4.�_.:.w LY.r•r p rwir w. - - _ �.v .r..f. �m n. .. ;�R7txle'y'!5 .nnvr yr I .:J h1 v rr WM1IMwg1 rA.n.� wll vn Yerr ., .W14f �--,--,.,� _ '. �r � e•. ,.4 u Nelms !is k^•** is � � 5,xy �"^� 1 ,^.N ro..v u.,a. r,. v„ / I�Fy41v�14\.lL, GYti 6iR1 " _ M .y iY„ i,�wwrY. 3 fb.IM2d 4*rY. � V-.a+.{e.N Yn. s••r_ • eM..e�1. r ,.a Zg Irgw•..+Y.I�weA�rex WY�q x.«AN•xMJ nrP,b-+4YVw.-Y R .. .+4.� t 1 � —�'� � � SrWM �7%. www y a4..w ..;y.m pw Yan• u..lww. hx, w.wr Ym.+4 r Yey �'YY"'. i.!'X+�. �. .te_ •. ..... ..... +^F-'�+4 Yn I•a .^mow al .M. +wi itt Ykll I'w' Y. sr-�w.�.��r+h . � _%.��'. ern-w.a..r.,•��"� - 3_—. � fOA C-]ei Y .. uYt Y•ry; bsMw 4rY F r. 4YIr MaY, rrM dr•,� _.. ar +w..lwi W[! Mup +riswWd�/i• 0.Y.r•y .gyp M A..tih0.+1 M.p1 I+ 11:ae M. •wY M: •.wJ Jrrbxa. . .7.1.1=.....wir.x4Y.s.,. e..n^-.v [flON www Fni - �i,r LvM1 ♦Nrrr.AL �44 R.1 ..4,wieB,+..'l�.. vd•r,.. - ._. IBM 0 P`qw. .,. e.rn yHry A. ar•i"�, u•.imai.«•mA � S:Se/w[ YEnI -.- a. u�,;.�m...e_dd, WYMt�YaIAl.N'r.•1 Y.&., ._ �='"�'�'—�'1`ISs.r _. •--=;---�- i .Xdtit14 g {'C'3iL t'tl2. .s v .. _fib ti ,, *•. "•gid' :,Y..``-.,.sem _ — -- s -. eq y, v ti } d. C li - ! '•f o - ,... ry -fir -L ir.1' "yr � 1° "il.�/- v r '•ate JIf • KfJ19Y } I .:, .. - �-rlr. a. � fir-`. .�-.._..r.....---^`. `N 4 �= �7i+' _ 1•. ,.... .. � � f F%x ar.�ra I.s riv :2- 3 - fff i � . _ _ _ a ,s I... � •�+r�-�•y'`-'"' ._ _ . _.� » �..k+f, � - �;<-'zr+..-..._.�>ti�,r.��,"'-+--�..�;,r-�,M� �'._ w''C".�7's'_�.� r e .,: , v CITY OF Ta*y" � lle ARKANSAS TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION — Chapter 167 To: Tim Brisiel, Legacy Ventures NWA From: John Scott, Urban Forestry CC: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner Date: August 15, 2016 Subject: LSD 16-5488: NE of Marigold Dr. and Macey Dr. I Macey Dr. Townhomes I Planning Commission Requirements Submitted: N Initial Review with the Urban Forester NA Site Analysis Map Submitted {if 'ustification is needed) NA Site Analysis Written Report Submitted 'ustification is needed) Y Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted Y Tree Mitigation Table on Plans NA Tree Preservation Wavier Submitted (only use if no trees onsite or near PIL) Tree Preservation Calculations Square Feet Percent of site Total Site Area *Minus Right of Way and Easements Zoning Designation *Select Below with drop down arrow 226,512 100% J _ _ RMF -24 Multi -Family Residential-Twent -Four Units Per Acre 45,302 20% HHOD * Select Below with Drop Down Arrow No 0 0% Total Canopy for Minimum Preservation Requirements 45,302 20.0% Existing Tree Canopy * Minus Right of Way and Easements 143,603 63.4% Tree Canopy Preserved 55,765 24.6% Tree Canopy Removed *On Site 87,838 38.8% Tree Canopy Removed *Off Site 1,800 Tree Canopy Removed Total 89,638 39.6% Removed Below Minimum 0 Mitigation Requirements 1,800 • Total Site Area' is property line minus Master Street Plan ROW, existing easements, and Dedicated Parkland • Existing Tree Canopy* is total tree canopy minus Master Street Plan ROW and existing easements N"ailing Addiessi URBAN FORESTRY 1.1 1 W M-unta n street ww.'[{yettevill r drgov F vetteval., AR 7 7p1 Tree Canopy Mitigation: 8 trees will be required for mitigation. Staff has determined the best location for the mitigation trees to offset the impact of the development is on the north side of the parking lot as shown on the landscape plan. 167.0417 Canopy Be[ow R uired Preservation Prilority/Type Forestation Base Density ft2 Number of 2" caliper trees to be planted 1800 ft2 High Priority 218 8 0 Mid Priority 290 0 Y Low Priority 436 0 Total Mitigation Y Y 8 MiEi ation Type Requested Qty Each Total Cost On-site Mitigation Site Analysis Plan Components Off-site Mitigation Y Tree Escrow $675 5 year aerial check on existing trees Total Mitigation Y Mitigation Type Requested: ® On -Site ❑ Off -Site ❑ Tree Escrow ❑ Not Requested Yet Mitigation Type Requested Approved: ® YES ❑ NO TREE PROTECTION PLAN CHECKLISTS AND COMMENTS: Plan Checklist: NA = not applicable Yes = submitted by applicant I = incomplete No = required by City Code but not included