Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-20 RESOLUTIONAYYEE TT yBKA 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 15-20 File Number: 2019-0934 ADOPT REVISED MASTER STREET PLAN (FROM CITY PLAN 2040): A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT A REVISED MASTER STREET PLAN FOR FAYETTEVILLE INCLUDING REVISED STREET CROSS-SECTIONS WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 116-11 approving and adopting City Plan 2030 and the Future Land Use Map as the comprehensive land use plan for the City of Fayetteville; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 50-18 expressing its support for an update to the comprehensive land use plan, including a new future land use map, master street plan, and active transportation plan map, all of which have been developed by a wide-ranging, cross - departmental group of City staff with extensive input from the Planning Commission, City Council members, and residents. 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 approves and adopts the Master Street Plan document, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby declares that all previous Resolutions adopting previous Master Street Plans and street cross-sections are superseded by the new Master Street Plan and street cross-sections. PASSED and APPROVED on 1/7/2020 Page 1 Printed on 119120 File Number 2019-0934 Resolution 15-20 Attest: of %mollifirp," ``�i �y GLERK,T,�i • C I1 T y •.'QF,''� Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurd : F o� •9�;s :S; 9yF :cam 0. ell � , glys AS •. ��. p'1111111110 I coo , ` Page 2 Printed on 119120 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2019-0934 Agenda Date: 1/7/2020 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: B. 2 ADOPT REVISED MASTER STREET PLAN (FROM CITY PLAN 2040): A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT A REVISED MASTER STREET PLAN FOR FAYETTEVILLE INCLUDING REVISED STREET CROSS-SECTIONS WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 116-11 approving and adopting City Plan 2030 and the Future Land Use Map as the comprehensive land use plan for the City of Fayetteville; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 50-18 expressing its support for an update to the comprehensive land use plan, including a new future land use map, master street plan, and active transportation plan map, all of which have been developed by a wide-ranging, cross -departmental group of City staff with extensive input from the Planning Commission, City Council members, and residents. 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 approves and adopts the Master Street Plan document, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby declares that all previous Resolutions adopting previous Master Street Plans and street cross-sections are superseded by the new Master Street Plan and street cross-sections. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 1/8/2020 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2019-0934 Legistar File ID 1/7/2020 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Blake Pennington 12/19/2019 CITY ATTORNEY (021) Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: City Council approval of the Master Street Plan. Budget Impact: Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget Funds Obligated Current Balance Does item have a cost? NA Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Fund Project Title 0 V20180321 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Change Order Number: Approval Date: Original Contract Number: Comments: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Jordan City Council C77 FROM: Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorne DATE: December 20, 2019 RE: Master Street Plan update Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Jodi Batker Paratlgat At the December 17, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a motion separating City Plan 2040, the Future Land Use Map, the Master Street Plan, and the Active Transportation Plan so each could be considered on its own. The Master Street Plan and Active Transportation Plan were tabled until the January 7, 2020 meeting and City Plan 2040 and the Future Land Use Map were tabled until the January 21, 2020 meeting. Attached are the staff memo, proposed Master Street Plan amendments, Planning Commission meeting memo, and some additional comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 2020 TO: Mayor; Fayetteville City Council CITY COUNCIL MEMO THRU: Susan Norton, Communications Department Director, Interim Chief of Staff Garner Stoll, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner DATE: December 20, 2019 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation for the Master Street Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Following several meetings in 2018 and 2019 in which the Planning Commission functioned as a steering committee for the update to City Plan 2030, the draft Master Street Plan was presented to Commissioners on May 13, 2019. Commissioner feedback was requested on each of the three plan elements outlined above, with comments, recommendations, and critiques provided over the following four weeks. DISCUSSION: The principle goal of this update is to incorporate the findings and recommendations of Nelson - Nygaard and their Fayetteville Mobility Plan in to the City's Master Street Plan. This involved parallel efforts, the first of which was a reclassification of street types or typologies. While most cities nationwide, including Fayetteville currently, utilize the Federal Highway Administration's "functional classification" system of Arterial, Collector, and Local streets, these categories provide limited information about the street, how it relates to surrounding land uses, and how it functions from block to block. These designations and associated functional classifications under the current Master Street Plan are: • Regional Link — High Activity (Arterial Street) • Regional Link (Principal Arterial Street) • Neighborhood Link (Minor Arterial/Collector Street) • Residential Link (Local and Residential Streets) • Urban Center (sections adopted under the 2005 Downtown Master Plan) As it is not sufficient to simply rename these street classifications, the second major update to the plan was a full review of all streets classified within the Master Street Plan, whether within or without the Fayetteville's city limits. This was based on the two -fold understanding that some existing and future streets are "over -classified" and a build -out under the current Master Street Plan would not serve the mobility needs of residents city wide or compliment the needs of residents and property owners along these corridors. Accordingly, every street was vetted and Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 many were re-classified. Examples of the most prominent changes include: Extension of the Urban Center street sections southward to Martin Luther King Boulevard Reclassification of the following from Major or Minor Arterials to Neighborhood Links: o North Street/Mission Boulevard from College Avenue/71 B to Crossover Road/Highway 265 t o Gregg Avenue from North Street to Van Asche Drive o Deane Street and Mount Comfort Road from Garland Avenue/Highway 112 to Salem Road o Broyles Avenue o Double Springs Road o Deane Solomon Road o Persimmon Street o Oakland Zion Road Reclassification of the following from Collector Streets as Residential Links: o Stearns Street from Vantage Drive to Crossover Road/Highway 265 o Sunbridge/Reynolds/Strange from Gregg Avenue to Garland Avenue/Highway 112 o Raven Lane between Quail and Topaz Drives The final major update to the Master Street Plan includes further advancing the ability to create context sensitive streets through a flexibility of design. Each street includes an associated minimum standard based on classification, from which it may vary depending on surrounding land uses, proposed development, or relevant long-range plans. Among these options are the ability to increase lane widths to accommodate transit, removal of on -street parking facilities, reduction or increase in sidewalk widths, and modification of greenspace or parking for Fire Code compliance. Other notable additions to this flexibility include the potential for a required frontage and furniture zones. In urban settings, where buildings abut the right-of-way in particular the addition of a frontage zone or furniture zone creates a buffer for pedestrians from opening doors and accommodate street elements such as benches without compromising the mobility of pedestrians. DISCUSSION: At the May 13 and May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meetings, staff recommended the draft Master Street Plan be tabled to allow the Commission and public sufficient time to review the proposed plan and comment upon it. Some among the Commission expressed objection to the proposed street sections, commenting that they include lane widths that ought to be reduced. No public comment was presented. On June 10, 2019, the Planning Commission tabled the draft Master Street Plan. Several Commissioners expressed concerns forwarding the document with a Planning Commission recommendation rather than first addressing Commissioner comments about narrower streets, narrower lane widths, and other items. Staff advised that the Master Street plan would be advanced to the Transportation Committee. No public comment was presented. On June 25, 2019, the Transportation Committee conferred with staff and attending Commissioners, outlining several requested amendments to the Master Street Plan and referring the draft plan to the Planning Commission. Subsequently, on August 26, 2019, the revised, draft Master Street Plan was forwarded by the Planning Commission to the August 27, 2019 Transportation Committee, which, in turn, forwarded the plan to the City Council. On October 11, 2019, the draft City Plan 2040 and associated Master Street Plan were distributed to Councilmembers for review and staff requested one-on-one meetings with the Council to discuss any concerns. During October and November, staff had meetings and phone calls with some of the Councilmembers who responded, and staff incorporated their feedback into the plan. At the December 3, 2019 meeting, the council discussed and tabled City Plan to afford more time for review and incorporation of additional council feedback. On December 17, 2019, staff presented revisions to City Plan in response to the Council's comments from the previous meeting. City Plan was tabled again for additional review time, and the council directed the City Attorney to break the components of City Plan into multiple resolutions for easier adoption. City Plan 2040 will be presented to the Council in four resolutions, with the Master Street Plan and Active Transportation Plan Map on January 7th, 2020 and City Plan 2040 and the Future Land Use Map on January 21, 2020. Attachments: • Exhibit A • 12.2 Master Transportation Plan The Master Transportation Plan is the guiding policy that the community,City Staff,the ®P Planning Commission and the City Council utilize to proactively guide decisions regarding street classification,design,location,form and function.The Master Transportation Plan FINAL REPORT prescribes and plans for the development of a multi-modal transportation system in the form of streets,sidewalks,bicycle facilities,trails and transit.Multi-modal transportation system 4,1 ,.1l. .,C,. , „,,.,4 is vital to growing a livable transportation network.Consistent planning ensures that streets t will efficiently circulate traffic within the community and connect Fayetteville to the rest of the regions.Special emphasis should be placed on multi-modal transportation infrastructure design,access management and traffic speed and volume considerations when planning news Figure 12.X-Mobility Plan streets and redeveloping existing ones.The Fayetteville Mobility Plan can be found here: http://www.fayettevi I le-ar.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15415/Fayetteville-Mobility-Plan- Final-Report---March-2018?bidld= R * dib =via 1*N�rt wu14: • :'r!r. M�'SM3 The Master Transportation Plan contains three specific tools that are utilized to guide _-°�`°_"`�` comMi '°..° ' ° ' "— '-,,. WI transportation infrastructure decision making:The Master Street Plan Map,Master Street - _- _ -_` = Plan Cross-sections and the Active Transportation Plan Map. 1:1 _ . .= Active Transportation Plan _ . The Fayetteville Active Transportation plan and associated Active Transportation Plan Map guide the planning and development of the City's expanding shared-use paved trail system. Figure 12.X-Mobility Plan Public Input Active Transportation Plan Map illustrates future trail alignments and street corridors - - for acquiring easements and right-of-way.As development occurs adjacent to future trail . ' ' • alignments,careful attention is paid to acquiring the necessary trail easements and for ,/, .. providing site development input during the development review process.Trail cross-sections „---40111W- ...4...‘..-- that are integrated in Master Street Plan cross-sections will be utilized for the construction of e „ active transportation facilities that accomodate users of all ages and abilities. - 111 r `" - Beginning in 1978,the City of Fayetteville began exploring the potential for a bikeway '��� system.In the years between 1978 and 2000,a Bikeways Plan was adopted,signage was A tiF -` installed,routes were designated,grant funding was awarded,and Jim Lindsey constructed Il 'ANSPOR�TA OZ the first section of the trail,totaling 0.22 miles along Mud Creek.Since then,Fayetteville committed itself fully to the implementation of a trail network,with the formation of citizen Figure 12.X-Active Transportation Plan a 134 committees and advisory groups,dedication • _' . . - I 4. City Park t of public funds,and ongoing pursuit of S I y partnerships to realize the planning and *Trail Network ' i r_- construction of nearly 50 miles of shared- - -2_`�� �f - - use,paved trail.These trails have created - �; the foundation for a larger network that _ 1 "'t�' L. ' i ,. has prompted development along routes. (--i- t`�� - _ _ Businesses and residents alike are attracted i;''' �- ¢w as -, ,i; to the benefits of trail access,whether it be - ��« .� 1pm if ark : to reduce vehicle dependence,entice trail r� - r4. -4 *rat __ —. __ _rte traffic,for the convenience ofpatrons,or f • • �� • y • a .- .:;.�� ;ir any number of other reasons. .-- •_. Q — j ,. r '�' i --- ®'aey'd" Like many communities that have embraced 4 • '1. shared use,paved trail construction, 4. SI., s•• ,�v �.=��"F `�� � • Fayetteville has not formallyassessed -- I - Y �,, } - SI* ' ° �' , _ ` . `., hQ the benefits of a trail network to the local g2 ___. W _Mambas : y. = economy,connectivity,and resident equity, - - _ + `-' nor has it evaluated existing land uses along °"k e ,y��� _ - .:, -. •� routes.Despite a trail master plan existing �r'A ! T /' `.' in the form of the Active Transportation ! ; '--, ,_ Plan,and despite regular and comprehensive ) c ';,�..