Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-08 - Agendas - FinalqWM Aft CITY of FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS Due to the current health emergency and mayoral declaration, Fayetteville's City Hall is closed to the public. City meetings are being held virtually. You can attend these meetings online by going to the following City webpage and selecting the meeting that interests you. http://www.favetteviIle-ar.gov/3896/Virtua1- Meeting-Information Please note that participation details are not available until the week of the meeting. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8267 Planning Commission Final Agenda Monday, February 8, 2021 5:30 PM City Hall Room 219 Planning Commission Members Matthew Johnson, Chair Matthew Hoffman, Vice Chair Leslie Belden, Secretary Tom Brown Quintin Canada Kristifaer Paxton Robert Sharp Porter Winston Jimm Garlock Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington Planning Commission Final Agenda February 8, 2021 Call To Order Roll Call Consent 1. 2021-0080 Approval of the minutes from the January 25, 2021 Planning Commission. Attachments: 01-25-2021 Minutes 2. 2021-0083 CCP-2020-000003: Concurrent Plat (3641 W. KESSLER MOUNTAIN RD./NICHOLS & REYNOLDS, 751): Submitted by ESI ENGINEERS, INC. for properties located at 3641 W. KESSLER MOUNTAIN RD. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contain 4 parcels with approximately 101.56 acres. The request is for the concurrent plat of 10 residential lots. Planner: Jessie Masters Attachments: CCP-2020-000003 (Nichols -Reynolds) 3. 2021-0082 VAR-2021-000015: Variance (NORTH OF 6114 W. JANA PL./KERN, 279): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NORTH OF 6114 W. JANA PL. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 10.15 acres. The request is for a variance to the street frontage requirements due to a proposed split of the parent tract. Planner: Ryan Umberger Attachments: VAR-2021-000015 (Kern) Unfinished Business City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 2 Printed on 21512021 Planning Commission Final Agenda February 8, 2021 4. 5. 6. 2021-0048 ADM-2020-000020: Administrative Item (Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment): Submitted by CITY STAFF. The request is to eliminate the secret ballot when voting for Officers of the Planning Commission. Planner: Jonathan Curth THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE JANUARY 25, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. Attachments: ADM-2020-000020 (PC Bylaw Amend.) 2021-0046 VAR-2020-000014: Variance (20 S. HILL AVE./PUTMAN HOUSE, 522): Submitted by EXPEDIENT CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 20 S. HILL AVE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is for a variance to the driveway separation and greenspace requirements. Planner: Jessie Masters THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE JANUARY 25, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 22, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. Attachments: VAR-2020-000014 (Putman House) 2020-1169 RZN-2020-000024: Rezone (916 N. SANG AVE./GLORIOUS ASSETS, INC., 442): Submitted by SOUTHERN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. for property located at 916 N. SANG AVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.70 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-7, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 7 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Ryan Umberger THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE JANUARY 11 & JANUARY 25, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSIONS. Attachments: New Business RZN-2020-000024 (Glorious Assets) City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 3 Printed on 21512021 Planning Commission Final Agenda February 8, 2021 7. 2021-0081 LSD-2020-000012: Large Scale Development (3655 S. SCHOOL AVE./HANNA'S CANDLE, 756): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3655 S. SCHOOL AVE. The property is zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 33.98 acres. The request is for a 99,000-square foot warehouse, 36,976 square foot office/showroom, and associated parking. Planner: Ryan Umberger THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 22, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. Attachments: LSD-2020-000012 (Hanna's Exp.) 8. 2021-0084 LSD 2020-000015: Large Scale Development (2231 W. MARKHAM RD./PRATT PLACE INN & BARN ADDITIONS, 481): Submitted by DCI, INC. for property located at 2231 W. MARKHAM RD. The property is zoned CPZD, COMMERCIAL ZONED PLANNING DISTRICT and contains approximately 6.80 acres. The request is for an addition to the inn and event barn that includes 17 guest cabins, 12,000 square feet of commercial space, 5,000 square feet of event space, and an additional 80 guest rooms with associated parking. Planner: Jonathan Curth Attachments: LSD-2020-000015 (Pratt Place Inn & Barn) Discussion Items 9. 