on submitted plan The Site Analysis Plan [167.04(H)(1)] Tech Plat y SD PC Site Analysis Plan Components Y Y Y 5 year aerial check on existing trees Y Y Y Properly Boundary Y Y Y Natural Features 100ft beyond property line shown Y Y Y Existing Topography with slopes < 15% highlighted N Y Y Soils Y Y Y Significant Tree(s): 24", 18" and 8" DBH Y Y Y Table listing Sig. Trees with species, size, health, priority. Y Y Y Grouping of Trees: all other trees that do not meet significant requirements. Y Y Y Table listing Grouped Trees with average s ecies, size, health, priority Y Y Y All existing utilities Y Y Y All perennial and intermittent streams with approximate center line Y Y Y Floodplains/Floodways Y Y Y Existing street, sidewalk or bike path ROW NA Na Na Submitted Site Analysis Plan he Anal sis Plan Re orE167.04 H 4 T [ f )4 ] Tech Plat I SD T PC I Anal sis Plan Report Components NA _ N/A N/A Detail Design Approaches used to minimize damage to OR removal of existingcanopy NA N/A N/A Justification for removal of individual or 2roupinUs of trees/canopy NA N/A N/A Details rovidino information on on-site mitigation OR off-site alternatives NA N/A N/A Submitted Analysis Report/Statement — Note the process, iterations, and approaches with tree preservation in mind. Use email from owner/developer that was provided as reference. Y Y Y DeDlct limits of soil disturbance Tree Preservation Plan 1167.Q4Ft Tech Plat SD PC Tree Preservation Plan Components Y Y Y Shows ALL Proposed Site Improvements Y Y Y Delineates trees/canopy to be 2reserved and removed Y Y Y Delineates existing and proposed grading Y Y Y DeDlct limits of soil disturbance N Y Y Detail methods that will be used to protect trees during construction: N Y Y 1, Tree Protection Fencing NA N/A N/A 2. Limits of Root Pruning N Y Y 3. Traffic flow on work site N Y Y 4. Location of material storage N Y Y 5. Location of concrete wash out — move outside of trees to be saved N Y Y 6. Location of construction entrance/exit Y Y Y Location of ALL existing and new utility/drainage easements Conditions of Approval: Urban Forestry recommends approval of the Landscape Plan with the following conditions of approval: 1. Address items above marked "No" and all Redlines provided. 2. Add the following notes: a. Prior to Building Permit approval, an easement plat depicting tree preservation areas must be signed by Urban Forestry. b. Prior to request for final landscape inspection by Urban Forester, Landscape Architect of Record shall inspect site and direct Contractor to make changes to meet approved plans and details. No changes to the approved landscape plan may be made without Urban Forester approval, CITY OF 0 Fa I I c ARKANSAS LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS — Chapter 177 To: Tim Brisiel, Legacy Ventures NWA From: John J. Scott, Urban Forestry CC: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner Date: August 15, 2016 Subject: LSD 16-5488: NE of Marigold Dr. and Macey Dr. I Macey Dr. Townhomes I Planning Commission Applicable Re uiremems: 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 N/A = not applicable Tech Plat SC PC All Landscape Plans Y Y Y Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib 100' o. c. (177.03A.7. & 177.04.6.3.a Y Y Y S ecies of plant material identified (177.03.A.7.d & e Y Y Y Size of plant material at time of installation indicated minimum size 2" caliper for trees and 3 gal. shrubs dl77.03.A.7. b & c) Y Y Y Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed (177.03.C.6.b Y Y Y Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds (177.03.C.6.c & d) N N N LSD and Subdivisions plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect, others by Landscape Designer (177.03. B) Y Y Y Planting bed contained by edging 177.03.C.6.f Y Y Y Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual (177.03.C.6,g) M,i linc7 Addloq�, URBAN FORESTRY W 'tree+ ✓✓ w*avettevilla-arclir" F,vvette dle, AR 72701 Tech Plat SC PC Site Develo ment & Parking Lot Standards NA Na Na Wheel stops/ curbs (177.04.B.1) Detention Large Trees 10 Detention Small Trees / Large Shrubs Interior landscaping (177.04.C) N Y Y Narrow tree lawn (8' min width, 37.5' min length/ 1 tree per 12 spaces) OR Tree island (8' min. width, 18.7' min. lengthl1 tree per 12 spaces) All parking lot trees must be deciduous (177.04.C.3 Y Y Y Placement of Trees (177.04.C.2) Either side at points of access (entrancelexit) Perimeter landscaping (177.04.D) Side and rear property lines (5' wide landscaped) Front property line (15' wide landscape) (177.04.D.2.a) Y Y Y Shade trees planted on south and west sides of parking lots (177.04.D.2.e) Parking lot adjacent to R. 0. 