-I • ; -. reviews of the plan,this document does not ss N t aspire to guide,direct,or promote trailside Fayetteville,Arkansas development.Additionally,no concerted Figure 12.X-Parks and Trails Map or deliberate effort to encourage trailside development through zoning actions or ordinance amendments has been explored. A trailside development plan can address this gap through a three-phase approach.Firstly,stakeholders,including residents at large, businesses,and property owners will be engaged to solicit input on their vision for development along the trail system and how the City can encourage its success.Secondly,a plan can identify areas of vacant or underutilized land near trails which may be rezoned to encourage development that compliments the City's public investment.In conjunction with this,the plan can identify areas that may be adjacent to a trail but are inappropriate for development,such as floodplains or sensitive ecosystems.Lastly,the plan will evaluate existing ordinances for opportunities to promote trail-facing businesses and residences that activate the trail system.Taken in concert,these findings can be used to establish coherent and coordinated steps for City staff and officials to implement the plan. KE 135 ,n-, I 1.....! �¢ `— — Nem �..�' City of Fayetteville,AR 1� - -„- u Active Transportation Plan I r - - ��� � rteu• -'�:�- _Pr Shared-Use Paved Tratls and On-Street Bicycle Facilities �+�' H� r > ■ i ""�W. _ I pbpeaee Mardi ze.Mtp Iti\ Tot, I jt._ I I - --J� ,Th- Inc • ° a 4 1 Active Transportation Plan i IS' ",i- "—Proposed Shared-Use Paved Trait ^ r _0p �, 2 11.9-11-4 -- ��Proposed U of Campus Connections t vito� (� `i VgliPS l' 4 � roposed OnStreet Bicycle FacilityI . I i �I iii. 4,a •"f .mr6.• t"G` tP +I( Existing Trails y arr _ _ INVO i i •117._.J:.; - ,4,—'I �� Nature Tnr 1 l? /j/ Yrr c _ I `sem \ /.— N.gheanmdro..k Tree - iv t �.�.���y.. cy�'�);d�� �1-�4;"0. �'-F.(..�,;� / �' OnSbeet BaycM Fet&ty loa f�f t -�.. 11: air 7., •-•moi I 11 �`•- �I __G-y 1 -r-1-2.— SAgliller, ,... .- 1.....4, a!-W.- .,., . 11, ,. -,,,, \,.._., -, i -Mir , ._ ___..,,„ ( ---,-- a i _ - , ;--_0, ii .,r,.. _ , , \-Y----- ,...-.14,-....- -.:.-, , - , oils L i ___./ -7.... ,.r_ { — \_ri iii 1 _ I i rs Lake 15 RoxwEed Twee 9a atop _- - w *e � ra. -- .... ® OWh Reebnol TRMe Sus Stop IIt• c� 1 ii = ecMq �J Street(Wlo0 - 0 a X 1 / _/� t FavelteWe Oh Limb�,Stmt / y _vMile .F..T[ L 7 '—'-''--1:---- _-' , i--,� 1 , al:Er\-- Figure 12.X-Active Transportation Plan Draft Map IJ® 136 • Master Street Plan Map and Street Cross-sections Landowners,developers,and city staff should use the Master Street Plan Map to determine the classification of existing roadways and to account for unbuilt alignments of future street connections.Once the street classification is determined,right-of-way widths can be found on the corresponding Street Cross Section.The street sections are shown with the typical minimum right of way.However,developers and property owners should work with staff to discuss any additional right of way elements that may require wider rights of way.Each cross section lists these additions,including:on-street parking,frontage zones where buildings abut right of way,additional width for fire aerial apparatus access,and other features.In instances where lesser right-of-way dedication is appropriate,administrative approval from the ,. Planning and Zoning Administrator shall be required. Low Impact Development:The City encourages the use of Low Impact Development(LID)stormwater management strategies in street design and construction.Each of the street cross sections can be modified to incorporate LID best practices for stormwater management. Streets that include landscape strips or bump-outs are ideal for implementing LID strategies such as swales or infiltration basins.Developers and engineers should work closely with the City's Development Services Department to plan and design appropriate stormwater management strategies and structures. Public Transportation:The construction of bus benches,shelters and transit pull-offs is a critical part of a successful transportation system. = However,the need for such facilities is ultimately determined by the transit providers.The City should consult with the transit providers prior to the design of any new street,or major street improvement project to determine if the need for new facilities exist. MO •� Streets in the University of Arkansas Campus:The City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas will partner together in the planning,design,construction or re-construction of streets located within the University of Arkansas area.Streets identified on the Master Street Plan located within the University of Arkansas boundary are intended to be reviewed concurrently with the City and University staff prior to planning and design.These streets should be consistent with the policies of the Master Street Plan but may require alternative cross- sections due to physical constraints unique to the University. International Fire Code:This document recognizes that street cross-sections may be modified to meet the current International Fire Code (IFC)requirements,as adopted by the State of Arkansas. Utilities: In an effort to minimize the impacts of easements and associated grading,the City encourages utilities to be located within the public right-of-way wherever possible.Further,public utilities,i.e.water and sanitary sewer,should be placed under sidewalks rather than streets to avoid maintenance costs,and located at a sufficient depth to avoid conflicts with street tree plantings.Where underground utilities are installed inside or outside of the City's rights-of-way,the City encourages ground-level utility equipment to be screened from public view where feasible or coherently organized to minimize visual impact on the streetscape. A N _ �-- - - - - _ 131 . _. - I : City Plan 2040 ,. i—r--- trAlig;gill.L. Master Street Plan (Draft) -,-,----4 I ........... —or,r..t..... 1 l'. .. , , ....... ,.. . 1 : , \, ; L.cun , —1 " r"..—"JP: '`........ i . .. ! i .-.. : _,---- ---, _1 , . i• ri .. _I,....... r.--1 Hd4 i IL •....__. ,, 3 • -... 1 3 '' '.4----1----: \L\ 1 , . • I ...... i , l' . i----- . ......... .,..... . • i2)) 124 , r , . ..= • "Mal / 8 MIN : : ........... a. ' . • -.. il likil: — I I i ! i CO i I ' ...—.... . • ..... -•!..., 1-3 - _ .. ., -- i t----- _ . /' \ ‘.2),. ,tk - _. __ _ rn 7 • --- - Potential Typology ."..i.",.. i ..... / .........Connection•Ragional Unk .r.,/ -.,..., Connection-Neighborhood LMk -,•—•Connection•Residential Unk -Urban Center —Raglans!Link i High Activity .'"•,,.. .. -.Ragional U. Neighborhood unk j.... —Instlertionat Matter Plan —Freeway/Expressway . . ,•0 OS 1 AL I— i illantalliMlles =Planning Are ' '-. Oa 801111dtlY 1 . , .-.........................-.........-. Figure 12.X-Master Street Plan Draft Map • _ 138 • Residential Link Street-Design Service Volume:<4,000 vpd-Desired Operating Speed: 15-20 mph The residential link street section is intended to be the standard in neighborhoods and low-volume areas outside of the downtown.Generous greenspace and a comfortable sidewalk are coupled with on-street parking to create a safe environment for all modes and abilities.Most residential link streets will have a design service volume<1,500 vpd allowing bicycles to intermix with traffic safely.On-street protected bike facilities should be considered where traffic volumes or speeds exceed thresholds for all ages and abilities.Residential links should be designed and proposed meeting block length,connectivity,and access management codes.Storm drainage infrastructure should have adequate depth or be offset to avoid conflicts with street tree plantings.Low-Impact Development(LID)features in green spaces are recommended best practices to incorporate alternative stormwater treatment techniques. f,, Fc-,...., As determined by city staff,additional roadway elements may be required and include: An additional 2-ft frontage zone where buildings �� ;,(QF nr abut right-of-way.This may be accomplished with WT K' ''-r , %)0~4.2.~.01,4%V=1": riorr.Urw-Ar�x'r ,,J setbacks or additional right-of-way. _ Streets planned with on street bike facilities as t WARM t0' �' lFU!TI N SQ•NC fIhM11WE l�K MM1L LANE —ORM LAM Nin NN[ 90E•�ly "G CM ,> shown on the Active Transportation Plan,shall .� •••• accommodate one 10-ft sidewalk,as determined a till/ by the Toning and Development Administrator,by a increasing right-of-way by 4-ft. Alternative design elements may be approved Nur 7 administratively and include: - • Removal of the 7-ft parking lane will be considered IFwhen adequate parking is provided elsewhere. illiliik.-. ; 1,,,,, „,, ! Minimum Right-of-Way:45-feet Maximum Right-of-Way:52-feet Figure 12.X-Residential Link Street �4 N. 139 • Alternative Residential Link Street-Desired Operating Speed: 15-20 mph The alternative residential link street section shall require Planning Commission approval The alternative residential link street section is intended to reduce the footprint of the in areas other than the Hilltop-Hillside residential street scape while keeping a safe environment for all modes and abilities. Overlay District and the following should be • Storm drainage infrastructure should have adequate depth or be offset to avoid conflicts taken into consideration: with street tree plantings.Low-Impact Development(LID)features in green spaces are • Block lengths less than or equal to 400- ' . recommended best practices to incorporate alternative stormwater treatment techniques. feet r, • Environmental reasons where no other 'iT section is applicable • Historic streets for small infill projects I`' •i Streets with less than 250 vehicles per day • Alley-loaded development , �� .,./717.!. QF As determined by city staff,additional,/w Y ; �== a roadway elements may be required and w include: COCVALK E LANE —'. �^VE^•t CAVE • An additional 2-ft frontage zone where = r`'`' ' buildings abut right-of-way.This may be CUM CURS c. '_ °•°" accomplished with setbacks or additional •�= right-of-way. 4a11 " • Streets planned with on street bike facilities as shown on the Active Transportation Plan,shall accommodate p o'w one 10 ft sidewalk by increasing right-of- way ight ofway by 4-ft. r Alternative design elements may be approved 17.5' °""`"`" 1,111,111 � administratively and include: �Wf I 1--1 • Removal of the 7-ft parking lane will � be considered when adequate parking is provided elsewhere. igir Minimum Right-of-Way:33-feet Maximum Right-of-Way:40-feet .....t Figure 12.X-Alternative Residentiol Link Street /p" \�_�r 140 • 1 1 powntown/Urban Street As determined by city staff,additional Design Service Volume:Varies-Desired Operating Speed:20-25 mph roadway elements may be required and include: The downtown(or urban)street section is intended to be used in Fayetteville's downtown • An additional 2-ft frontage zone where core.Wide sidewalks,with separated furnishing/tree zones will be the standard.On-street buildings abut right-of-way.This may parking is desirable and low-speed design should be encouraged to allow for maximum be accomplished with setbacks or pedestrian comfort and utilization.Sight-lines at intersections should be protected from additional right-of-way. obstructions.Ideally,bicycles should be able to intermix with traffic safely and on-street • If known or planned transit route, protected bike facilities considered where traffic volumes or speeds exceed thresholds increase lane widths to I l-ft. for all ages and abilities.Storm drainage infrastructure should have adequate depth or be offset to avoid conflicts with street tree plantings.Low-Impact Development(LID)features Alternative design elements may be in green spaces are recommended best practices to incorporate alternative stormwater approved administratively and include: treatment techniques. • Removal of the 8-ft parking lane or lanes to reduce the right-of-way by " 16-ft will be considered when adequate parking is provided elsewhere. 12.43 I41 I • Sidewalk widths may be reduced to a minimum of 6-ft. p. - �� . ;.;, Furniture zone may be reduced to 3-ft .-!OF ^ ��; when determined appropriate bythe q _„ �+ j ��M I u Zoning and Develoment Administrator. m •"� ," "'� � • Where bump-outs are used,the 4-ft furniture zone may be removed.Street trees may be planted behind sidewalk V to meet requirements. • Angled parking may be used with an _r ow, additional amount of right-of-way ` as determined by the Zoning and :IDevelopment Administrator.(79-ft -. I. Right-of-Way) ice,. dit section(left)with parking on 1111 Ct both sides. Minimum Right-of-Way:39-feet Maximum Right-of-Way:63-feet Figure 12.X-Downtown/Urban Street effi\ v4=3, 141 , Neighborhood Link Street As determined by city staff,additional Design Service Volume:<6,000 vpd-Desired Operating Speed:25-30 mph roadway elements may be required and include: Neighborhood link streets are intended to bridge between local,low-volume streets and • An additional 2-ft frontage zone larger regional arterial streets.Larger greenspaces are provided for pedestrian comfort and where buildings abut right-of-way. cyclists are intended to be outside the roadway in a separated facility due to vehicular speeds This may be accomplished with and volumes.Special design consideration for cyclists at intersections is necessary to ensure setbacks or additional right-of-way. intuitive safety for both drivers and riders of all skill levels.These streets may have on-street • Streets planned with on street parking,center turn lanes,or wider lanes accommodating truck or transit vehicles where bike facilities as shown on the appropriate.Low-Impact Development(LID)features in green spaces are recommended best Active Transportation Plan,shall practices to incorporate alternative stormwater treatment techniques. accommodate one 10-ft sidewalk. as determined by the Zoning and Development Administrator,by r, reducing greenspaces. • Where a dedicated turn-lane is �,, '' warranted,3-ft additional pavement { t� T sr may be necessary based on = r-sr '-'.. ......... ..........i.,'... •• ..T intersection design. •� '°'° REMIVIE Alternative design elements may be _ . CO _ 0101approved administratively and include: V 4 • Removal of the 8-ft parking lane — will be considered when adequate parking is provided elsewhere. (I ii • Sidewalk widths may be reduced to a lminimum of 6-ft. Ij 1 ':�� mj • Greenspace or parking may be j�j �� � modified intermittently to provide P � II�� parking/delivery/loading lane or to provide an aerial fire apparatus Ilraccess area. Minimum Right-of-Way:55-feet Maximum Right-of-Way:67-feet Figure 12.X-Neighborhood Link Street a:EN ._ ' 1-11, 142 Regional Link Street Low-Impact Development(LID) Design Service volume: 17,600 vpd-Desired Operating Speed:30-40 mph features in green spaces are recommended best practices to Regional link streets carry local and regional multimodal traffic,serving low-density incorporate alternative stormwater residential areas and open spaces.Similar to neighborhood link streets,larger greenspaces treatment techniques. are provided for pedestrian comfort and cyclists are intended to be outside the roadway in a separated facility due to vehicular speeds and volumes.Special design consideration for As determined by city staff,additional cyclists at intersections is necessary to ensure intuitive safety for both drivers and riders of all roadway elements may be required and skill levels.A center lane is reserved for use as a planted median,alternating left-turn lane,or include: continuous two-way-left-turn-lane.Storm drainage infrastructure should have adequate depth • An additional 2-ft frontage zone or offset to avoid conflicts with street tree plantings. where buildings abut right-of-way. This may be accomplished with setbacks or additional right-of-way. f • Where necessary and warranted,the center planting strip may be used for r ��.,; :13 t dedicated turn lanes. =tOF '..7=.