2021-0101 ADM-2021-000027: Submitted by the Long Range Committee of the Planning Commission for an item to amend the UDC. The request is for the discussion of a revision to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to allow for In -home Daycares, Child Care, and Nursery Schools as a by -right use in additional zoning districts. Attachments: ADM-2021-000027 (Day Care UDC Amendment) Items Administratively Approved by Staff City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 4 Printed on 21512021 Planning Commission Final Agenda February 8, 2021 2021-0098 LSP-2020-000026: Lot Split (121 & 123 N. WASHINGTON AVE./BRICENO, 485): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 121 & 123 N. WASHINGTON AVE. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.19 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 parcels with approximately 0.11, and 0.08 acres. Planner: Jessie Masters 2021-0087 LSP-2020-000054: Lot Split -Property Line Adjustment (293 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD./COODY, 526): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 293 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is to split and adjust the properties into 4 parcels with approximately 2.47, 2.22, 0.99, and 0.99 acres. Planner: Jonathan Curth 2021-0099 LSP-2020-000045: Lot Split (NW OF N. OLD MISSOURI RD. & E. JOYCE BLVD./TRAILS OF PARADISE VALLEY APTS., 176): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NW OF N. OLD MISSOURI RD. & E. JOYCE BLVD. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE & CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 12.43 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 parcels with approximately 10.00, and 2.43 acres. Planner: Jessie Masters 2021-0085 SIP-2020-000001: Site Improvement Plan (3267 N. TRUCKERS DR./GRAND RETIREMENT, 7-PLEX, 208): Submitted by RICK MOONEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. for property located at 3267 N. TRUCKERS DR. The property is zoned RMF-12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 12 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 20.53 acres. The request is for a 7-unit townhome complex with associated parking. Planner: Jonathan Curth City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 5 Printed on 21512021 Planning Commission Final Agenda February 8, 2021 2021-0086 SIP-2020-000010: Site Improvement Plan (N.E. OF 245 W. LOOP/OSBORNE, 172): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for N.E. OF 245 W. VAN ASCHE LOOP. The property is zoned C-1, COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.95 acres. The request is for a office building with associated parking. Planner: Jonathan Curth 2021-0095 VAN ASCHE property located NEIGHBORHOOD 7,800-square foot FPL 2020-000002: Final Plat (SW OF E. CALGARY ST. & S. DEAD HORSE MTN. RD./RIVERWALK PH. III, 363): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located SW OF E. CALGARY ST. & S. DEAD HORSE MTN. RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 24.70 acres. The request is for the final plat of 57 single family lots. Planner: Ryan Umberger Announcements Adjournment NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item, please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official, staff, or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 6 Printed on 21512021 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0080 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission File Type: Agenda Item Agenda Number: 1. Approval of the minutes from the January 25, 2021 Planning Commission. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 CITY OF .FAYETTEVILLE MEETING MINUTES PP ARKANSAS Planning Commission Meeting Monday, January 25, 2021 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 NOTE: The January 25, 2021 Planning Commission was held virtually, with Commissioners, staff, applicants, and the public attending remotely. The Commission Chair, Assistant City Attorney, and Development Review Manager were the only individuals present along with Information Technology support staff. Members: Matthew Johnson (Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Vice Chair), Leslie Belden (Secretary), Robert Sharp, Kristifier Paxton, Jimm Garlock, Quintin Canada, Tom Brown, and Porter Winston. Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Matthew Johnson (Chair) Roll Call: In Attendance: Matthew Johnson (Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Vice Chair), Robert Sharp, Kristifier Paxton, Jimm Garlock, Quintin Canada, Tom Brown, and Porter Winston. Absent: Leslie Belden (Secretary) City Staff: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director; Jessie Masters, Senior Planner; Ryan Umberger, Planner; Jonathan Ely, Engineer; Josh Boccaccio, Engineer; Melissa Evans, Urban Forester; Nathan Wood, Fire; Brian Wandstrat, Fire. Assistant City Attorney: Blake Pennington Consent 1. Approval of the Minutes from the January 11, 2021 meeting. 