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 planting standards Tech Plat SC PC Street Tree Planting Standards (time of F.P. or permit) (177.05) N NA NA Residential Subdivisions -1 large species shade tree/ lot tree planted within R.O.W. if possible Y Y Nonresidential Subdivision -1 large species shade tree/30 L.F. tree planted within y 15-25' reens ace NA Na Na Urban Tree Wells -urban streetscape only- B'sidewalk , trees every 30 L.F. 177.05.B.3.a NA 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) Written description of the method for tracking plantings (177.05.A.4.e) Plan contains 3 -year Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement. The owner shall NA NA Na Na Y Y y 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 FP. orpermit) 177.06.A — C Y Y Y 1 deciduous or evergreen tree/ 3000 square feet Y Y Y 4 large shrubs or small trees (3 gal) / 3000 square feet Y Y Y 6 shrubs or grasses (1 gal)13000 square feet Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified Y Y Y Y 50% of facility planted with grass or grass like plants y Landsca 8 Requirements Table Mitigation Trees 3 -year surety required 5 Street Trees 156/30 3 -year surety required 7 Parking Trees (24/12) = Provided 2 Detention Large Trees 10 Detention Small Trees / Large Shrubs 14 Detention Small Shrubs_ Conditions of Approval: Urban Forestry recommends approval of the Landscape Plan with the following conditions of approval: 1, Address all items above marked °N". 2. Plan must be stamped by a Licensed Landscape Architect. 3. Add the following notes: a. Prior to Building Permit approval, all required landscaping will require a performance bond and a completed Landscape Surety Form for all required landscaping, Submit an itemized landscape estimate for review at time of construction plan review. b. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a 3 -year Maintenance Plan must be submitted with a 3 -year surety (letter of credit, bond or cash) and completed Landscape Surety Form for all required street and mitigation trees. c. Landscape Architect of Record shall inspect site and direct Contractor to make changes to meet approved plans and details prior to Urban Forester Certificate of Occupancy inspection. No changes to the approved landscape plan may be made without Urban Forester approval. CITY OF Tay%!r ARKANSAS TO: Planning Division FROM: Ken Eastin, Park Planner II DATE: August 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Technical Plat Review Comments PA.FKSA,,;D RECREATION Meeting Date: Subdivision Committee on August 11, 2016 Item: 16-5488 LSD NE of Marigold Dr. and Macey Dr. (Macey Dr. Townhomes) 363 Park District: NW Zoned: RSF-4, RMF -24 Billing Name & Address: Tim Brisiel Legacy Ventures PO Box 8216 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Current Land Dedication Requirement Monet/ in Lieu Single Family @ 0.023 acre per unit = acres @ $920 per unit = $ Multi -Family @ 0.014 acre per unit=— acres 57 @ $560 per unit = $31,920 COMMENTS: • On June 6, 2016, PRAB reviewed the project and recommended accepting money in - lieu for 57 multi -family units to satisfy the park land dedication ordinance due to the development's proximity to Salem Park, Gary Hampton Softball Complex, Hamestring and Clabber Creek Trails, and Bryce Davis Community Park. • Fees in the amount of $31,920 are due for the proposed 57 multi -family units prior to the issuing of building permits • Each additional housing