% =" �..i? • Streets planned with on street = ""'� r.; —� " �� r T bike facilities as shown on the 1 II MIN .� 1. LA, (PH LOC «M .ua Active Transportation Plan,shall —M ' r,.� ,,.c ■� ,oa5 �. s.a. 1 OM �� , accommodate 10-ft sidewalks by reducing greenspaces. 1111 <11 4Alternative design elements may be + approved administratively and include: I�� • Greenspace or parking may be NI , r. I . modified intermittently to provide II,I,..,, [iv I I parking/delivery/loading lane or f....-, to provide an aerial fire apparatus �m'i access area. kll 114 ll. _,, C' I Minimum Right-of-Way:92-feet Figure 12.X-Regional Link StreetLi IN . 1r 143 \IAV Regional High-Activity Link Street Low-Impact Development(LID) Design Service volume: 17,600 vpd-Desired Operating Speed:30-40 mph features in green spaces are recommended best practices to Regional high activity link streets carry local and regional multimodal traffic through a incorporate alternative stormwater variety of densities and land uses.This street may have on-street parking on one or both sides treatment techniques. based on adjacent land-use and will have large sidewalks used also as multi-use shared paths for cyclists.Special design consideration for cyclists at intersections is necessary to ensure As determined by city staff,additional intuitive safety for both drivers and riders of all skill levels.A center lane is reserved for use roadway elements may be required and as a planted median,alternating left-turn lane,or continuous two-way-left-turn-lane.Storm include: drainage infrastructure should have adequate depth or be offset to avoid conflicts with street • An additional 2-ft frontage zone tree plantings. where buildings abut right-of-way. This may be accomplished with C651:0) n 1*-= setbacks or additional right-of-way. • Where necessary and warranted,the s center planting strip may be used for dedicatedd turn lanes. Co... -+i _ _ _ -t®' ►� !� Alternative design elements may be 1...�- _ e .-...a.-.. "^ t. Y -r 'ma :1 L L� ��o L ._ L.-J approved administratively and include: II III= — ;,g„� Ir•C """ J� ' • Greenspace or parking may be.« '"' -� modified intermittently to provide CZ • parking/delivery/loading lane or 1111.1. 7 I 4 EIlihri toprovide an aerial fire apparatus � access area. '1�1;!Ili, (.�1 Streets designated as parkways on the :�IMaster Street Plan Map could have larger rights of-way to incorporate wider 1,_�� medians and green spaces. Iii. �1 lir r (NOTE:A corresponding adjustment 4 to zoning code could be required to iIr facilitate a 50-foot setback along streets designated as parkways.) Minimum Right-of-Way:96-feet Figure 12.X-Regional High-Activity Link Street Al 0\ IIIIII 144 - Alleys Design Service Volume:<200 Alleys arc used in conjunction with streets to provide rear access to properties,garages and off-street parking.Driveways connected to alleys should have sufficient depth to allow vehicles to park and not encroach into the alley right-of-way.When alleys intersect streets a commercial • driveway shall be used. Y7 µv i . RESIDENTIAL REAR ALLEY (ONE WAY) GREENFire Department: a, - REE,•N SPACE Alleys used in conjunction with single- and two-family units are not intended to serve as fire access roads when WI iwa/a//a// /#Ai structures also adjoin a private or public = NO,un ATY 10' street that provides the required fire •'imm IN 4' LANE ,. access.Fire access roads shall extend .= GREENSP ACE CONC•ETE 20. CONC•ETE to within 150 feet of all portions of the R.O.W. W facility and all portions of the exterior . walls of the first story of the building ed route RESIDENTIAL REAR ALLEY COMMERCIAL REAR ALLEY • as umndtheebe exteriand or robuilding around the exterior of the building or (TWO WAY) (TWO WAY) facility.When an alley serves as the sole 2 2' z 2' access,or when more than one access REEN- GREEN- GREEN- GREEN- iS required per the Arkansas Fire code, SPACE SPACE' SPACE SPACE' q alleys shall be designed in accordance mi//aiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiaiiAi Mr/ 4,:, iiaiiiaiiiiiiiiiSC with the Arkansas Fire Code to support �. apparatus access,with approval from the LANE LANE I LANE LANE I Fire Marshall. CONCRETE 20' CONC-ETE CONC•ETE 24' CONC•ETE R.O.W. R.O.W. Figure 12.X-Alleys ' l 145 V CITY OF \ FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO Way ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Jonathan Curt, Senior Planner Josh Bocaccio, Staff Engineer MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019 (Updated with Planning Commission Results) SUBJECT: ADM 19-6651: Administrative Item (MASTER STREET PLAN 2040): Submitted by the CITY PLANNING DIVISION to amend and update the Master Street Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding ADM 19-6651 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward ADM 19-6651 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, amending the proposed Master Street Plan as described in the attached memo." JUNE 10, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: At the June 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, this item was tabled by the Commission to allow staff time to amend the draft Master Street Plan to incorporate Commissioner comments regarding, but not limited to, lane widths, an attached sidewalk street section, and a parkway street section. Staff subsequently submitted the item to the City Council's Transportation Committee where direction was given to staff to coordinate with the Commission to incorporate Commission comments where appropriate and feasible. A draft reflecting these changes is attached. BACKGROUND: The current Master Street Plan was adopted by Resolution 146-11 on August 16, 2011. While its predecessor adopted with City Plan 2025 focused on standardizing the street cross sections, classifying streets in recently-annexed areas, and increasing the number of Collector Streets, the update with 2030 focused on classifying streets in Fayetteville's extra-jurisdictional Planning Area, addressing alley design and use, contextualizing Collector Streets, and reducing right-of-way requirements for both Minor and Major Arterials. More recently, in February of 2016, the City of Fayetteville contracted with Nelson/Nygaard as a transportation planning consultant to develop a transportation master plan, entertainment district parking plan, and mobility report. Among the goals and objectives recommended in their 2018 Fayetteville Mobility Plan, Nelson/Nygaard emphasized the importance of contextual and complimentary street design that supports surrounding land uses, maintains reliable connections, and increases transportation options. Planning Commission August 26,2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 1 of 28 DISCUSSION: The principle goal of this update is to incorporate the findings and recommendations of Nelson- Nygaard and their Fayetteville Mobility Plan in to the City's Master Street Plan. This involved parallel efforts, the first of which was a reclassification of street types or typologies. While most cities nationwide, including Fayetteville currently, utilize the Federal Highway Administration's "functional classification" system of Arterial, Collector, and Local streets, these categories provide limited information about the street, how it relates to surrounding land uses, and how it functions from block to block. These designations and associated functional classifications under the current Master Street Plan are: • Regional Link—High Activity (Arterial Street) • Regional Link (Principal Arterial Street) • Neighborhood Link(Minor Arterial/Collector Street) • Residential Link (Local and Residential Streets) • Urban Center(sections adopted under the 2005 Downtown Master Plan) As it is not sufficient to simply rename these street classifications, the second major update to the plan was a full review of all streets classified within the Master Street Plan, whether within or without the Fayetteville's city limits. This was based on the two-fold understanding that some existing and future streets are "over-classified" and a build-out under the current Master Street Plan would not serve the mobility needs of residents city wide or compliment the needs of residents and property owners along these corridors. Accordingly, every street was vetted and many were re-classified. Examples of the most prominent changes include: • Extension of the Urban Center street sections southward to Martin Luther King Boulevard • Reclassification of the following from Major or Minor Arterials to Neighborhood Links: o North Street/Mission Boulevard from College Avenue/71B to Crossover Road/Highway 265 o Gregg Avenue from North Street to Van Asche Drive o Deane Street and Mount Comfort Road from Garland Avenue/Highway 112 to Salem Road o Broyles Avenue o Double Springs Road o Deane Solomon Road o Persimmon Street o Oakland Zion Road • Reclassification of the following from Collector Streets as Residential Links: o Stearns Street from Vantage Drive to Crossover Road/Highway 265 o Sunbridge/Reynolds/Strange from Gregg Avenue to Garland Avenue/Highway 112 o Raven Lane between Quail and Topaz Drives The final major update to the Master Street Plan includes further advancing the ability to create context sensitive streets through a flexibility of design. Each street includes an associated minimum standard based on classification, from which it may vary depending on surrounding land uses, proposed development, or relevant long-range plans. Among these options are the ability to increase lane widths to accommodate transit, removal of on-street parking facilities, reduction or increase in sidewalk widths, and modification of greenspace or parking for Fire Code compliance. Other notable additions to this flexibility include the potential for a required Planning Commission G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2019\Development Services\19-6651 ADM August 26,2019 Master Street Plan Amendment\03 Planning Commission\08-26-2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 2 of 28 frontage and furniture zones. In urban settings, where buildings abut the right-of-way in particular the addition of a frontage zone or furniture zone creates a buffer for pedestrians from opening doors and accommodate street elements such as benches without compromising the mobility of pedestrians. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding ADM 19-6651 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: August 26, 2019 O Tabled ® Forwarded O Denied Motion: Brown, recommending approval Second: Sharp Vote: 7-0-0 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: Major changes to the plan would require dedicated staff time. A full plan revision would require contracting with an outside consultant. Attachments: • City Plan 12.2: Master Transportation Plan Draft— Presented at June 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting • City Plan 12.2: Master Transportation Plan Revised Drafts o Redlines o Clean The draft Master Transportation Plan, Master Street Plan Map, and associated street sections are available for review on the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas website at http://www.fayetteville- ar.qov/1216/City-Plan-2040. Planning Commission G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2019\Development Services\1 9-6651 ADM August 26,2019 Master Street Plan Amendment\03 Planning Commission\08-26-2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 3 of 28 \ N N 1 .I N M .i•r r , I Q vs a) 4— 0 c ) ili,_? 'C4 0 L ' ' N i ., :eco j • as. sMI as c` E C _ o 4- 0aC r_ OcA = c ,_ od I E kl2 15 I I.4 lik : 13 CO _ ^ v -o a 0 L0 ,.= + i 11111 .w -"Nia - Milt a) ,,,, (3) 03 pl. .... ) .16..._.ps_ - 1 2 e — I 115, to .1._w ru,_-, cz I 13 -..1 i r' Cll. tin .- y V, L I 4 •.1 Q Q b1) L C > � U C s- u, -v L-, . -j "�• V1 DA y y as 0 E U dZ I i ^ C 13 i .� — .L-. c,.., S...:.. a Cn td .� O a) O A J C O C w U F= • _ __ L. y L C a) O tears a: - F a U • 6') 2 ,-oo a) 'o • c� to of C c 0 C • -C-Ei F^ 't7-, a >, c c o _ o 3 '> c - 0 i cd •E L U 0 0 •.� C .) 0. En •I. = o •- c� Q r CO 3 CZ>, a °a bA . >, CO I II y a3 «f U N -o Q.a O V C a) ° a) - v, .- C >, ca r a) -o U y 10 O N j� Y y i C C Cz. w p cr A a) __, f.-- C c U c o o Q c Q 3 v, n •• Eej> aci p bA b0 by— vi o L o a' C ct3 o s_ E a a:+ s c c c •_ as o a) a) a) E a) ..c a) .•• v, s v .g a) °� • , .gyp, = {a .> •°�„°.o c 3 E °' = y Y = 3 o s v co c v, w ckr) i — "Cl v, i' Cl. U O cd E ; 4 4L y V) �+. C •° 1 U C�� Cd O to CA •U U i0... 4-+ ° bA >1 L Cl) "3 O U L"cc: (� L ° +••' C Q) CCS .n Q) U (CS 1 Q) U .0 ° U Cn ° c� C 'C > CIS V,c o s cc E - to p ° Q 0 C ° coc•ct L ° v� L Ln •E V > y�.i E Q) 'C 3 U ai W t° 4. a as •O cd o = i K .c Q,3 •E 2 °° �, O In as Cn �, > 3 ¢ C om. ° .`. a Cn U D., ,., 2 L .D 'C E Q) Q) o a, 3 :ti ° ° E c°a L c°n ° c Y s wC3 3 3Y0 c. 4' c E OQ O. o �. L ., Cr' O C `1 4141.) L 0 UL N E C L) C> E + .0 �- C...+ (� L Y c L • U Q) �. E ° O 3 U CC •^ CC c.°. O O CCn C a) •—' .L.. ... C �" 'C C s 4- -E C E cn - 3 v) .o •- 0 3 •o L ea 0 4-. o — .n «s 3 C a) C E - 0• s N 3 -C 0 is C 0 U U c) Q) >, n1 L ° ,� L g" ° 3 ci) us - a o 3 i vs L a"i a � E E ` s 1- -' e� s 0 c o -C ° v -o 444, csci C CCS .- . .n In % a] bi) Q• v, ..c C ° 3 Ct Vj O E O Cl_U rn to' .-+ .-, y H > 0 .n C C tCA U a) C cu •� •Q. C -d ° Q) C 4. i � �'� L •> s cel O C - a Q- E o -o w 0 .� o o ¢ o o ',, = a) .0 " o ° 0 -t 5 •> a) t Cs 1n 4 , E C • L CO U . ct s. m.) "C y •'° t:A a) •N SZ L C U •V � t •3 3 3 as p Ms Y O c n �? c° ° o � Y . cri C = o c„ 3 8 E i 0 i -o ._ E C a) a)) ,' 0. ' o s g o c.` E •.� n o c Y s � °o ?� ar s L bA N ��.. c Q) ...+ �., .0 s -C 1'I' E flan 0 '.-. In '.. .0 r. C1. U N t 0 a) a) - U Q)cn N , 1 a) '0 L c c Ln 30 c .0 ° Ci A 3 3 p. M L o C '" .--� ° a) -C Q. 4. U L 4..',.., O Cn �; t � a..) C o a) Ca•- C C..., E -C o .-' ° O 0 �••. L O .E N O -. L V, ° Cd • 0. Cn C C "O Cn _ L _ .0 C d) v, 4] Q) Y cA C •v, y Lir U •C 0 O .° ° " c.) 0 C ;Q ° ° E E •U o o o i C,Y 0 E U .0 0 0 5 X s "� .-+ V C-• p a) -O OL 4- CC oEn .0 O O C (i, C N N O cn Cl) �'cz CA 3 •C Q) V, Y • �' E vi C c a) O U 0 '- ch C Y y V V C' v) CO .� C 0 •— 7 O i C .0 s- Q) V Oo -0 a) v, y C L Cl O 0 C) y j 4 O Lt C U o 'C Cn , ° .... E ° Yai et o Cn a] C .N s -4.1 Cn a) .o O o •C •� C L 4- o C L N �' o. ,". Q) Ci. C U -•• .--. .0 >> .- LO }' o • '. mi OU UU-. .L.. C •CCI 0 N t j N `� L _ c �' 3 E c i E s o f C.-. N s L V "'' •Q' >, Cl) L CC i- . - U) Y .� Cl) ° 13 .