2. ADM-2020-000022: Administrative Item (S.W. OF MORNINGSIDE DR. & 15TH ST./CREEK MEADOWS SD AMEND., 603): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located S. W. OF MORNINGSIDE DR. & 15TH ST. The property is zoned NS-G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES -GENERAL and contains approximately 19.40 acres. The request is for a major modification to PPL 19-6867 to increase the original plat lot count from 102 to 113 lots. Planner: Jessie Masters Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 WIN IN. fayetFcWAfl'0e&r.QJWssion February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 1 of 17 3. CCP-2020-000008: Concurrent Plat (521, 523, 535, & 537 W. MEADOW ST./21 WEST, LLC., 484): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 521, 523, 535, & 537 W. MEADOW ST. The properties are zoned MSC, MAIN STREET/CENTER and contain approximately 0.10 acres. The request is for the concurrent plat of 2 residential lots. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Paxton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 2 of 17 Unfinished Business: 4. RZN-2020-000026: Rezone (5200 BLOCK OF W. WEDINGTON DR./PLANET STORAGE, LLC., 398): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at the 5200 BLOCK OF W. WEDINGTON DR. The properties are zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains 3 parcels with approximately 1.32 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Ryan Umberger, Planner: Gave the staff report. Geoffrey Bates, Applicant: Explained what is different about the proposal this time around and that he was there to answer any questions. Public comment: No public comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Explained his concerns for commercial development extending outside the Corridor Master Plan area and its corresponding Tier 2 Center at Rupple and outside the Tier 3 Center to the West as development contributes to traffic issues on Wedington Dr and why he is inclined to deny this request. Kristifier Paxton, Commissioner: Asked City Staff if the applicant would be allowed to apply for a Conditional Use Permit if they requested a different Zoning. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director: Explained the way they could apply for a Conditional Use Permit but that the building would only be allowed to be 3,000sf. Umberger: Confirmed the applicant submitted plans for a 4,000sf building. Jimm Garlock, Commissioner: Stated why he is in alignment with City Staff's recommendation of denial. Paxton: Gave his thoughts on why he is in agreement with City Staff's recommendation but stated what changes could be done so he could possibly support it. Robert Sharp, Commissioner: Stated he believes this proposal is premature for this location. Porter Winston, Commissioner: Asked about the Cobblestone development next door and what will be happening on that property. Curth: Gave a brief history of the Cobblestone property and its rezone, annexation, and how the property could develop. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 3 of 17 Winston: Asked if they talked about what was going to be done on that property when their request came through. Curth: Explained that they did present, but that this was more directly associated with the annexation than the rezoning. Winston: Stated that he is leaning towards allowing this request and would like to hear what other Commissioners have to say. He would also be in favor of making it as small as possible or looking for a zoning that has less intensity. Matthew Johnson, Commission Chair: Asked what the Community Services description is. Curth: Read the description from the Unified Development Code. Johnson: Explaining why he is leaning against this. Matthew Hoffman, Commission Vice Chair: Explained why he will be voting against this. Quintin Canada, Commissioner: Explained why he will be voting against this. Johnson: Asked applicant if they want an up/down vote or would prefer the Commission to select a Zoning District they feel is more appropriate. Bates: Said he would prefer to rezone to RSF-4 and apply for a conditional use permit to build an office to the limited business standard; restricting the office's size to 3,000 square -feet. Paxton: Stated that his approval vote here does not mean he would be approving a Conditional Use Permit in the future. Brown: Made a motion. Hoffman: Stated that he will not be voting to approve the RSF-4 request for the same reasons he wasn't going to support the original request. Garlock: Stated he will be voting against this. Sharp: Explained why he is voting against this motion. Brown: Asked City Staff to confirm if the Limited Business Use Unit is a conditional use in the RSF-4 zoning and explained why he made the motion to rezone it to RSF-4. Curth: Stated that RSF-4 does allow the Limited Business use unit as a conditional use. Brown: Stated he will stick with his motion. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 4 of 17 Johnson: Asked if the rezoning of the property immediately to the South/Southeast was denied by the Planning Commission and appealed to City Council. Curth: Confirmed that request was denied by Planning Commission and appealed to City Council but what was approved by City Council subject to a Bill of Assurance that included a density cap for the RI-U portion and also included a requirement that east/west connectivity be provided through the property regardless of a block length allowance. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to forward RZN-2020-000026 recommending RSF-4. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-5-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 5 of 17 5. RZN-2020-000024: Rezone (916 N. SANG AVEJGLORIOUS ASSETS, INC., 442): Submitted by SOUTHERN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. for property located at 916 N. SANG AVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.70 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-7, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 7 UNITS PER ACRE. THIS ITEM IS BEING TABLED UNTIL THE FEBURARY 8TH, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to suspend the rules and table RZN-2020-000024. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 6 of 17 New Business: 6. ADM-2020-000020: Administrative Item (Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment): Submitted by CITY STAFF. The request is to eliminate the secret ballot when voting for Officers of the Planning Commission. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director: Gave the staff report. Public comment: No public comment was presented. Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney: Explained that anything added onto this amendment that is not submitted in writing at this meeting would then need to be tabled at the next meeting per the bylaws. Curth: Inquired of the Assistant City Attorney if the amendment not being approved until the second meeting in February causes concern regarding the timing of the officer's election. Pennington: Stated that it should not be an issue. Johnson: Asked if it is possible to approve amendments to the bylaws separately. Pennington: Stated that you can present them in whatever order you would like. Jimm Garlock, Commissioner: Stated that it might be easier to move this forward for February 8th meeting regardless of what happens with other amendments. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table ADM-2020-000020 to the February 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 7 of 17 7. ADM-2020-000019: Administrative Item (2407 N. COLLEGE AVE./HOUNDS LOUNGE CUP, 290): Submitted by CITY STAFF for property located at 2407 N. COLLEGE AVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is a follow up to CUP 17-5908 & ADM18-6501 to determine the progress of the landscaping along the fence between the building and the street. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director: Gave the staff report. Applicant: Was not able to attend. Public comment: No public comment was presented. Porter Winston, Commissioner: Inquired if a mural could be part of this solution. Curth: Stated it is entirely up to the Planning Commission. Kristifier Paxton, Commissioner: Stated that he likes the mural idea. Matthew Hoffman, Commission Vice Chair: Gave his ideas of what he would like to see back for proposal on February 8. Winston: Stated he would like to take the idea of a mural on the privacy fence off the table. Brown: Stated why he likes the planter idea better. Robert Sharp, Commissioner: Stated why he is skeptical of the mural idea. Paxton: Retracted his statement about supporting the mural and supports the planter. Matthew Johnson, Commission Chair: Stated that planters would be great but there might be some limitations from Trash and Recycle as that came up last time they were considering some masonry screening and some other items on the East facing portion of the fence. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to table ADM-2020-000019 until the March 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Garlock seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 8 of 17 8. VAR-2020-000014: Variance (20 S. HILL AVE./PUTMAN HOUSE, 522): Submitted by EXPEDIENT CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 20 S. HILL AVE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is for a variance to the driveway separation and greenspace requirements. Jessie Masters, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Applicant: Was not present. Public comment: No public comment was presented. Kristifier Paxton, Commissioner: Stated he has concern with too much of the south side parking being "compact parking" and that he cannot support this. Matthew Hoffman, Commission Vice Chair: Explained this proposal hopefully will help to preserve the historic building for another generation and so he will be supporting this proposal even with some of the issues with the request such as parking. Robert Sharp, Commissioner: Echoed Commissioner Hoffman's comments and gave his comments regarding the compact parking spaces, the large front lawn, the ADA parking spaces location, and a landscape screening idea. Jimm Garlock, Commissioner: Stated that he wished the applicant were present to address some questions. Porter Winston, Commissioner: Asked about the possibility of the parking wrapping around the backside of the house. Matthew Johnson, Commission Chair: Stated it might drop of behind the house there. Winston: Stated that it looks relatively flat. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Was concerned that the property was going to be sold as a residential property and is happy to hear that they may have found a commercial use for it and echoed the comments regarding preservation of historic structures. Motion: Commissioner Garlock made a motion to table VAR-2020-000014 until the February 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Paxton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 9 of 17 9. VAR-2020-000013: Variance (N.E. OF 245 VAN ASCHE LOOP/OSBORNE OFC. BLDG., 262): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located N.E. OF 245 VAN ASCHE LOOP. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.98 acres. The request is for a variance to the maximum number of allowed parking spaces and greenspace requirements. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director: Gave the staff report. Jake Chavis, Applicant: Stated he is here to answer any questions and that they added a permeable pavement section to account for that extra added impervious surface. Public comment: No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve VAR-2020-000013 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Canada seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 10 of 17 10. CCP-2020-000009: Concurrent Plat (NORTH OF 3234 OAKLAND ZION RD./VAN HORN, 218): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NORTH OF 3234 N. OAKLAND ZION RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 6.30 acres. The request is for the concurrent plat of 3 residential lots. Jessie Masters, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Alan Reid, Applicant: Stated he is representing the applicants and they are happy to apply with the conditions and are here to answer any questions. Public comment: No public comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Made a motion. Porter Winston, Commissioner: Asked about the difference in setbacks from tract C and tract A & B. Masters: Explained this lot is located in Washington County and setback requirements would be something they eventually review for but that it appears that they are counting the access easement as their front property line. Kristifier Paxton, Commissioner: Stated that there was a member of the public that provided feedback and rational nexus was briefly discussed and he thought this might be a good time for legal to give a brief explanation of what that meant so if that individual were to roll back the tape they would have that information. Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney: Explained. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve CCP-2020-000009 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 11 of 17 11. LSD-2020-000016: Large Scale Development (1800 N. PORTER RD./FAYETTEVILLE POLICE HQ & FIRE STATION, 364): Submitted by OLLSON ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1800 N. PORTER RD. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 11.60 acres. The request is for police department buildings with 82,630 square feet and a fire station with 7,322 square feet and associated parking for both. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director: Gave the staff report. Wade Abernathy, Applicant: Stated he and Chief Reynolds are available to any questions. Matthew Loos, Applicant: Stated that they will continue to look at ways to maximize the future developable area as the mid -town corridor continues to be fleshed out as the design goes. Curth: Added that an eight -foot aluminum fence is what is intended around the secured parking. Public comment: No public comment was presented. Jimm Garlock, Commissioner: Stated that this is well overdue, and he appreciates all the police and fireman do. Matthew Johnson, Commissioner: Stated that when the concept plat came through and in talking through the rezoning there were concerns and questions about the layout and overall architecture and site plan but that is not what is up for consideration tonight. It is a Large -Scale Development that City Staff finds in favor of. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve LSD--2020-000016 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Canada seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Hoffman recused. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 12 of 17 12. RZN-2020-000027: Rezone (1673 & 1675 N. FLORENE ST./HERMEZ-HERNANDEZ, 401): Submitted by ADRIANA HERMEZ for property located at 1673 & 1675 N. FLORENE ST. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RI-12, RESIDENTIAL INTERMEDIATE, 12 UNITS PER ACRE. Ryan Umberger, Planner: Gave the staff report. Ismael Hernandez, Applicant: Stated they were there to answer any questions. Public comment: DeWana Svendsen, 214 N Florene St: Stated that the property is not large enough to sustain another duplex and is not good for the neighborhood. No further public comment was given. Matthew Johnson, Commission Chair: Asked how many additional units could be built on this property under the current Zoning. Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director: Explained that almost no additional development could happen on the property. While the use, of a Duplex, is conforming there are very sizeable street frontage and lot area requirements that this property does not meet. Johnson: Stated that he has lived in this area for years and is surprised that we still have these pockets of R-A. Matthew Hoffman, Commission Vice Chair: Thanked the Chair for asking the question of Mr. Curth and stated that it is noteworthy that the current zoning designation is not compatible with the property. Thought City Staffs analysis makes sense and allowing more development in this area makes sense as it is close to non-residential services. Hopefully that connectivity issues will be resolved as different developments turn over. Stated he thinks this is moving in the right direction and will support it. Johnson: Added that he loves this part of town and how walkable it is for the most part. Stated that it is very close to restaurants and a grocery store. Said he thinks this zoning is appropriate even though it may not initially match the character of the homes around it but could get behind this zoning. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Made the motion. Kristifier Paxton, Commissioner: Stated that he is having a problem getting over the shared driveway issue on the north side and if there was another duplex allowed here there would be issues for people getting in and out. Feels as if they are pushing away the fact that people Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 13 of 17 already live there and doesn't feel that allowing another duplex would fit in with the existing fabric of this type of neighborhood. Jimm Garlock, Commissioner: Stated that he does believe that this should be up zoned but that it would be a miracle to come back without any crazy -ass variances. Stated that he will vote for this but will not be voting to approve any variances for this if it comes back. It is a nice neighborhood and he does have apprehensive feelings about it but can see that it is non- conforming, and it would actually be a good fit for the neighborhood. Quintin Canada, Commissioner: Stated that he is for this and always tries to figure out what is sensible for up -zoning and density and thinks this is a great use. Stated he is apprehensive about them coming back with some variances but understands the need for housing. Hoffman: Respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Paxton's assertion that it will lower the quality of life for others in the neighborhood and reiterated his thoughts on why he will be supporting it. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to forward RZN-2020-000027 recommending approval. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Commissioners Paxton and Garlock voted `no'. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 14 of 17 13. RZN-2020-000028: Rezone (S.E. OF MICHAEL COLE RD. & WEDINGTON DR./KIDDER, 436): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located S.E. OF MICHAEL COLE RD. & WEDINGTON DR. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 5.00 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RMF-18, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE. Jessie Masters, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Justin Jorgensen, Applicant: Gave reasonings for the RMF-18 request and explained some goals of the development. Public comment: Kate Chapman, 5925 W Michael Cole Dr: Stated why she is not in favor of this rezoning request. Norma Dickerson, 1272 N Double Springs Rd: Stated why she is not in favor of this rezoning request. No further public comment was given at this point. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Stated a Tier 3 center is located at the intersection of Wedington Dr and Double Springs Rd and the property is located within the pedestrian shed of the Tier center and therefore density and housing diversity objectives should be a major planning consideration. Although this is rural in nature the growth concept map has designated the area as a Tier center and taking this zoning action allows the start of the building of the Tier center overtime. In addition the FLUM classification classifies the property as a residential neighborhood area which is intended to support a wide variety of housing types including Townhouses, Multi -Family, Duplex, Single Family, etc. and therefore he had a different opinion that City Staff from the stand point of denial but after hearing that the applicant would be willing to look at a RI-U zoning which is less dense that it might be appropriate. Since this is also in the pedestrian shed, he would be willing to look at NS-L on the western part of the property which is closer to the center of the Tier. He stated that he could live with the applicant's requests but likes what City Staff is proposing from the standpoint of RI-U and some limited NS-L and is happy that the applicant is considering that also. Matthew Hoffman, Commission Vice Chair: Gave his thoughts regarding the location of this site in relation to the Tier 3 center and why he is skeptical on this and is open to tabling it Public Comment: Fred Faine: Stated that he was actually interested in the previous rezoning item on north Florene Street not this item. Matthew Johnson, Commission Chair: Stated that this item was just heard and Ryan Umberger was able to give a brief summary of Mr. Faine's comments to the commission at least and that Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 15 of 17 the item has been forwarded on to the City Council for approval and strongly encouraged