unit that is constructed in Fayetteville places an increased demand on the Parks and Recreation system. The money collected as part of this development will be used to fund future park acquisitions and improvements within this park quadrant. • The actual amount of fees will be determined by the actual number of units and the parks fee formula at the time of Planning Commission approval of the LSD. Mailing Address: PARKS & RECREATION 113 W MOUntaln Street www fayetteviile-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Macey Drive Townholnes , : v�E�,a Z WK APPROVED ., - '^'c - Pr,�timinalyAdaress � pp County Parcelr ri _ A f ld r '56 ° ,r r:.. rw y�w q - aa+ _ I1I1 t� a n rw I i 7k� IF , . . , " ... 5 � L-49 f •, 5L r C•�� A NL —t t Y r37 1. Y!I 5 ' w wlLowaco on A r>�a , . - e- . �-Ary 4 _ } � � �• IN MAMAGOLO OR 1 II F qq .. w.wF&rExpgwos ... mss... .. � L Mount Comfort & Shiloh Mount Comfort & Raven Martin Luther King & Camellia Wedington & Heritage 2011 1 1 2 0 2012 1 1 0 0 2013 3 1 1 2 2014 5 1 3 1 2015 3 0 2 1 2016 2 0 3 0 2011-2016 Accident Totals by Year for Mt. Comfort & Shiloh (and similar intersections) 6 2011 2012 2013 2014 24.15 2016 Mount Comfort & Shiloh Mount Comfort & Raven Martin Luther King & Camellia -Wedington & Heritage ACCIDENT NUMBER 201101300 201200411 201301712 201302004 201302232 201400880 201401271 201401418 201402378 201402494 201500249 201500527 201500720 201600123 201601168 DATE TIME 20110723 134700 20120305 74900 20130826 72800 20130918 174800 20131016 125900 20140505 75400 20140624 14900 20140724 162600 20141107 73900 20141117 94500 20150207 172500 20150305 152200 20150330 74800 20160104 151300 20160504 75600 Mount Comfort & Shiloh STREET NAME MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNTCOMFORT SHILOH MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNT COMFORT MOUNT COMFORT SHILOH MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNTCOMFORT MOUNT COMFORT Page 2 CROSS STREET SHILOH SHILOH SHILOH MOUNTCOMFORT SHILOH SHILOH SHILOH SHILOH SHILOH SHILOH SHILOH MOUNTCOMFORT SHILOH SHILOH SHILOH ACCIDENT NUMBER 201101894 201202027 201300191 201401856 DATE TIME 20111003 75200 20121012 143700 20130201 1611500 20140925 75500 STREET NAME MOUNT COMFORT MOUNT COMFORT MOUNT COMFORT MOUNT COMFORT CROSS STREET RAVEN RAVEN RAVEN RAVEN ACCIDENT NUMBER 201101095 201101564 201300414 201400769 201402066 201402609 201500708 201503119 201600090 201600679 201601825 DATE TIME 20110614 42800 20110824 181600 20130301 141800 20140402 121000 20141007 180700 20141203 600 20150328 201400 20151211 113100 20160114 183900 20160313 195100 20160715 191800 STREET NAME MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING MARTIN LUTHER KING CROSS STREET CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA CAMELLIA ACCIDENT NUMBER 201302830 201300907 201400439 201502701 DATE TIME STREET NAME 20131207 110900 WEDINGTON 20130508 112200 HERITAGE 20140304 80000 HERITAGE 201.51025 160600 HERITAGE CROSS STREET HERITAGE WEDINGTON WEDINGTON WEDINGTON 2011-2016 Accidents Totals by Street per Year (in Pine Valley Subdivision) 2,5 1.5 as ` 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Glen Meadow —Marigold — Wildwood sRiveridge —Caton —Pine Valley Glen Meadow Marigold Wildwood Riveridge Caton wine Valley 2011 1 1 2 0 1 0 2012 0 0 0 1 1 1 2013 0 0 1 0 0 1 2014 0 0 0 0 0 1 2015 0 0 2 0 1 0 20161 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 j 0 2011-2016 Accidents Totals by Street per Year (in Pine Valley Subdivision) 2,5 1.5 as ` 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Glen Meadow —Marigold — Wildwood sRiveridge —Caton —Pine Valley GlenMeadow ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE STREET NUMBER STREET 201100819 20110504 GLENMEADOW Page 2 CROSS STREET MARIGOLD ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE STREET NUMBER STREET CROSS STREET 201100440 20110306 2962 MARIGOLD ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE STREET NUMBER STREET 201100437 20110227 WILDWOOD 201102526 20111221 2852 WILDWOOD 201300288 20130214 WILDWOOD 201500202 20150130 