>'+ N Z '3 CCS a) {I-. L cJ L-' .-r O "1 L C 4) E C ti ..' U O 3 U y .0 O • Cn 0 'U �; i. ° s a) a) "0 a .o - Use •c F s a) °• 0 d C ° s L s a) C' E L 3 o t E a, w Y F-, o C4 ° C �A O a) -• > O CAN C a) . = Q °o C 3 C L a3) L -o ^c0i o L .n-0c0E cscS a) C o oA o b c = ;+ w a) ° 3 -a '7, U aAm a) ° E s C� •E a) O O U ea 70 C ? c°i ti >, a) s .- >, N • '° a L N .n N A c C c 4. 7 0 on ° , '3 ` E C to 0 c a) O U •E O 3 ° I- v ° ) 3 8 c o •E , c co) s C ; ° o = -o c N ,.. L L ,-. C� CCS CC ..0 o c� aS + bA C CCS C ° Y bA C C+cu °-• o ° _ h C .0 v) _, i v) C „, t1 'C y. U N U L U T ,a Cl 4- a) 0 Q) 2aA— Cn aC i C 't C v, > "O A C Q. O U ++ O a) 'E r.i C bA bA C .- Cn 7 O O L C c) a) Q C 00 .' O .0 Q- 43 p c sU. 'C ▪ O "-, L L •— •U O •U O �] CJG O COi, C�Q. 'UC Cl) f.1r r� Cl) 0. Cl) cc?) — Z C.U. U ,u•W SO I Y I I Op 211I,p I n Planning Commission August 26,2019 s s' Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 44,IFT ' `+, Page 5 of 28 cr F: Qi cR O a3' i = E 11-..."-J72/- o a .., f Q tir -... ---.. .. 1 1 C N i - ?j ( •• ---'.\ - -. in : . . I,, ..- i _ , c -7-- (, , 1 - ..-- . i' ' G4 i - • 1 , k r r I t 1 __ \ II \ ! pi •-•, , ik ,qiNg il, ! low)1111.111 , ' ........ ir __, . _. ,....„.,_ ,4E1.:. {---) i „, 1 ( ...,... Ili ,4 .1,.... ,. i .. .. 1 , .,..4...1 _ .,:.,..<._ 1111 NIP— Ar )L .,_ , i , 5 " O _J - ' .. _... 03 e __ iE 13. ID- •7 += 1L T. sn ' Z e ..% _ u „ . m . L .__. ...•••• 1 L 222 • O O O 5 CJ -. W . Qd L1 n9C " i ou ` Vg nm w ■— N03 -' .c c 2 a^ m a.§,Al e m e - c.,., Planning Commission ' SO101 a Bulging August 26,2019 Cti ^ Agenda Item 5 i. 19-6651 MSP 2040 Pae6of28 k.; 9 a) sr al .0 >, ate) s a) NO T1 b ti C C cC •c ° y a) C C U C cC 'p N cC C sr a) O U O 4] = N a) N N i ,N. 10 O O •— N C Oa. ti s "o a N " LCC 0 C a) a) t C a. aa)) • - O C a) 3 � .� at E' • a) c •— S N a) ,. ami as O o Z.E c N o ° o >, =�cat iag L In 0▪ 0 c5 a) 2 as c ea E C . '"i, .�Tu cnai ;.g ,�' "`„ 5 as as v' 'L at C s� = > > c 0 Rs b4 0 3 I° • E v' cC 0 o H o a. C C o o _ U a) ,-,t". en s_ c+. Fr C 'o 0 (] 3 U cu 1 ) a) cb El 0• w .s".. bA U 0 N , •� 6 -O < 0 cC a) C a) U > N 'U V b cn .-. as cC >sz,, i" 3 'CS C]. a) a) bA b0 to CCI .r Q — •. m N C y. C3 .C •a �O , z_ — as .C .L ,7, >,(+4, = a) c4-. as O I— 0 •3 C ca 1 O o '— cC 4-+ "0 C a) a) 0 tS 0 !n Q N a) a)as c ,x a X 3 ° Ti 0 2 N •E •--, . _ > C >, 4 E ° E cd, E �, -o a U O .c C E a) Cl) > L o `� o `� ,-_ .a.' o > a as o a) c cC = 2 0 030 -a � � E E aa)) a) a) aCi = Q 3 to .E 3 ° O a — -Cs cC " -o ° C a) c.> cC .,.. >, O C Cl) cb U - o CA O U- fl y E a,re O ti) 3 CD ct .0 •0 U E C 0- a. u) V ® �� C y > 0 U s� "Z3• C O O bA1.\ A� a � � " EE %II i W A ® r 0 li a) a) > > c t a til O +-. Vel �• OU � � Y �see, o 'OC cn a) b0 crn I s -II 0 "' 1') .... 'DO..2 •-1-• +-' lib 4 •. 1= ;) "C7 'Y3 0 , C :1:1 s- .— jell, `4, spil 1160. i i um LE Huh0 1.e aCC .3 O C U L CL :ai% C > _ 0 O 8 IA 'U •4-• — y — 'O 0 y 0 o .- of n 'O •aa C � a. U a) O L. -'Oto L o '�- C .0 y 'C U •— — y 0..) i sn SG En Cl C4 C) F- b4P. 1E -o -o �s °. Q PlanningCommission ?' `'✓r VO'3' I a 2ui.pin� A ust26,2U,9 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 1.'"v,' Page 7 of 28 cj ca c >, a -Co -0 ..0 >1 CI `Z `o N -a O C.4– >., dI mto � o `= a) a) m -'v ai > a). = 3 o w •3 C.F. o mw ' ooo.b .= o C n ovo — > -0 c -o to i rb =L aoa oCI omco abn a) A N ✓ v, cn c L - E ai E amb0 'yr C " d O ' L "O s- i O LL = .L . L O � OD O L Q c a) y CS .7 L N ti_ >, CCS 4' -c E ° a.) s E > +2 .� L cd cCS .c (z >l a) L cCiboE O .... •E U E ` o — c zsas a) o a s E 13 ti, o o Q .o c cc 5 c�0 al °- = 3 `4°, '� 'No a C c ami c a) C •0 L LO C to .- '- O' 3 O N E O O ' C g cu C E ,0 c A ° •b E O a) i - E i N bA' () a) act E E . 'C .D 3 ccn a) el > y 9, as = cd c c 'u ,6. y z +L-, ca 'o p 0 O >, °-' a`oi -O O c -0 c 3 3 E = c c i- ). 3 a) .� a 6 4) cl .ti c s > L c� vii -a .c -a b '° •ti -a a6 3 � CU LI-. i o O 3 3 -a-) v) Eu- 3a >> w4zn 'c, < cQ CA CC c) 4., Ct. Q 2 .F. • • Q Q cd • • • • • 1 c ' L r-, O a.., o 4..," E E v `' to -' cn Z O ,L., -0 c `" 8 O 0 a) -O° O O fr)f .Oki, k CA a) CZ pi c ° C+-. L a 3 a 6 u ' >,s c,, -a a) _cyj " ' Li. a) o c s- 'ig 1 iliCIIAIIIIIIIk ... wow lii Ir 3 c - — Com,, 1 fl 'i ': 8 > Wir ik!' 1111 lk � (4! eV IIUIJII = tI c .c S a) y CC 4. W� =' 0I ; � � 1111)� `41) .) 4) d 3 E .c _.; 111k. , a y .�*iii Csz, .0 Cbin ia �� v , t. • cn sUfU •fl ami .-� = O U i Hc °) •ai R. -c ° E a) L _ - c co cc >�c. �O a) -- s ny. C O y-' cd •= A`, •C 3 '0) o • .Y CC a) 'v .M c o alc c o 3 • o v � atAO H a.• a.o C. s a i a i od 2 u i p i n o Planning Commission August 26.2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 8 of 28 ct 0 j, C .a.; O �M Q -o c 3 Rs c >, E a) -oci) al ami L ��- •_i N 3 air! y C - Cr i ° O a) 75 C a) 4.'.+ -O Y O C 7 •= O C Q- C LS G >> a a 0. v' ca `` - E o .' en moa) •E -a aEi > eC :� ami E �t °' ° ca • cn OV 3 CI) C >,'O M. �'' N L 'd U) a.- >, N U N U -O 73 M O O .� Q LI cd y- s_ ' i cat cC M V C C 4--, 'O a. •'a c.,-, •- cCC ct3 4. 'rn ci ate) E O 'v O cd _ i -o • E to-O -p a) o O ° o .4 3 v 3-- °' c a°i =x v) 'as as E o °° .) c " 11) ali 03 > ami on Ta = a •° i -c L E o i 4. E •� s- -° v, > -p O 43 c 3 E c c.E r= o cvA G.) ca 6-0 c a) - a) U O -a > O U i >, 0) C a) E sL U •'c CUi '0 _, C U -0 IS = d 3 E-, rV) rn .o Q as at Ca 2 3 3 E .E 0 o ce 3 a.. v) E t7 E n ° clu N CC U O Q LO .0 • • • Q cd • • • -b ` 11>>: 'O � Cb � nom" ° Lcn t. a) 3i ° ..0 cC ..0 a)73 sUE Y OG �� a7 rn a) rn.7:; 4.); _2 .,4r.: -,E; 7, :, A.111111LI=APHIAIL U a) C p, >, C iL+ RMg/ C 7 C� c -tel` „. \L :•a) a) - . c� t �� �3L N v' ba) M cd bo a 3 c I.J � � (=> - 1 L MEL > 0 o6n73 lap " +ca. 73 C ilk '''h a) s. a) 1-. 1-_-: co all 1 1 a) 'o c ami ■ —�� :--c1 .O C c'S 'C3 imE o .E rn O rn '3 W�. UL i2>cCNOCs.O E, ! 9gz6 a) (13 '% 6; AI r/] U v7 O L3 O \ m �. ,� cC — ;til 1 U U U L ,:S- c : c a.�° I� 1:$ 0 o c v ::, sO O ° Cl) .,:oz aicrn4 'on tki L E v,' bo L ti ° y tto o.- '; •� ?90 YC. zQ z � � cq .= a. cs ..s_ . so ^' k Bui_ping PtanningCommission �7 V _ August26,2019 • • Agenda Item 5 . 19-6651 MSP 2040 +'i i. 1 - Page 9 of 28 1- -0 -p M p m3 - � c as U L- o ' " ^fl v > O ai .+ �OC N v' .Y J, E .,o Ocyl O N p 3 cd LaJ v7 'bC U 'C L X L C C al a 0 p- crj nO CZ 10 t o o N CO c c a U L (,) C O •71-; amU 'C � 'C as N Lct a E c• = C CU ? . CNfl. N bA 7.EOa > CC py . O GC -, .CN • •E ✓., '-0 -, "c) -0 cc "C cri a U • U F-' E Qa X y O.73 N CI •U -0 N E U E.! L b t.,.. E V > .p C C 'C .0 48-p .� a <t 3 F-. v) 3 c� .E Q cz L 1- 2 C7 E a a c� cn cc U a. Q 2 .0 • • • Q a cc • L S O Q. C L w0 N O U 4° L a q G. O C U RI l C a) cc •a 4 a.) -MLI c L p v bp -o ct 3 3- 0 '•,n cn G to a bn c>a x as a U bb.0 v' •r--+ C "C cl 'C3 ,21 C • - .L 61 C 1 U 'O a c� cin c!! ci � pc� pCi ((4Ii a 1'" U w c� C lr ic�3�� 1T0T1 ,II # .0 "td U >,:d U \ .•, "C7 •0 �w E r�i., Tt O C Cl) v• cd7 'b 3 I\ a mmii (''—rj—T--k,' dat411.-- 1\ �;IW u:iiit.t >, a� . 0 II'1\ b ,=> Ca„ C cas > cc cA w FA ami c cz cC U E U _ a. U U MI U L C eILH C cc act U O C C .. N c c O 4) U O p b s CAI" --> t!" UMWU C •— E w cE Q V) cz > •,.-1 N cd b v7 C , m 3 ' «S N O d bA O 0) L cC C w bOA• U -- c O ai Ca a4 L ct U u) OU O s a i a i o d &u i p i n D Planning Commission August 26,2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 10 of 28 L 't 3 >,s w iii O w) 01 0 e N cC 3 "0 U b -� N r. C7 _O -O G ..0 'TS W N V U > O cU) -O -L N 0 3 0 G >� G O N «i at Cr bA� O G L ._ 4y+ G C].. G G C1. N N G 0- >i › E O co •.-: O N ,J. L � O cC U N cn cU) 'C L h _ fl. = N CCF 'cam a+ _ U O ._. S� 0 U G �'' N • U •� N C G cn ^� O 0 C O HO as - - 0_ - U ct n- 4) bA N N 'O N U L L cz - > G cG _G -v a) c; ,i G S az ..c G 'O C > a) O i' O U b c ¢ 3 �- v) 3 � � Y 2L E a. o- c a. vn cC U i y -0 C• U a R1 O [n-G c 4- a� tlrcO 3= s > c 0 z v) E..), , i:= . ..-;-:,,-1 1 drillirin O = U •u ..Al O CS • = E c -0 r .gid MID 10 s•-•▪ (TS v) 1-- cO > J . ..... ..................m.. at MS OCZSOC .2 ca o \-1 WV' '1,111111111111111rPW G .4=. 465„ "Ri t 8 g ,,— rii, 4 <=3 on , V C 71 V) L u, G - • • G .2 O d O . c N O .1 1GN G i a1( lo (0>%� U f� CCS U U To., �S_ t l 1-. UUedG2OCCS GCS '; Iiiimminme > Itil as UF- = y -o4 . , V j'CA amu,, N '37:3 m i----1 a �) c o a) -o => =.._._„ .� ... G a) G •z~ C 0 ��o �����—t -- dik G ct bU-t S N s N MAIM / 5 Q > U G U G� s. .0a U G 1, ..- E m ui , -g = G G O V > cCS bA bn a' „ . ct • 0tZla.. 1 T.4'•a: V O al IN 2 U i pg i Planning Commission .s p t August 26,2019 Agenda Item 5 . '' 19-6651 MSP 2040 ;.7,.:;' Page 11 of 28 0 >'o � i a — t4) a) •c rn a) v� 71 v >' a Y c� Li.: cd - all aa) f-'-. � °� o E o f o c.) .a 0 o Ca) al 3 Z ofa, aci 0 ° c by cc a o as 0 C , � N = Soo '•- = y3 0 0 a3 a E o 0 t- N '� (4._ 73,_, ate) a) cd Q .10 fl. o 0 p y a�oi tc~ >,s Y a) cd a E -a .1)C.) -� a� °' o -fl �' m, cs .0 N . ca —; �, .0 ami -o •L •0 ( •3 4, 4-- ami = 1. eu o a >, a) o = cd c = = o '>> w o 0 o L = o ao � .,°' c -0 3 co) al 0 o • E E >,?� c 0 .5 a v C A5, ,-9 C ami 1) '0 U N '_ — E Q cn d a) 0 U La U x o 0 4-; v7 p *s o o •L U •— tit a) C- < 'Un as ad cC .�, al a) O. C. 0 et i ..o a3 o s_ C.) C . L. alLI., C ) /^a�) 1g mL 0.s rs. 4-4C) 0 CCS O 4 1.: -b W _ 1 td VI U a) •Lr wU \ z W N0 • L _l bo czt _J w J a) CC 0 \ N. IL O 0 Z J 0 JIII cn C Q a) a) _ >- z u w 1 O 0 zu U Q� Lu a\ w cz W �0 W W -„ o J ��z O o Q. Q ,_a ,o o C 1.1.-J iii ; JN VI� t� w CA ' L' C) a) —� Of�u s-. > Q w z '4'' z U 0 U i2 �� w O W U w W w a � V � O C 0 0 (-) W F--I _1 a _1 ¢$ LL, c,� ON Y ZeL o Q J ✓ � `�W Cr a ci >7 t1 o a. z 0 Q \ I 01 a E 0 W • •- e .0 . \ J Iw- ceL L. O• a) VI 1 Q -- U vi 14.111111111101 cS = N ,C Q O V) s., cC A Z cC W , raj C V, —ta0 >N saiaiIod guipin9 Planning Commission August 26,2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 12 of 28 +- s. 6 cn CA . co o vEYC- s-. Mv)'o c Cs O O "tres t ° sN NU a) s _ L.,c CLO C YLsn L 4 O p a) N >, a) Q Lr C� fl. .C L..+ > L 4.a) •Cd C c a. L no cd v, Ca -o >,.c j °3 E ` 3 Q- _ s ° id N . N oU o y p .Z s.= 03 .. O i s. .J7 E c c�S U a) -O C) C 0 L ° .a _ 3 3 v' �' ami o 0 co N • C� S s= ' CV1 L ••-; C -0 U L .2..J J -0 O ' X 3 OD•- ••' 0 YO CC •, a) az v' 0 c� ... . 'cn UO a ., A, 4 C.F. >,• 'L C� tai) V' C a U 3 'Y` c, 'O E . vj s_ -o Q W w0,, O O Cd i 'O v) c I •s. O U }' C) a) Y �+ sU. U V' o W C s - m —C Ca w 0 p, = •a)Col ,i- c a .44 5 t - - U CD ° OA ° >; E �' �' CI c v1 3 s a) F. (013 rt Co C C - L ,, 3 cd c s. a) w 0 -- v' Ri c Y a) c o o) acoi a) 3 0 °3 . To c 0 U a ° >, ¢ L. 0 R clr t3 bA•- C,: cC U 3 bp . t 'b 0. c az C].. .°o d In -0 n 2 .— 73 • U O ° 3 L v' v' «s co rn 0 ♦-' a a) a) •3 a, m p Q. cp � s. sbA• 0 0 r cC y C Q C O ti 0 '01 '0 t o w�• Ce U 1_ >�"" a U c C) s. 4. a3 U V) o T� c .IU. c u /W� L• N L E ,. 0 \L v, 0 .- _CO O L O N V C W �+ .0 as c,-.3 Q y U U 'O +��' Q' U • t ,. ^Y aoi C ..c al cd ,..] .... '11 a Cd t U i O 'C Cr cn L Cr U c U >� ..' as O c, U) _ u e •O U y c c E S , v' F-' C) >_ a) U C C .. c li O cd 'c- c -10 0 C) s- c sem.. . •� i. '> cC, «i ,}, ? Cl)a) U U •y, E O. v) U OI C) 1~ .� a] L C,.. --- Y O v O Y/ r� c>= 'a a 0 a) .> C) 0 o < ' = Y CL._ .c >, s. C) C) O �. U a) . E u C CO U C� C) a) bA C) ti a C y L i-. v t c R. L , p ° rS C = •) Rs Y 0 o 4 ;a •c ti C a) C 3 ccs �, 'c L a) 0 Q. o c E o s Cd O 3 CI a) a) V �' trzi LZ. -c aC) co 0 sU, u 0. o ba o C o a) > C o a •c s v . .CA C_ YOJ -0 \ 7 y L' 'C. U L c- a) ti y a) c) co U i 0OD.°n 3ci)• i >,'o as C? «S 3 s o c� V) C COCC C CO s. O .0 z_ c ��.. L s. LL cd +• L 3 I?. s. v O C i- . ] O U a) -O Q. r}, U -' c ° N v; non 0 E4- E N + O = c�i' p CC v' C C O vl 4-+" (..) a C c - 3 O '5 •° aa)) OD En c •1 a) ami ..- a) o 0 o t :�Y 0 ,0 .a � c V CS m 3 -2 4- a) c`d aa)) 0 H u, c, =o o -v � 00•• o to cp O v vii f1 •- cn cn v' -0 >, a O s: c `�= U Y o .> r �, O C) N cn y C CC U v a) U �' a Uo cl) cr OD us a) fL . rO L v' • c s. U � 0_ a i s V 'A • O C c• C. OU a) c C CC I. ° 4. =4 c .. .0 ',.L2 C sr '4.3 vs O ° •G' CO C) L L .C.. •�. of 0 rA C"• a) . cJ ' S", r Y. v V U CC bA .-. L >, N 0 _ U .� (� ° •v1 L. c c es U C) v u 4.3 4... C.�.. C v; " ••� L O •3 }L..' .y L N CA 0 rn c s ••. a) rn >, (4- cn iU +- �' a T Cl) 4- s. 0 $- •_ v' C C 3 O y t. V' c a) Cy„ L O c O 1 s. c N u 2 u ;? oz C C3 V +-'' L 3 C N .v'. H L y O U N Q C F' ��".';� a) s- a) y -O C U 4. c U sz U ,) CL•, a) co.. O N o ,..,°) C a, b no L Co U ° 0 C N C LQ V L U O •'- '' bA O CO -O ra c .s".' ° .0 .O a) cn O c c Cn U.uv. a) cO 0 ° n v ct ai C/1 •-.4.5 O Q 3 ? ° L a>'i v, a��., -3 c�H o C. -0 tC a, C o bA o la• C bA o •— =d ' a :� C4-. 0 CU ....vs '3 -v •'-' at U c� cci =• v t. ' a) c ,> i T3 0 c • % L f. .--. cS • .. v .- �c L h c ° a) 0 L 0 c� C an 0., — ;� L ° i c) -0 c ° a) a) C) N Q c U u) c C o I� cn V •- o C I, 3 0 '� .c C n C U .O �, O c -0 z a) _, 'cn O C •-.O M cn u"" = t +�.1 s-. t, U v U 'ccf CI -C1 ., U c C Cl.) -. c a)v p L v '3 3 ° NC ° •>, bp i Fy a� i .0 bA c—d Lti -O v +�+ O C C) ' c . c m bcA bA 0 > y ,c 0. 0 C£ C +s".. L a o • lry -c c L N O et c bA N a) a) C) C) C) c a) s. .O u L •C 1 " y u C3 c ° c o'" r"- m 3 •� L -a C.1 . 3 Y C) c C) 0 o a) 3 o o o mt 1.. . c)•o .r o �l O a c° 0.i' CO 0. a 'O to CL Z V1 a Cf) M. vs- 1t c C� 0 i sa al Planning 11-1,,- & ip � August 2019 . i. Agenda Item 5 t.,,a; 19-6651 MSP 2040 -.,,:^ Page 13 of 28 a. __ co t: c." ▪ si1 s, . ,, ..y. ! a ' —72): ( •-11;- _ 6, ;.'-. R Iii,L • _� a _... II 1 1 i ; 0.. i ',._51-) (1.) • CO 14 .] ..‘ 4.,...._....-......... 1 • CO All -. _I' a ap : 2,2--c- ' i . "" 4 1 i _ ., Ill* a. 0 oriri4 I : H ---) ri o _ t..�— i �r._ __ •_ Q o -- 4 l L 1 ...,... _ 1,7a- Cd ) _„..,Loyi f � • m L 1 i• _ > • • C J J L C W 4Nco i G r 7A i - i ciuSrcrcz =LLaa . I II II" . 4 1. sa � 0 2u'p I I1 9 Planning Commission �7Q August 26,2019 i. Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 14 of 28 f'. a) 0 O .D tT bA' -a a) • r— �, �, U c v, — a) a. L7 5 O U 5 ml >, --C) 0 y _ 'c c C L N OL c>d 3 t us C .^ a) a) .. d >ato t70 i C. cd C >O .0 N dl • 3 Y � -o 3 t c •a a3i 3 Y 4xd . • •� -o c c ;� c a) ,* `� ami •> a) al .9 0 •o .__ N s>, 9 ami a al. E �t al o Cl) • '' ' U 'b ozi o a) cd s -•0 ¢ >, = a . a) anvi m. = ;� O :•E id> p N O.•� �. �. cd — y a v c c 0 -O ts- 0. .1 . IP C <O • bA U i N 3 .b ,. • .b Q O cd s c C U a) .' IP • rn fin ' at •vyCC10.0 N p 4. LO • 0 Ycu c ` •0 cd = -C ) Q- O E N ,C art at -0 L bUA y°J �O 'i. U .. aN' C N > y >O • .. '. • a Y «S �+ R1 a) 3 o t a) •— • > a) •= —a c E Q cd vv) to v) c0a t .- N •- c4 3 . • 1 . 3 w o o 3, v) a, 0O « 4. .a a, Q N . • Q •v, n > O.; V) O 'O « N 13 ip = U L E 01) U +•• s,) t Y a UD L a) 0 00 U01) 15 L O •0Y as 0 hili Ell cd 0 0 OV ®__ _ E C bA,y 03 k to o s � C r. u O U A; v .O $- 9, W a C O bA �i.� . > n O �/ y >, C p a L a r r i v W ch Y L.. 7. �zu ' y C ba no t 0- U U O " W a "0 ° 'L N ro a; 4 i- u .4 . E 5 �•ice „ 3 - R I i- •iIh < Cl. • -° 7! o c) 0 77) 0 ° to= ' cs til\ - 3: I tit"' v E Y _ O U •O O v Y :z �� cn a � � L4° 3X) vS o `• -5a l n2 ® ® -.• it E to E a) <d O ON Ja� mO vCU ? _ •?. v cN v' 'O .. CA c1.C U a U C N D "' N a) ',7--, OO � ) r U CC a) ^ Q ':1; C v) o. 73 cd •— -0 U C Q 0. E. a) O O N Di O bA v i a) cw.. bOA•.c S? n7 0 0 ;� s a V!AA t1 u p'n-� Planning Commission August 26,2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 ,,,t Page 15of28 to rr0" Q▪' T G) y C Y 3-1 Z U_ N Cs fC O ¢ ami is Cll xnu co) ❑a) 715 CS _ ,41, vwa) o o 3. .... a � : bvs .I.., V) O E -n o ti E t v cz: GJ N C y 'CZ -0 -1,:), O it. C1 E x 3 0 •o °' v 44 0x O c o. L ° v o a n ' 3 Z tH: 1 ▪ c ' o H b N va cZ w o, .. III 1 cd X w -d 4 [ C _ o V 0 0 C - v r v n L can m O o .� E r ' +•• cl al '.r7 c0 s. U z' w 'O " ['' ai .O+ x c' O ° o° i+ a) 0 - ", > . v - : 0vc c c o b — -4 7vs, 4) N >. _ C4 0 ij O O r ' g O w0 yy ia � O �C Cd C ':u 'E CZ .: m °3' O -• O i -C wLi - o. O y -ICS C) - .-- s~ ° '. ° v = -0 v E O cia W � al `•vCo x a F , E F •C ¢ _s., pO .4 w 0' c. o .: ° ° '3) ° o E i 7 O pY > o v ct° n .Y r -05 y c� w MC o a ° uQ) z O *-6 C7' C O O ` a.„ , . . L . ibli < I . .. , em . —r .io I s' 0.4 o 01) o 'b El\ g r 1 �I 0 N 1 • • i: iII ' 1 : �, i ,� x 11I J E ° WNjy R, 0, A ® eimirdi o •b-1 I .... Q., 6*Vri w v N ,7 0 m% a Q , 1911111PIAMILL-W — ✓ r .> ,,, .'7., N 5- NZ r '4,-4,f4 , ••I' t'~ '', t = O �+ ^ a tt O L 5-4 I� O "� >. `5 E I w E-- O w Planning Commission `': a Sam u i p noAugust26,2019 ,,.` Agenda Item 5 19-6651Page 16 of 28 a a) c �r n c: cd c >, cd 4i O Cr) OI 'C >, v I C-) c fli1- d ! 1 -0 a Ii n v y '� '_ > .O » tan $; 4) .01)..c 'L g ai L .to C •- a) L Q•'"O N c a) to O x-' c i .� L O G L O b0 Q) O Q 4 •L N G c � Ujili a, tea) " c >, a. talla. 0- �,‘-• a) c L IE >�>, t 74 03 - c .ENoa) ccsco ¢ ca I'VI •EQLO cG3 ONN09ENNo • asCa: E >, c -o -, a) L �G E a) to ° a) �G C far -O ai 3 ,) a) al > "' >,acs a) 5 0 Y 'ts .° a) = " 1 -'0 O i o is L E o as >_ .n o c -0 c 3 3 E a E L = i 3 a) '�_ i 0 b .0 0Q 3c--• CL.) 4--. ° a 0 3 3 11cA Erz 3a 'Sc� v5. •7d 0 aQ a. a Cts M M kO II i n _ 5 3 0 ° O O to of) o Y E E C `u, .02 CN o E 3 = E , o " E ° . ,Cy -o . 0 -fl I 'O E U -0 y f-• !k - 4. L > as 3 a• 0 a) 0 ¢ IIM * : 1hll L t. ' • � �d CI 0 3 as c L 0M=EMMIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMMININIIIIIMINI _a .rl � � 0 ° 3 ° � lll� lq � `!'V abn • N c N •E E '. t a. O "O• 0 _0 C Y ° Mil byEffif I —. 0 C bcA ccz O L A v t c c •C as O 3— ___ = E 43 0.) . L. C . ,_ ' lirl z,..§ . .11111-- " il ISM. 6 ›. .• '. -, Allilt 11 s= 0 0 a) as tn 0 lc, Ct.*-3..." fi) .15 ,_,"-, C f 1111 1 ci p virw ., 3 c L cij , E • c s o c >, a 0 -see "= a y°„ a) N a s 3 "0 ••• O •- c n L , a GC ti 4)as a'il (4)5 �� 3 en CI > n ° 3 n 0 CI as v' $ a o L a) a) E '� 0 •,_ cn C >- V $ 0 a• c> .14 c o c° c in P CO 03 bU ' c") -cm () c\ii c bi)v -oc N 2 as -O a ) s op ° a � as0aQ H . Q,0 C. 0 0 �, ;." c Planning Commission "" ! `' Sam ' Q ll p 11•� August 26,2019 A " Agenda Item 5 1' . ,'j 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 17 of 28 cat ct c >; cd ami ° a) c) O cz a) `� .a N o a) «s "ti -a z- +-� b N O i ... 0 bA c: a) N s, 0. -70 ct .0 �' C C 2 Q' C ' - cat C8 ]E O 'C r, ada CA.0 0,0 in vC cO C 1 3 Oby m4 � v) cat orai >, > ,_a) cc cat a) 8 a+ � > E L L..fl E • '~ Gc� 'a 'C - o • in � Q) a, Cco ' a. i Cil (NI -c -a O < = cat cn 2,71 ° 0 > Ecat� m - po 'o ° Y_0 dc .4_1E as c � E " 3 58 '•a nr, a) a 3 o ) a) E �ib Cai a), a � Eo� °: E c ' - ° ' E -vE a ect O. • Wm w -o .e C a) o ° c8 > aco c ✓, a) bo > t, a? E w E a, o .E • -°-o > ° c � as in > o .° = 3E = = coN .1 'o O > O i >, .n� > .= •b 'c ) OE- .LV ra y CL aI � Vy 'O cC0 y T > O 3 r• to :fl Q cc::) 3 E .E•n - oF ai ° 3 ucE U E 3 0 ea U O' w Q 2 ._ . . . Q c • • • o 0 r s 0o an 'ad r. E E E E -O 0 i .O cd �- a `I 1— �° Q cs O O .0 g R; d v, � '" a) 3 P. a) E o \ (� uflI > v, --'-------\\ .t. a) > 1111 b Ts v, a) C D a82 a "%I: 3 .fr O v, lJ a — ° w 'U^ ad U CCI, 0 i)71,111111 i CI a) L «3 cd > C _ r f1 9,_ c)- _ cs • "Ian _ °'�� a, = -o i r N �I ami t) .E >i ) E , :6'j\ — „) '� .=a a) >, v, s. v bo '— '� 4.) I.-- _ _ _ i 11111 ! o 2" cu y �p sC a) O o. O u . - Y. V E Y Y 2 .0 b cn v --i s ❑ J a) Y.P. §N4t--',,4t--',, : 5 o a e e O .0 z )p-�oc asaU 0i0 cti "Oay. C c 4., 4-. a tmo ,b p 5OC >, » ao. . . •,... . vZ 1. aCO , . osNe a OO .4 Lo >Ra•p, `4O u)- • bA U t7 -O . 0.O- . IT ' o N ale a 0 d SO1O1 od .uIp1n9 Planning Commission August 26,2019 • Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 18 of 28 L "0vs- �.,C c+Q. y a) p v, C Cu 3 y N v, U '> O U b .L N o '3 ° c a £ st >, c o c 0 Eh -a Z O -a L •.0 L C 0 cd E7:1 m ° cC cd 0" cn.� a) L O 3 o bci V. a) 0 111111 > w1IJIIJ1II ,UE N N 11 O . EO > cc; -a fl :— L Q - ad 5 L i'C a) • coU . U cA .. O bA U : uu , uuH u>, 71 E0 °' t 5 w > E > _ cC :a 9 , L• CC > HU o 70 (° C , �Q co • • • Q Czt • - 0 0 11111111 I ¢ O o R'Oyy LCv E � a �� I_ 11.111411. ��" ? c3 N W [ v i i- N ai, .b a. C� C y W N N 0 ' 0. Op, w 71.. 7' 1 c 0 N as '� N 0 °' ,A o uo v 'O •▪ L N O 3 O es y 'O cz c cn x U `cal crInn Lbo N cl • . . . rn a. ' ct> >' -DE O cC •a' y E > .SC a) O «1 M •°D o c 0 N b0 U 'C CG b0 '- �'`� b - v o y p N C cd 'C cn C sC ou• O > at ie v bn t•i 111 N = a) N •,_, = v, •= N .... . .L o > — 0 i bA 0 , _0 • O N N U C — a) bn G b •r N a y ``'' Yin 17, r• . I ms ,. 0 a) cz a a) b0 a) '� 'J N N 0 3 A ' ..0 L E U L u., V > ,,,0 C c. C w O m < •--7 >, co y v, a) +r a) a) -o .�C •> of b n v ° v C 0 au a) C s .fl s C 'C7 c,3 > a) O z. O a) m u - < 3 • Cl) 0 - '— E 2. c. a* Q . v v cn as U n- A 72 7 q Q ._ . • Q cd • d a. 3 m ul d c). cd i.. C a) O' p s. .0 ,.. CI 4-, a) w o O v = -o • '7 •• o-0 b0 a E it i 1 s... O N L." a) � C, v i. a 1 4-. O U• = y O —' •OCS ce WM/. O cdOC + i 0. 0 1flfl T . ( ) y C 74 C O O I O a) — ' aa) c � II Ill `x by a `� cn ^ c o 4-6. 0 C3 C as. ) . LO 70 / al Apiii-- 1 U• y 0 wO = yt. O O }- cnC � cr \11111W"I a U Fes' s c] L 2 �.. I IMO W CU _— g) t iiio 3 c N to-c v — o. c al v, by-o .c h I. —AIR-- —��— ,., — 1 .. c L bus?s r.) .r M •> a1 CCS C V ( .•, A g2 V Ts Q >v. U .� C •U C., -p ,- O• -. on . c • U ca y U Ly a) o ..fie e- b9 �y '> b0 N •— f . c�a)„ E 4r b0 73 o v ) xi i . .•C 't3 c� a) •C C 'C m .11_i;' o a) y 4. v7 +, cs I 0o C c G >> O U > es b0 as E ti .. bpO Nv•: o pC ▪ • m , ; •c „ ;; Vi v d)• cn Ra) b 7L i OA A A < / S A m i 0 d ' g Planning Commission M . August 26,2019 Agenda Item 5 y` 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 20 of 28 . ' i .. U 0 •� U 1 O U•, L -a y s=y L v a) a �, 0 'CI c 76 ...8o cd O Cct 1 A JD O V � O -' bp 0 E C L fi. U ca3 C U al L a) C vi y ,t• CL +, > L L a w c. •on ca .5 tt o i c c 3 ; 0 LI 73 ed CA >,s °? 3 Cl)' C s ° co ° ate) s oA.° > 4.. 3• aa'• .3 o S 4- 0 $ cb 51 73 '� 0 o d , 3 3 0 71 3 c s i y Y aa) C ..c./e) Cl) O p et L .b tI C L L ° U = U LL U C • U cn v- LIQ a) CA a. := �.•. ,°n o 3 c'E L a) a) cC w co -- vs td 3 C s c a, cel L s a) 3 -a a) 2) • c 0 o c) c a) > as 4 c , CU C) cc• -o cn.- o.. tz v 3 . r 71 C o c a i a) -v u' a" ° �' 3 N Q. c 3 x c" i " v a 0. V cn • y .- a E cc vi L s ,CCS �' - 'a s U L v) L. 4.) on �+ E z .,cn•c`. o a) 'a 0 u, L 4d-. = U p o- C a) . o ^� = '� . ,o° o L o L c _0 ',7, d � � I. OCA UU -a _ d0 N C. 4+ cn cC cC LI cC U Q CZ ^O •Y c ' cL CA 0 i c > Li1; a a C :n o a) c JD ciy y a L0 E • a) a) alc N• a) vs s cp U Ovs CC o t 0> -c C n a: v as U 't7 a) • qt) aai •n a. E C a) C cLar:"..4-. G �. '3 3 L >, p ° .E. D c a) `d COmo o to = , C a) C 3 4, t3 c c., a) C -o a %O ate) - , 3 0 m a) -a L• t� > .c a) c„ C1, o c p — .� o U `I -a C ara C sa v, to " 03 c= o °' •' c ° 6L ct >, a ° L c c., o c L .a o` a) a) -o a• w U L a c 3 Cmi A v, . cz � La= c° vim', O ca Cl. N c c O ° N ' v N ai 8 to O . ; cS. L = -aa Uoa) v, CO ?s .�, O > U > .I-. cs N i+ aU >, a) .- _ C..) .0 U t *-F, (P,.. UOs NU a � 3 0 a L N C = cn C C C 4.r) UOnN - A:: v, 4 ^ns1 C �v, c a) ++ CI) •-• a) t.,.., 'N .73 ato CO o o o 0 0u - uai c o o .0 ri ood ,Otu E0LU o 0 .i .. u - :d � Uc cC . aU E aOUa U o f ' cn .0 o E U O . c ° LCA s CA o ccc .0 C n . -.'.1 ti ) p O _ Ca) O I-. U s Q_ aczt a' L: N N .S: L o U a V, L el L .- us .- o os p C = U O �' rUi O• 0 f, o C s •C '0 . a" Cs. U 3 s o a Y U Y a`�i v, E- c ° cC i d o F- v_, ai c •C L 4• U a o a) -- a) c►• o C s a) -0 -o eL c 3 0 a o �' �, 0 c an o 'ap o i .°n �° = o ¢ o c 3 �? c N b c o a v) C o o a c o o ' =� is 4-' c° >, > 0 R. c ' U t > ° s «t a) c a) c U w -a ❑ -a ca a > c y y v; O > �,'' 0 o L L. a) cC a U co saw• 6. C c`O a) O 0) •o a O 0 s N N Ca C • cn o c a do U c O fT. = 3 N 0 L 0 'n cC C O }, Q) 4 4 hCA ' CU ° C 0 C .L >, r) cC c% -a «s a) •a c c c C c C cC C_ 3 4. O C t>!D C s ,C v, - i cn c cC p•-a 3 CD S; 0 C CC cU > Y - + Cl.)4..' • c . o0 OCC •.• 4.) C . O x. ,---, r 'V) •a t ca.. al t,A U U si - UU _ L.. OQC U O U a C v' LaL ,. cC i • U .., • p 1 s_ 0 4.. Li. •bA ,- COa• mcC O ,a 'a c.,1 C cn Ci = O C/ aCl) 0. cn rr , L a .9131 1LM�■ Planning Commission ' C ul.p'n.� August26,2019 ,iy;,. " - - Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 21 of 28 lyl co M Planning Commission August 26, 2019 �q� MUM Agenda Item 5 1"651 MSP 2040 :, Page 22 of 28 W cn '0 2q p ru en bi) bJj -b5 fu .� T M o f i r 1 sari -load Planning Commission August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 \ Page 23 of 28 U cC U s>� O V O 'S C C .O 'r O _° rn t O ^C . U2 U 5.+ RS � U U '0 U N 0 M V _2 3 L ca - n 40-- o cz 3 o U UU ° L o�_�� ° 0 2 .� r U N �p ca —0 >, ° C C) rn '0 Cd U L ;� L E U to r vi s° o o , on 3 2 ami O U Ur O, U -j> U D � S N O U cd �L O CL � •� s 3 � a. ° —0 � U A "O OU � L � 00 U YYn N W o N -o O ' O pp t>= C U U O UE U Q1 O N cu .# O �- L 0OU ccd a C) .^ m U a� o N o, r° 0 U GA s U +� W cn '0 2q p ru en bi) bJj -b5 fu .� T M o f i r 1 sari -load Planning Commission August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 \ Page 23 of 28 ,p ' V § (U td � O tSf t� W `n ted b w) 0 bd) o bA, Q 1O .b p E-+ O y U U bli 4) � th 4 > (u ko cq EA to: C y .Say .- ' i4J.l p� O 44 a• C4-4 (d O .« Od bill s .-. « m u -4 Ptl W ndi 4 .� 4 E� o o v cel C1 i ' ' I Planning 26, 01 Au ust 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 24 of 28 � c O �- U s� 3 0 C .L o ro- Q. 'b cu, Y a. U � O 1020 —_ -8 o a. Z o M (p o « cz L CO o 1° o c .? ; E N `p C O E c u-cn U O 2-S a. C . cG N tU., o s ca M ; i > Q ct " Q.• - cod - 0--� E Y cn vs s 0.0 `�' s M o ami a>� a=i c bAi N 1 Z � I L N+ O i.� •N — E - 0 i E o Q 3 y U L c GU� w i7i � � • E � N L a + p rL+ 0 0- 0 ZZ w � C bA y2 ,A C E7;+=. > 2 U Z;N t� = � C4 ca L N N > r O C1 i ' ' I Planning 26, 01 Au ust 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 24 of 28 w ✓, Vii c�, PT ° est N o v � 44 ro 'v'0 13,13 G h3 H 4i Oj v in IDD 0 4-4 9" 4 g 0 M ` P4 J. r cs. rid P,r � : � � in� 6 10 N 'ren Sa1�I�Yd• N I H Planning Commission August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 25 of 28 Y O U v C O E O aL+ G L Q 3 c ,� O O r. = G c0 "'� a L Q M v1 0 08 � '� .cr •� y v7 O > N N rur- i •O E -O O D U U O O L V to 0 L QJ U C4: L v74: c t s v M Y Q� S.- U ca v7 v7 •N '� ' � � L i 3 c ; •O � .� � Q � vi L �-°.0 �, U y - Cd > L Q a.•ir CS v a a .- -o c v ca w .. a >, v i ro- 3 co" AM c° 30 Q O V] je �• U'� ,U 3� _ �.Ln cm gs' �g �.3 U�cUU t1 A P1 IU, f3. O. O O. cC0 M 0. Sa1�I�Yd• N I H Planning Commission August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 25 of 28 c*1 i V1 r14 a� d.} 04 i> O Q CDv L c Y `b C r� (U U O J i O 5u y GJ C" M _ _a ening Commission August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 3-6651 MSP 2040 Page 26 of 28 10 4-9 as o *' '� ° , ©' °U bFJ -d leg ch �� a �� 4 z.�� 'p901 gn i a� dl �` dC�1 � ~ N � � • � Q � � ei N • • • .42 • w r-- - {as;r ■ M ' Planning Commission Q August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 27 of 28 a3 O N c L p 0 0 Lidp > O C • N 0 in O 'O c� 6' C UP 0 O co co A V U:S2 CA 2 � Q O > Q ._ i "O >r E O b r •'p00 • 0� ,�.+ Q 41 � aL.+ � � � C� cn • L cd C i � L �+ V-�e O O ``" Cd zn E c; o -- U Y3 bf] a 3 n�� E L N 4-Q �QB0bf �o-M Mca 0, to v 'O 0 O .to i G cc, YO >'O Cn y' L O O �D C�� c�C v� w L' >O> y j N 2 M y cOi� s O O= O ( U > U O �'+ = O %'' O� c U V0 ti O �— Cc" O L c Q •O cd UO N N M O 'O `'- � U O �_ 0.O c L c� Q 3 > a >r�0 O bA aA �S.cocq3UrAU0L C U r-- - {as;r ■ M ' Planning Commission Q August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 Page 27 of 28 -0 _ oLei CA JS 0 24 �u g '5 S -,�L '-- ,r x. ,8 7^ , �I v v U Z: I i # bd as 8 78En 4.0 • . •y • '� U El 0 1 r rn a v Ef; saiai�od Planning Commission August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 \ Page 28 of 28 N T1 cd y t. O N L 0 L U ° U 0CA Cf f ad O ad� v v U �' U p y •U C] yU cd ' O c CIS 0 N - cd cd >05 Cl Q �.+ 3 6 .O •o t� E v, �rA A = -o o Y �, c > aoi 5 td p y v E 'd cl U O 'C70 c� � o � c0 c� c�C p U 'C7 a. U cod.. ca a 'd CDM 00 'G y ami > ami 02— — cd cd .--� L 03 o>. -o c E SC c N C O c� O lzn a r.+ O > U i1 c�ii UtZ a ,y^. bA p c� O c, cd .0 ' 0 cd p 00 _ >, .� p U > q bpA .> cd .N QJ ca � c > _G 40. cC 0 U ZM M saiai�od Planning Commission August 26, 2019 Agenda Item 5 19-6651 MSP 2040 \ Page 28 of 28 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2019 TO: Mayor; Fayetteville City Council THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Garner Stoll, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner DATE: November 15, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEMO SUBJECT: EXHIBIT `C' - Planning Commission Recommendation for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and the Master Street Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Following several meetings in 2018 and 2019 in which the Planning Commission functioned as a steering committee for the update to City Plan 2030, the Future Land Use Map, and Master Street Plan, complete draft documents were presented to Commissioners on May 13, 2019. Commissioner feedback was requested on each of the three plan elements outlined above, with comments, recommendations, and critiques provided over the following four weeks. DISCUSSION: Although staff agreed with and incorporated many of the Planning Commission's recommended amendments to City Plan 2040, the Future Land Use Map, and the Master Street Plan, the following represent substantive changes that either represent significant staff time to implement or matters of policy upon which ultimate decision lay with the City Council. City Plan 2040 • Infill Development Scoring Matrix: o At the Planning Commission Retreat held on May 18, 2019, Commissioners reviewed the proposed Infill Development Scoring Matrix and made recommendations on weighting of the criteria. In addition to providing weights to the proposed criteria, the Commission recommended substituting properties with greater than 15% slope to properties with 100 -year floodplain as a negative modifier. o Commissioner Brown recommends the following additions or modifications to the draft Infill Development Scoring Matrix: ■ Addition of the Enduring Green Network boundaries instead of Slopes Greater than 15 Percent or 100 -year Floodplain. These elements are encompassed within the Enduring Green Network and Commissioner Brown proposed this be assigned the weight previously -proposed by Commissioners for slope/floodplain; and Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 ■ Incorporation of Growth Concept Map centers using a buffer of increasing Growth Concept Map: o Commissioner Brown recommends the following additions or modifications to the draft Growth Concept Map: ■ Addition of the Enduring Green Network; ■ Addition of the Mayor's Box; ■ Highlighting of the Arkansas & Missouri railroad track running north -south through Fayetteville; and ■ Reclassifying the Tier 3 center indicated above Evelyn Hills to a Tier 2 center. o The current Growth Concept Map