WILDWOOD 201501168 20150518 WILDWOOD CROSS STREET N WILDWOOD I11VERRIDGE RIVERRIDGE CA,rO N ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE STREET NUMBER STREET CROSS STREET 201200885 20120505 RIVERRIDGE GLENMEADOW ACCIDENT NUMBER BATE STREET NUMBER STREET CROSS STREET 201201422 20120722 CATON 201100408 20110303 CATON RIVERRIDGE 201501396 20150613 CATON RIVERRIDGE LEGACY VENTURES, LLC P.O. BOX 8216 06/17/2016 Planning Division City of Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ATTN: Planning Staff RE: Macev Street Townhomes Dear Planning Staff FAYF- TEVILLE, AR 72703 Please accept this letter accompanying our Large Scale Development plans for the Macey Drive I ownhoni-- •-. We have submitted the full set of plans and look forward to working with the City or Fayetteville to tran!;i+ie -- the plans to reality. This development consists of 58 townhome units that will each be two bedrooms and two and a hall baihn anu approximately 1300 square feet each. They will be traditional in style and design with the use of variatlon, I ,fames Hardie siding, brick, and stone. The objective is to make each unit look different and have a unicloc The topography of the site may be slightly challenging from a developmental standpoint but feel in the cnd will add to the uniqueness of the development and make it very attractive for residents. The development seems to meet or exceed all City of Fayetteville requirements and we are hopeful Ov.1t %%X work through the process together quickly. We appreciate your time and hope you will give this proposal careful consideration. We are lookinz I'ury drd ;c completing this subdivision and together leaving our Legacy one Venture at a time. LEGAL WNTURES Proposed Fearure-c. L. -,j iN U6 win W, ... ... smomemul OIL . . . ........ 'D3 cop Cj4 t4r/:i4 acwnwa,,,,. ra«r�r ,M3M..THR �- n,r...n wr m �r T h� O `! 0 ------------ 00 Jnr � ,_ ._.•�� --:...-_ �r C ..i i u .,.__ r r u + '.'Y• C • N u u EL .. JtW-!`!x Ar a y �r T h� O `! 0 ------------ 00 Jnr � ,_ ._.•�� --:...-_ �r C ..i i u .,.__ r r u + '.'Y• C • N u u EL .. ... ..... WO EI -1.1 z L ch N C\j C) cr) CC) 0 CD U) ill O 'EL -2 - came c d .. ... ..... WO EI -1.1 z L ch N C\j C) cr) CC) 0 CD U) ill O 'EL -2 E N cr> LSl {- EL -3 MW aN dk2i wro wro p- q C'� co E ui N 0 LU c (0 C; ZD CQ 0 LU LU EL -51 � . I �� � � t� 4 .Y � a�ia� ppM� Cd �4 Z- C'� co E ui N 0 LU c (0 C; ZD CQ 0 LU LU EL -51 -.J C'� co E ui N 0 LU c (0 C; ZD CQ 0 LU LU EL -51 LSD 16-548$ MACEY DR TOWNHOMES Close Up View NORTH 4 MEADOWLARK DR WESTBURY ST si Y g z O Subject Property } ,x LU LU a LU 9 SAUTERt-N P-1 ELLI'EANN WAY a WILDWOOD TDR MARIGOLD DR '7 Qq O� ti. G� Legend - -� Planning Area L Fayetteville City Limits RSF-4 — —� Feet � RT-12 Residential Two and Three Tamily Shared Use Paved Trail RMF-24 Trail (Proposed)P_1 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 Design Overlay District 1 inch = 300 feet Building Footprint LSD 16-5488 'IACEY DR TOWNHOMES A& One Mile View NORTH 0 13.125 0.25 0_5 Moes C1?'LD a P-1 I RSF-I J j 1 4� � C w Q � dry C I Subject Prof �E ' Lt►1F•4 LegenLegend Ci RE61DfMrpEtWTitFsiMx.T w! w a +ern -- CCIVMCIMIAL Planning Area Fayetkevile City Limrks MT14"I _ ,... ro,..,..�... 411- ...... !iN...!!. Shared Use faded Trail UuErl•rAuu4r sr gnu -F+.. �ti •�. � .> t +aril Trail (Proposed) 0 aur . s i. ca•... Design Overlay Dislricl +nxxn6uxardufrdssracro FlanningArea woa>rmA�w Building Footprint �I JJ�+_.;; . • urannlnmaAt u Fayr•ncmmeCllyUrrlis CITY OF Fay" AR�—kl ANAS DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission September 12, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 MINUTES 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, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Absent: Ryan Noble Staff: Andrew Garner, Jonathan Curth, Quin Thompson, Harry Davis, Corey Granderson City Attorney: Kit Williams Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the August 22, 2016 meeting. 