indicates the Evelyn Hills shopping center area as a Tier 3 center. Commissioner Brown recommends this be revised to a Tier 2 center. Currently, all proposed iterations of the Future Land Use Map include a designation of Complete Neighborhood Plan for areas associated with an adopted, locally -targeted plan. Commissioner Brown recommends that this designation be kept as an outline of the existing neighborhood plan areas, but with appropriately delineated Future Land Use Map designations (Urban Center Area, City Neighborhood Area, etc.) applied to the parcels within. Chapter 3: Framework: o Commissioner Brown recommends assigning a responsible department, division, or committee to each of the proposed City Plan 2040 benchmarks. o Commissioner Hoffman recommends maintaining the current language for Goal #3: We will make traditional town form the standards, rather than re -write it as "We will make compact, complete, and connected development the standard." General Comment o Commissioner Hoffman recommends inclusion of additional language related to open space. Specifically, that shared public spaces ought to be more deliberate in design, encouraging natural surveillance through "eyes on the street" that ensure the safe use of parks, trails, and other spaces. Future Land Use Map • Currently, all proposed iterations of the Future Land Use Map include a designation of Complete Neighborhood Plan for areas associated with an adopted, locally -targeted plan. Commissioner Brown recommends that this designation be kept as an outline of the existing neighborhood plan areas, but with appropriately delineated Future Land Use Map designations (Urban Center Area, City Neighborhood Area, etc.) applied to the parcels within. Master Street Plan Commissioner Sharp recommends inclusion of a Parkway Boulevard street section. Although a Parkway Boulevard street section does not exist among the streets in the Master Street Plan or designations in the Master Street Plan Map, it could be done voluntarily and would likely be a municipal project given the cost associated with a larger street. A further consideration is that this section is not currently applied within the Master Street Plan Map, and staff seeks guidance as to which existing or proposed streets, if any, the Parkway Boulevard designation ought to be applied. Attachments: • Planning Commission Infill Development Scoring Matrix Weighting CityClerk From: CityClerk Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2020 8:54 AM To: Bolinger, Bonnie; Pennington, Blake; CityClerk; citycouncil@matthewpetty.org; Marr, Don; Eads, Gail; Roberts, Gina; Batker, Jodi; Johnson, Kimberly; Rogers, Kristin; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Paxton, Kara; Henson, Pam; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Gutierrez, Sonia; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Scroggin, Sloan; Bunch, Sarah; Turk, Teresa; Smith, Kyle Cc: lisa_m_orton@yahoo.com Subject: FW: Updated City Master Street Plan Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission, It looks like the City wants to make Sang Ave continuous from Deane St to MLK as a neighborhood link connector which allows for up to 6000 vehicles per day. Please do not do this. Please keep Sang Ave in its two pieces in order to keep our University Heights/Haskell Heights/Sang neighborhood safe, an historic district, and its historic urban forest within Fayetteville undisturbed. It is an historic, wooded neighborhood that should be protected. Once destroyed, it is gone forever. This area should be put on Fayetteville's protected list so that developers know it can't be disturbed in any way. It consists of Shalom Temple, residences (many of which are qualified to apply for the National Register of Historic Places), an intact urban forest we know as Markham Hill and its foothills, and secluded upper Sang on Haskell Heights where the Haskells, Fulbrights, and Nichols lived. If protected, tourists will some day consider it one of Fayetteville's areas worth visiting, slowly driving through this historic area and walking its natural trails. My family has been long-time residents in the University Heights/Haskell Heights/Sang neighborhood since 1952 and I moved back to Fayetteville and this neighborhood when I retired in 2015. Please do not send a major street through quiet and secluded Haskell Heights. Can't residential and wooded neighborhoods be protected from major traffic passing through them? Why not send traffic around them instead? Please don't destroy the quiet neighborhoods of Fayetteville. Send traffic around them, not through them. Please don't connect the two pieces of Sang Ave. Sincerely, Lisa Orton 1663 W Halsell Rd Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android CityClerk From: Ethel C. Simpson <esimpson@uark.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2020 8:28 PM To: CityClerk Subject: RE: Sang Avenue in the new City plan Categories: Forwarded Kindly forward this email to members of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, and the members of the City Council. Thank you for your help. John Williams, architect and University Heights resident, who died in 2008, once recalled to me and others that he (and probably others) had successfully resisted an attempt from the city to extend Sang. He argued on the grounds of the topography, that at both ends of Sang the grade was too steep for safety and for effective drainage, etc. He believed that the Planners simply looked at a flat map and noticed that a straight line could connect the two thoroughfares, Wedington and (what is now) Martin Luther King Boulevard. The map, he imagined, did not show the change in elevation. I want to call the attention of City planners and government to this earlier episode (that seems to be one of my responsibilities lately). The topography of that section of town has not changed since John's discussion more than 20 years ago. If it was not suitable for road construction then, how can it be now? There are other responses to traffic bound eastward from the new developments west of the Interstate. Now that Razorback Road is widened and improved, why shouldn't that become the connector to MILK? It doesn't seem to me to be necessary to further disrupt the residential, wooded, quiet district where Sang now runs. If there is greater density out west of the Interstate, how does that justify messing up an undense neighborhood for the convenience of those residents? There are frontage roads on each side of the highway. Great sums will be spent to improve the overpass at Wedington and 1-49, but why should that justify slicing the land to the south by another throughway? Wedington is a wide, relatively flat highway all the way east to Garland, another wide north -south roadway. Why shouldn't that be the preferred route for through traffic? Density is destiny (a lucky anagram). I was thinking the other day of the city planners' flexible, or inconsistent, attitudes toward planning, especially density. Whenever I have to go to Emerald City, Fayetteville's medical campus, I think about the medical centers in big cities, which are concentrated in a few skyscrapers. We could have had a lot of dense housing in that section—with walkable access to amenities, shopping, the Interstate.. Now, that land has been undensely used, and the planners seem desperate to look wherever they can for densifying projects. I wonder if they think people living on Sang are going to trudge up and down that hill to MLK in order to eat at a drive-through burger place? Wait—that's walkability. That's another story. 409 N. Oliver Avenue Fayetteville AR 72701 (479) 442-2925 From: University Heights Neighborhood Association <UNIVERSITY-HEIGHTS-NA@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> On Behalf Of Lisa Orton Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:07 PM To: UNIVERSITY-HEIGHTS-NA@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: City's new master street plan It looks like the City wants to make Sang continuous from Deane St to MLK as a neighborhood link connector which allows for up to 6000 vehicles per day. Can the University Heights/Haskell Heights neighborhood protest and prevent the City from sending a major street through quiet and secluded Haskell Heights? Can residential neighborhoods not protect themselves from major traffic passing through them? Why not around them instead? Lisa Orton Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android CityClerk From: Amelia Burke <mimicburke@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 10:47 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Avenue extension --PLEASE FORWARD TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL To the members of the City Council, I am writing to voice my strong opinion AGAINST extending Sang Avenue. It seems so important to protect the peace of residential areas, especially as the city grows. Neighborhoods should not be cut-throughs for traffic. Even though this happens to be in my neighborhood, I am against extensions like this one in any neighborhood; two come to mind that I spoke out against in the past ---extending Prospect by Wilson Park and Fletcher on Mt. Sequoyah. Wonderful that those did not happen. And living on Cleveland St I am acutely aware of cut -though traffic, and its speed. Drivers will roar down any new Sang hill in the same way. Let's don't let that happen. Thank you. Mimi Burke To the city clerk --PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. Thank you. CityClerk From: Milton Burke <miltonburkel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 4:03 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang extension Dear Kara Paxton: I'm writing to express opposition to the Sang Street extension proposal. Please forward my comments to the Planning Commission and City Council members. My fundamental question is financial. Who will pay for this extension? This question seems germane given the traffic realities that exist on Sang at present. I am aware of present conditions since I live close by on Cleveland Street and use Sang almost every day. Quite a bit of traffic from West Fayetteville and 1-49 routes itself down Wedington, turns right (south) on Sang, and then left up Cleveland Hill to get to the University and maybe downtown. But past Cleveland south on Sang there is little traffic. Commuters coming from the west who want to get to MLK will naturally use 1-49 or its access road to do so. It is hard to see a need for extending Sang up the north side of Markham Hill unless it is to serve the interests•of the proposed development on Markham Hill. The same is true of the south side of Markham. Patrons of Ramay and others on that side have better routes to get to campus, downtown, 1-49 and points north and west. Again, that road would seem mainly to be serving the interests of the developer. Is he or she going to pay for this extension? If not, I find it hard to see how spending public money on it can be justified. A survey of the proposed development will show that the developer has other options for short connecting roads, south, west and north, that he or she could pay for. So if this proposal is based on public funding, then I would encourage city officials to oppose it strongly. Sincerely, Milton Burke 1532 W. Cleveland CityClerk From: Michelle Price <dmichelleprice@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:33 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Avenue Dear City Council, I am writing to you all about my opposition to using Sang Ave to connect Wedington and MILK. I purchased,1.4 acres and built a home on the corner of Sang and Osage Bend at great expense. I also pay a lot in property taxes to the city. I did that for it's location and the serenity of the location. I can't fathom putting a thoroughfare through the neighborhood to connect those streets. Are you going over the mountain? Is this for easier access for the developers of Pratt Mountain? There's access via Garland to Cleveland to Maple to Razorback. There's access via access road. Access via Rupple. Access via Broyles. Please don't ruin our neighborhood. Not for some out of state developer, not for anyone. You're the most restrictive city for building and preserving the character and green spaces of you city, Fayetteville. This decision of creating access by going over a treasure of Pratt Mountain and ruining neighborhoods is directly counter to your Green Wokeness. I respectfully ask you all to reconsider this decision. John Price 2053 W Osage Bend Fayetteville, AR 72701 CityClerk From: Michelle Price <dmichelleprice@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:33 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Avenue Widening Dear City Council, would like to voice my strong opposition to the widening of Sang Avenue from Wedington to MLK. We live on the corner of Osage Bend and Sang in the Bois D' Arc Subdivision. Widening Sang to make it assessable from Wedington to MILK would greatly impact the peace and serenity of our neighborhood. We did not build our home with any visions of it being on the corner of a major thoroughfare. We built it because of the location to the University, the beauty of the trees and wildlife, the quiet and peaceful upscale subdivision that is easily accessible from 1-49. There are many different ways we can get to MILK from our home with little to no trouble. Please put yourself in our place. You build a million dollar home only to have a major thoroughfare run right next to you? Respectfully, I'm pretty positive none of you would vote to approve that. Please do not vote for this expansion as it would be a detriment to the beauty that is Markham Hill as well as a terrible invasion to a beautifully tree-scaped, very quiet and peaceful neighborhood. Michelle Price 2053 W Osage Bend Fayetteville, Ar CityClerk From: John Price <johnprice62@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:39 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Avenue Dear City Council, I am writing to you all about my opposition to using Sang Ave to connect Wedington and MLK. I purchased 1.4 acres and built a home on the corner of Sang and Osage Bend at great expense. I also pay a lot in property taxes to the city. I did that for it's location and the serenity of the location. I can't fathom putting a thoroughfare through the neighborhood to connect those streets. Are you going over the mountain? Is this for easier access for the developers of Pratt Mountain? There's access via Garland to Cleveland to Maple to Razorback. There's access via access road. Access via Rupple. Access via Broyles. Please don't ruin our neighborhood. Not for some out of state developer, not for anyone. You're the most restrictive city for building and preserving the character and green spaces of you city, Fayetteville. This decision of creating access by going over a treasure of Pratt Mountain and ruining neighborhoods is directly counter to your Green Wokeness. I respectfully ask you all to reconsider this decision. John Price 2053 W Osage Bend Fayetteville, AR 72701 CityClerk From: Pam Earhart <jeffandpamearhart@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:53 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Extension of Sang Ave. I Pamela Earhart of 2100 Loren Circle, Fayetteville am against the extension of Sang ave. to MLK Blvd. Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: Joe Earhart <jearhart912@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020,6:58 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang to MLK Dear city clerk, I felt the need to send this email in hopes that it will help stop the plans to connect MLK to Sang ave. I have lived on the corner of Loren circle for my entire life. In no way do I approve connecting Sang ave. To MLK. Please be advised. Joe Earhart Phone - 1 (479) 530-3822 E-mail- josephearhart912@gmail.com CityClerk From: Pam Earhart <jeffandpamearhart@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 6:59 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang extension to MLK Dear City Clerk, I'm am completely against the extension of Sang Ave. to MLK! This will disrupt several neighborhoods with families and increase traffic issues on MLK! Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: Hameed Naseem <hanaseem@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:04 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Proposed development to widen Sang to connecT MLK and Wedington Dear City Council I am a resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayettevile, AR. I am currently out of town. It was brought to my attention that a new master plan for development of our area streets include connecting MLK to Wedington Ave through widening Sang Ave and connecting it between Halsell and Markham. This is going to create excessive traffic through Sang which is adjacent to our peaceful Loren Circle. I strongly object to this development and vote to object against it. Hameed Naseem Resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayetteville, AR CityClerk From: Mubarka Naseem <mubarkanaseem@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:13 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Proposed development to widen Sang to connecT MILK and Wedington Dear City Council > I am a resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayettevile, AR. I am currently out of town. It was brought to my attention that a new master plan for development of our area streets include connecting MILK to Wedington Ave through widening Sang Ave and connecting it between Halsell and Markham. This is going to create excessive traffic through Sang which is adjacent to our peaceful Loren Circle. I strongly object to this development and vote to object against it. > Mubarka Naseem > Resident of 2138 Loren Circle, Fayetteville, AR CityClerk From: Karen Banks <skyebriar@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:16 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Master Street Plan Proposals Categories: Saved File, Forwarded Dear City Council: The proposed connection of Sang and MILK avenues, will increase traffic, noise pollution, and decrease property values in our residential neighborhoods. It could conceivably present increased danger to both travelers, residents, and children. Please consider going around these areas and leave our residential areas intact. Karen Banks Fayetteville Resident Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: Amanda Ashworth <aashwor@uark.edu> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:21 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Markham Hill development Dear city Council, As a homeowner in the Markham Hill area, I am concerned about the widening of Sang Ave. and the subsequent impact on traffic and the environment (e.g., wildlife impact, hydrology, soil erosion, noise, and increased ambient temps due to increased concrete). One of the exceptional things about Fayetteville is the natural spaces and conservation of natural resources. Thank you for hearing my concerns. Best wishes, Amanda Ashworth, PhD Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: Karen Banks <skyebriar@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:23 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Street Plans Dear City Council: Plans to connect MILK and Sang are unacceptable. The connection of these streets will go through residential neighborhoods increasing traffic, noise pollution, potential danger, decreasing property values, and reducing the quality of life for area residents and their children. Go around these areas, no through. Karen Banks Fayetteville Resident Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: Cassidy Lobaugh <cassidylobaugh@me.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 8:38 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Regarding Tuesdays meeting - Sang/Markham Hill project Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission, I object to the development of Markham Hill and the Sang Street pass through. I believe that the original intentions for that historic land should be preserved and celebrated as an asset to our city and to the University. The landscape of Fayetteville is changing rapidly and we have had some wonderful, pleasing, welcoming additions put in place. However, I believe a Markham Hill development would be a mistake. Already, our home on the corner of Sang and Osage Bend, takes on far too much water runoff. Our house is built on 69 piers to help keep it stabilized from the shifting, soft stone underneath. There are many springs on the mountain that I believe should stay intact and preserved as well. I would love see our city with a grand mountain full of history, parks, monuments, museums, etc for natural and cultural exploration. I am proud of Fayetteville and love my city. Please consider other usages for our precious Markham Hill. Thank you, Cassidy Lobaugh 2022 W Osage Bend Fayetteville, AR 479-871-6800 Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: Stegall, Bob <bstegall@workrecords.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 10:14 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Connecting/extending Sage Avenue Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission, We live on 1764 West Osage Bend in Fayetteville and this email is in regards to your meeting tomorrow on extending Sang from Wedington to MLK. This would have a very negative effect on our neighborhood of Bois D'Arc. We already have a problem with cars speeding down Cleveland HIII and this extension would add 6,000 cars worth of daily noise and traffic to our neighborhood and undoubtedly have many cars cutting through our neighborhood to avoid traffic on Sang. The charm of our quiet neighborhood with children playing and neighbors walking their dogs will be destroyed. This atmosphere is the very reason we built our dream home there last year. We do not understand how this single change can be recommended until the plans and ultimate impact for the entire Markham Hill development has been studied and the results published for all to consider. We are adamantly opposed to this extension and would be at the meeting in person tomorrow if we were not out of town. Thank you for your consideration. Bob and Janet Stegall Bob Stegall IJ 214.402.6782 CityClerk From: CAROL LIPSMEYER <tooter5@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 10:30 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Street Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council, I am Carol Lipsmeyer and I live on Archer Drive right off of Sang Ave! I Am Strongly Opposed to the widening of Sang Avenue connecting it with MLK! Carol Lipsmeyer 1907 W Archer Drive Fayettville, AR 479-841-4431 Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: Kevin Hall <natnkevl@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 7:05 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Dear City Council --Please do not destroy our neighborhood! Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council, I am writing to appeal to you to protect the Markham hill neighborhoods. Extending Sang Avenue through the hill will,not only destroy the beauty of the area but will endanger all of our lives. Several years ago you installed speed humps on Sang to slow down traffic. This was done to protect those of us who walk through these neighborhoods. These speed humps have been successful in slowing down traffic but pushing the road through will destroy these gains. Furthermore, if Sang becomes an artery between Wedington and MLK Blvd my neighborhood in particular (Osage Bend) will become an acceleration ramp as people will "cut through" our neighborhood to circumvent the intersection at Cleveland and Sang. In addition, pushing a road across the mountain will deforest this area. The magnificent trees and the wildlife that we so enjoy (we love our deer, foxes, and the owls that hoot at night) are endangered by this plan. Further, we have no confidence that developers along the route will respect the unique attributes that make our neighborhoods great places to live. It is appalling how developers on the south side of Markham have denuded beautiful forests only to put up town houses with huge concrete 'Parking lots". Pushing Sang through will only increase this eyesore while destroying valuable wildlife and endangering everyone who lives in this area. Note too that it is these types of developments that have created the drainage problems that you are asking us to pay for. Responsible development and expansion in Fayetteville will take into consideration the natural beauty of the area and the unique topography preserved over the past century that has made our city unique and most desirable among Northwest Arkansas cities. Please protect our city! Natalie Hall CityClerk From: Theresa Delaplain <trdelaplain@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 8:12 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Ave Dear City Council, I have just learned of a proposal to widen and extend Sang Avenue from Wedington to MLK. I am greatly OPPOSED to this proposal, as it would adversely affect all the neighborhoods between Wedington and MILK. The greatly increased traffic would create a lot of extra noise, and danger to us and our children who are out walking and playing in the neighborhood daily. The neighborhoods in this part of town are well-established, and in some cases historic, and are prime locations for faculty, staff, and students from the university, as well as other looking for a neighborhood with mature trees, low traffic, and close access to the university. The wooded area of Markham Hill is a landmark of Fayetteville. Extending Sang Avenue would destroy all this, and for what purpose? The city could build major roads AROUND neighborhoods, not THROUGH the middle of them. Why not make the frontage road on the east side of 49 between Wedington and MILK a 2 -way road instead of a 1 -way?? That would serve the same purpose in getting cars between Wedington and MILK without disrupt our precious neighborhood that we love. urge you to null this proposal and leave Sang Avenue as it is. Sincerely, Theresa Delaplain Faculty, University of Arkansas CityClerk From: Caitlin Collier <collierlawoffice@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 9:59 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang extension Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council, Please do not add an extension of Sang Avenue to MILK. Please keep these streets quiet residential areas and stop cutting trees! You are contributing to climate warming and acting against the advice and recommendations of climatologists who warn against creating urban heat sinks! Sincerely, Caitlin Collier On behalf of the Collier family (not Collier Drug) Sincerely, Caitlin F. Collier CityClerk From: cbduty@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January. 07, 2020 10:30 AM To: CityClerk Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council, I read with sorrow the suggestion of cutting a Sang Avenue connection through the UHN/Markham hill residential neighborhood. This will alleviate nothing but will allow and encourage commercial development, high traffic and loss of residential amenities The only people who would benefit would be developers. This seems to me to be a move calculated to please and appease the developers wishing to destroy the last urban forest and historically important area in Fayetteville. Ecological studies have not be sufficient or have been ignored in favor of profit for non residents. Please listen to those who live here! Carolyn Banks, resident on Sunset Drive CityClerk From: Charles Leflar <cleflar@uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 10:33 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang connection Dear City Council, I am a long time Fayetteville resident living at 1717 West Center Street. I would like to ask that Sang NOT be connected over Markham Hill. It would disrupt my neighborhood and life, as well as the wildlife and environment, while not benefitting Fayetteville. I feel this is very important. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Charles Leflar Get Outlook for iOS CityClerk From: Martha Sutherland <sutherlandmartha@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 10:37 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Master Street Plan Dear City Council, Please don't design a street plan that will destroy our neighborhood. Connecting Sang Ave. to MILK Blvd would do just that. We have an artery already --Razorback Rd., newly upgraded. Keep through traffic in the arteries and out of residential areas. Martha Sutherland CityClerk From: Sun Flower <sunflowerwiks@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 11:36 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Avenue extension Please Forward Categories: Forwarded Dear Mayor and City Council Member, I urge you to reconsider the proposed extension of Sang Avenue between Cleveland and MILK. The 30 - 50% grade of the terrain not changed since the last time this proposal was withdrawn in earlier years. This reality poses danger to drivers and creates the hazard of poorly controlled stormwater runoff. In addition to previous considerations, the glut of traffic that now exists at the intersection of Sang and MILK would become untenable with new traffic generated by the widened extension. The historic neighborhood along Markham and Sang as it is today should not have to bear the brunt of a thoroughfare. urge you to remove this proposed extension permanently from the traffic planning for Sang Ave. Margaret Holcomb Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: april mitchell <apriljh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 11:38 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Please do not connect Sang avenue & destroy Markham Hill Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council - Please do not connect Sang avenue & destroy Markham Hill. I am a resident of Loren Circle and my home backs up to Markham and then Markham Hill. We have a beautiful quiet neighborhood where many children and adults are jogging, walking & walking their dogs every day. Already on game days (Football & Basketball), traffic backs up for hours before and after games and we, as home owners simply deal with it for the love of our Razorbacks and fans. We have adapted in that we know when we can leave our homes and walk our dogs on game days so we do not fear getting run over or simply STUCK when we can't turn right or left. Please route traffic around us, not thru us. CityClerk From: Kevin Kellams <kevinjkellams@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 11:53 AM To: CityClerk Cc: kellams@uark.edu; stacey@parkco.net Subject: Master Street Plan Involving Sang Avenue Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council, It is my understanding that the council will be hearing an updated master street plan, which will include an extension and widening of Sang Street. I live at the corner of West Stone and Sang (2108 W. Stone) in a house that's been there over sixty years. We've been in the house for nineteen years. It's my understanding that the intent is to connect MILK to Wedington via Markham Hill. As a long time owner of the property at 2108 W. Stone I have the following concerns: " What kind of right-of-way concessions will be required for the proposed widening of Sang, and how will that affect my property? * Will the current section of Sang be required to be "built up", to help offset the steepness of Markham Hill? * Regarding the steepness of the slope on Markham Hill, what kind of drainage modifications would be made? * What will be done to limit vehicle speeds? This is vitally important since Ramay Junior High borders Sang on the south for an entire block. Is it possible to make the intersection of Sang and W. Stone a 4 -way stop? This is already a dangerous intersection with many people running the stop signs on W. Stone Street. Increased vehicular traffic will only make it worse. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns. I look forward to hearing more about the development of the Markham Hill area. Kevin Kellams 2108 W. Stone Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 CityClerk From: landdyke@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 12:00 PM To: CityClerk Subject: City Council Meeting Categories: Forwarded Dear Sarah and Sonia I am writing to let you know I am opposed to trading or selling any of the property in question to any private developer also support the idea the Housing Authority has proposed. I am tired of the only people being asked for input that only represent a small portion of the public. My question is why aren't more local artist asked for their input? I am totally opposed to building a parking deck which would destroy or cover up historical structures! Sincerely Kathy Benton Ward 1 resident Sent from my iPhone CityClerk From: Walt Eilers <walt@terrapinphilanthropy.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 1:15 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Avenue plans Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council: I am concerned about the plans I have heard to extend Sang to MLK. I have also heard that it will be broadened. Both of these seem unnecessary with the recent expansion and connection of Razorback and Rupple Roads to MILK. Connecting Sand through the neighborhoods would significantly change the residential nature of the communities. Walt Eilers 2044 West Archer Drive 479.283.2784 CityClerk From: joel <joellthomas@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 2:21 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang extension project Categories: Forwarded Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission: Just learned of this so please excuse the format. I am 81 and live on W Osage Bend - Sang to Center To Markham to Razorback and thru the campus is my preferred walking trail. We already have a service road from Wedington to MLK. It connects at the interstate and is the service road. Use it. Also Garland to Razorback to Cato Springs. Use it. Can you imagine the neighborhood traffic on a wider thoroughfare during football, basketball, etc - and the number of cars taking a shortcut thru Osage Bend to avoid Razorback Road? And we just recently built an extension on Rupple to MLK. Use it. Please consider this my request to consider keeping as much of the neighborhood around the campus residential as you can - it will save a lot of big city problems and safety/security issues for the future. And keep Fayetteville a great place to live. Joel L Thomas 1830 W Osage Bend 479.200.0212 Sent from my iPad CityClerk From: Annie Dowling <amdowling@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 2:26 PM To: CityClerk Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council Please consider my concerns as a Fayetteville resident in regard to the connection and the widening of Sang Avenue. At this point in our city's physical history, recovering from so much development and not necessarily smart growth of the 2010s, we need to protect our Fayetteville neighborhoods. This part of town maintains a quiet rural character that contributes to Fayetteville. So many people come into our town each day driving fast, looking for shortcuts due to traffic congestion that we should look first at other roads to widen and traffic calm. We cannot loose quiet neighborhoods to increased development and detrimental road usage that extending Sang Avenue from Wedington Road to MLK Boulevard will cause. Let's not destroy the community character of Fayetteville with its Master Street Plan. Let's plan something smarter and better than destroying an existing neighborhood with a connecting road. Thank you for considering my concerns. Annie Dowling Fayetteville residence since 2008 CityClerk From: Fran Alexander <fran@deane-alexander.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 1:40 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Dear City Council (please give to council members) Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council Members: Please accept this written statement from me in place of comments tonight at the meeting in regard to two issues. Because I am not feeling well and don't want to expose anyone if I'm coming down with something, I am staying home tonight. #1: The Brooks -Hummel trail issue -- First: a transportation corridor is NOT a dirt path meandering through the woods, it's a road. You know, and the conservation easement states, the reserve is to be left in its natural state. A built trail is not a natural path. Transportation planning should never have ever considered this land when planning getting from Point A to Point B. Second: The main reason humans have for going into nature reserves is for discovery. Rarely do we have any places in urban areas where adults and children both can be surrounded by enough wildness to feel "one with nature." That means no roads, no lights, no prescribed activities. These are the only places we can go where we can see the natural world being ---well, natural! Bikes, pavement, even boardwalks disrupt any feelings of discovering something for yourself, and they invade, yet again, the homes of wildlife. PLEASE do not let this transportation corridor and its traffic invade the only nature preserve in this part of town. #2: All the plans in the University Heights area of extending and widening Sang Ave over the mountain to MLK, etc. will completely chew up the existing neighborhoods. Is this the intent? Thousands of cars charging through this area will change the entire sense of place, the reason people have lived and loved their neighborhoods for decades. This is barbaric and not even needed except perhaps for the private gain of large scale developers. PLEASE do NOT approve this traffic plan. Thank You, Fran Alexander K CityClerk From: Steve McBee <snmcbee@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 4:01 PM To: CityClerk; Turk, Teresa; Petty, Matthew; Mayor; Marr, Don Subject: Dear City Council Categories: Forwarded Dear Mayor, City Council, Fayetteville Planning Commission: Just learned of this so please excuse the format. I live on W Osage Bend and own a small business in Fayetteville. Sang to Haskell To Cross To Markham to Razorback and thru the campus is how I commute to work and my preferred cycling, running and dog walking trail. We already have a service road from Wedington to MLK. MILK to Weddington/North connects at the interstate and is the service road. Use it. Garland to Razorback to Cato Springs we're all recently improved. Use them. Sang does not need to be used to access the Specialized Real Estate Project on Markham Hill, nor does it need to be used as a feeder to University of Arkansas parking lots. Can you imagine the neighborhood traffic on a wider thoroughfare during the school year, football, basketball, etc - and the number of cars taking a shortcut thru Osage Bend to avoid Razorback Road? Traffic speeds are already poorly managed on Cleveland and Sage. How will this be addressed? And we just recently built an extension on Rupple to MILK. Use it. Please consider this my request to consider keeping as much of the neighborhood around the campus residential as you can - it will save a lot of big city problems and safety/security issues for the future. And keep Fayetteville a great place to live. Steve McBee 1767 West Osage Bend Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-283-6124 CityClerk From: Katie Simon <katiasimono@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 4:23 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang expansion/connection Categories: Forwarded Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission, I have lived in Fayetteville since 2006 and am opposed to the creation of a connection to make Sang Ave continuous with Deane St to MLK and the resulting increase in traffic that this proposed link connector would make with upwards of 6000 cars per day through my neighborhood. I walk Sang Ave, Halsell and Markham Roads nearly daily with my dog and find the existing traffic to be the'limit of what is safe for pedestrians on these streets. The sporadic sidewalks require frequent street crossings when I walk and the general walkability of the neighborhood as it is results people frequently enjoying walks on the sidewalks and in the streets when required. We mostly feel safe with this lifestyle because the traffic is local and we are careful to watch out for one another. Increased traffic from vehicle that do not care to watch out for us, our children and our pets will present not only eminent danger, but change the lifestyle of the residents of our neighborhood as we won't be as safe walking in our streets. Infrequently we do have people speed through Sang and around the sharp turn onto Halsell, we know how dangerous those sharp turns are to those who don't care to drive safely. These incidents will undoubtedly increase exponentially with increased traffic. In addition to these dangers, the proposed road widening and expansion will do irreparable damage to some of the last remaining intact urban forest in Fayetteville, and that which is closest to the university. The increase in noise and damage to natural area will needlessly change the character of one of our cities believe seven hills forever. Please build around our neighborhood, not through it. Please consider preserving the quiet, natural character of this neighborhood that is representative of Fayetteville's character and that we as a community hold core to our identity and cherish about the Natural State as a whole. Prior to my life here, I've watched the character of communities I have deeply loved in the west be destroyed one road and development at a time. Very well intentioned city council and planning commission members made short-sighted development decisions one after another neglecting to realize the cumulative destruction of all the elements that made up the fabric of their beloved community identity and the unique character of place until these places became nearly unrecognizable. It is only in hindsight that they saw the decisions that created this path to destruction. Please do not make the same mistake. Convenience is nice and short term gain from development is ice, conserving the parts of the town such as intact urban forests and quiet walkable neighborhoods for our children and grand children is much better. Build connecting roads around our neighborhood, not through it! Keep our children and pets safe. That is much more valuable to the citizens of this town than a quicker shortcut. Thank you, Katie Simon 817 N Sunset Dr Fayetteville, AR CityClerk From: Rodney D. Williams <rdw@uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 7:23 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Sang Avenue Categories: Forwarded Dear City Council, I live just off Sang Avenue on Ora Drive. I am adamantly opposed to widening Sang and punching it through to Markham. The traffic on Sang is already extremely dense from commuters to the U of A and is even worse on game days. This is a residential neighborhood with lots of pedestrian traffic with limited sidewalks, lots of children on bicycles. I am a civil engineer and I anticipate that the development will exacerbate the already overloaded drainage infrastructure that causes flooding on my street as well as the neighboring streets. For the record I am also opposed to further development of Markham Hill, but that is an issue I will address with the planning commission in a future communication. Please take the drainage issues and quality of life for our neighborhood into consideration when making decisions on this issue. Rodney D Williams, PE, PS, PhD CityClerk From: Ethel C. Simpson <esimpson@uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 10:11 PM To: CityClerk Subject: please forward Categories: Forwarded Please forward this post to members of the City Council and the Mayor. Many thanks for your help. Thanks for your patience and congratulations on your endurance during that long council meeting Monday evening, Thinking about the discussions, of transportation, connectivity, density, and accessibility, I believe that so many of these issues would be less contentious if we had an effective mass -transit system. We would not need to violate nature preserves or people's front yards, we could accommodate those "renters" who are now forced to drive their cars to work just like people who own their own homes, and sorority members who have to get to meetings. I know there isn't a lot government can do to effect mass transit, but surely it should be part of long-range study and planning. I hadn't attended a public meeting in a while. It is always heartening to see our citizens standing up and talking, even those who might not be the most effective orators. I think it is a positive reflection on our political climate, that citizens have faith that their opinions count. Sometimes, not as much as would like, but at least we have the procedure in place. Keep Fayetteville Fayetteville. (whatever that might mean at any given time. The old hippies are dying off at an alarming rate.We will have to work harder on the Funky.) Ethel C. Simpson 409 N. Oliver Avenue Fayetteville AR 72701 (479) 442-2925