2. ADM 16-5580: Administrative Item (542 W. DICKSON ST./YANCEY HOG DOGS -1 YR. MOBILE VENDOR, 484): Submitted by CODY YANCEY for property located at 542 W. DICKSON ST. The property is zoned MSC -MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.57 acres. The request is for a one year mobile food vendor permit. 3. ADM 16-5564: Administrative Item (1530 GOLF CLUB DR./THE LINKS PZD AMENDMENT, 400): Submitted by HUGH JARRETT for property located at 1530 GOLF CLUB DR. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is to amend R-PZD 07-2452 to add a clubhouse and swimming pool. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Old Business: 4. LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK MT. COMFORT RD.IMACEY DR. APTS., 363): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, INC. for property located at the 2900 BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RMF 24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 6.76 acres. The request is for a 58 unit apartment complex with associated parking. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. Tim Brisiel, Applicant: In agreement with planning staff on their recommendation. Public Comment: No public comment at this time. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asks to see the elevations on the screen. Questions if the developer needs to have a turnaround or if the street must continue to the property line. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Answers no. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Believes there is a problem with the amount of accidents in the neighborhood. There were 14 accidents in the Pine Valley subdivision, which is a higher number in comparison to the intersections analyzed by staff. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: In agreement with Commissioner Brown. Hoffman believes that staff has missed some key information in how wide the streets are in Pine Valley and how that would affect driving speeds and road safety. Therefore, Hoffman cannot support the development. No further issues with development. Ron Autry, Commissioner: In agreement with Commissioners Brown and Hoffman. The existing amount of cars produces 14 accidents, which would be further increased by having 100 or so more vehicles going through the neighborhood. Janet Selby, Commissioner: Does not believe they can support this development and is in agreement with previous comments. Williams, City Attorney: Cautions the Planning Commission to be careful in voting on this development. Commissioner Brown's information should be evaluated by the Planning Commission and Staff. The existing subdivision was approved and the development in question has the right to be where it is located. Williams believes that the information sent by Hoffman is not applicable to the discussion about this development. Planning staff should come back with a more detailed report on the accidents in this existing subdivision in relation to similar subdivisions elsewhere in Fayetteville. A decision to deny the proposed development would need to be defensible in court, and therefore must have a serious traffic hazard to deny. Garner: Explains the staffs process in reviewing the data in relation to other places around Fayetteville. Staff ultimately does not believe this proposed project would cause a problem and states that a professional traffic engineer is the next step in providing more information to the Planning Commission, if they desire more data. He also clarifies that the information provided to Commissioner Brown is the information provided by staff. Williams: Understands and defers to staff. Brown: Believes that traffic counts must be included in this analysis. Roads with higher traffic counts have accidents numbering in the single digits, while the accident data within the subdivision amounts to 14 accidents. Williams: Cautions the Planning Commission against making judgments without expertise in traffic engineering. Suggests the applicant should conduct a full traffic study. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Questions if Shiloh would be extended across the creek to the south in order to provide another outlet. Garner: States the Master Street Plan shows that it will be extended at some point to Wedington. Williams: States the bridge to cross the creek there is an expensive and far -future project. Belden: Asks if there is considerable, developable land along Mt. Comfort that would continue to funnel into the intersection of Mt. Comfort and Shiloh. Garner: Answers yes. Autry: Asks when Pine Valley was constructed. Garner: Answers around the 2000s, as the homes there are about 10-15 years old. Autry: Explains that much in this area was not constructed just a short time ago. He agrees with Williams that there should be another traffic study to exhaust all options. Brown: States that the developer should look into a box culvert in crossing the stream to the north and connecting with Mt. Comfort. The project should be tabled to find out more information. Hoskins: Asks about the nature of the accidents in the report. Garner: States that the reports do not specify. Hoskins and Garner engage in further rapid question and answer about nature of streets and intersections in the report. Hoskins: States that much time and money has been spent in improving the intersection at Mt. Comfort and Shiloh. This small of a project will not cause a problem there and crossing the river to the north would not be feasible, based on just the cost of the street length alone, for a development of this size. He surmises that the information has been analyzed well and that the applicant has made the necessary changes to be approved. The developer and owner has a right to develop this project. ,, Public Comment: Sharon Davidson, Nearby Neighbor: Believes this development will help calm traffic for the neighborhood. She is in support of this development. No more public comment. Motion #1: Commissioner Brown made a motion to table LSD 16-5488. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Brisiel: States that some investigation in the accident reports is needed and would be happy to collaborate with staff. A full traffic study is not desired, as it would be a considerable cost and staff has not asked for one throughout this process. Kyle Cook, Commission Chair: Asks Williams if the project is not approved, then the applicant would be able to appeal to City Council. Williams: Answers yes. Hoffman: States they do not share the same opinion stated by Hoskins. A final decision is more appropriate for this developer instead of tabling and pushing their development back even further. Hoskins: Asks the Planning Commission if a traffic study would help them come to a better decision. Autry: Answers that the nature of the accident reports would determine the decision. Brown: Offers that the Planning Commission should offer some suggestions on comparable subdivisions that would be good comparisons. Williams: States that the staff have provided good comparisons for intersections and the traffic study would not provide the information desired by the Planning Commission, where the accident reports would provide the best information. Cook: Asks the applicant what their preference would be for a decision between approval or denial and tabled. Brisiel: Prefers to be tabled. Hoskins: Clarifies that the Planning Commission is not asking for a traffic study, but more information on the accidents. Upon roll call the motion to table failed with a vote of 3-5-0, Motion to table for more study fails 3-5-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Selby, Autry, Belden voted `no'. Motion #2: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve LSD 16-5488. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Brown: Admits that his analysis is not a professional one, but does make use of the available and given data. Cook: States that he will support the development, although admits that the development is not good planning. The issue of traffic has been addressed and there are no other issues. Upon roll call the motion to approve LSD 16-5488 failed with a vote of 3-5-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Selby, Autry, and Brown voted 'no'.