Mr. Faine to make his comments known to them as well. Faine: Asked if the vote was done already. Johnson: Confirmed that is was approved to be forwarded to the City Council which has final authority over rezonings. No further public comment was presented. Quintin Canada, Commissioner: Stated that he sees what Commissioner Brown was saying but is leaning towards denial of this request due to this being sprawl. Jimm Garlock, Commissioner: Thanked the public for waiting patiently and explained why he is on the Planning Commission. He stated why he is voting to deny this. Porter Winston, Commissioner: Stated why he is in favor of tabling this to look into other zoning recommendations. Kristifier Paxton, Commissioner: Agreed with other Commissioners and stated why he is not in favor of the proposal. Johnson: Stated that this is a good reminder of why a more comprehensive plan for Wedington and the West side of Fayetteville is needed. It's hard to send a clear message to developers who are getting lost in the zoning and what is appropriate land use. Canada: Made a motion to deny the item. Winston: Asked if they could ask the applicant if they would prefer them to table this item. Johnson: Asked applicant. Jorgensen: Stated why they would like to table this item. Winston: Made the motion to table. Brown: Seconded the motion to table. Johnson: Explained that the motion to table supersedes the motion to deny. Brown: Stated that he hoped the applicant would move the commercial aspect of this proposal as close to the Tier center as possible and not the edge of the Tier center. Johnson: Explained why he would be voting against tabling this item. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 16 of 17 Canada: Explained why he would be voting against tabling this item. Paxton: Explained why he would be voting against tabling this item. Hoffman: Explained why he would be voting in favor of tabling this item. Motion 2: (Superseded Motion 1 as a motion to table supersedes a motion to deny) Commissioner Winston made a motion to table RZN-2020-000028. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-5-0. Commissioners Sharp, Paxton, Garlock, Canada, and Johnson voted `no'. Motion 1: Commissioner Canada made a motion to deny RZN-2020-000028 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Paxton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted `no'. Announcements: 1. Subdivision Committee this Thursday, January 28, 2021. 2. Congratulations to Jonathan Curth who has received a well -deserved promotion to Development Services Director. Adjournment Time: 8:19 p.m. Submitted by: City Planning Division Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 1 01-25-2021 Minutes Page 17 of 17 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0083 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 2. File Type: Agenda Item CCP-2020-000003: Concurrent Plat (3641 W. KESSLER MOUNTAIN RD./NICHOLS & REYNOLDS, 751): Submitted by ESI ENGINEERS, INC. for properties located at 3641 W. KESSLER MOUNTAIN RD. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contain 4 parcels with approximately 101.56 acres. The request is for the concurrent plat of 10 residential lots. Planner: Jessie Masters City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 CITY OF ti FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Subdivision Committee THRU: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director FROM: Jessie Masters, Senior Planner MEETING: February 8, 2021 SUBJECT: CCP 2020-000003: Concurrent Plat (3641 W. KESSLER MTN. RD./NICHOLS- REYNOLDS, 437): Submitted by ESI & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 3641 W. KESSLER MTN. RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 101.56 acres. The request is for the concurrent plat of 10 residential lots. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CCP-2020-000003, with conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve CCP-2020-000003, determining: In favor of recommended street improvements; All other conditions of approval." BACKGROUND: The subject property, located in the Fayetteville Planning Area and just south of Kessler Mountain Regional Park, contains approximately 101.56 acres with frontage along W. Kessler Mountain Road. The property is zoned per Washington County standards which permits agricultural uses and single-family dwellings at a density of one unit per acre, and currently contains 4 parcels (001-12635-000, 001-12635-004, 001-11311-006, 001-11311-000). Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted on Table 1. Table 1 - Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Land Use Zoning North Single -Family Residential/Undeveloped Washington County; Residential Single -Family, .5 Units per Acre South Single -Family Residential/Undeveloped Washington Count East Undeveloped Washington County West Single -Family Residential/Industrial Washington Count Proposal: The applicant proposes to subdivide and adjust the existing 4 parcels into a resultant 10 parcels. The parent tract has exhausted the number of administrative lot splits allowed per code, necessitating the need for the proposal to be reviewed as a concurrent plat request, rather than a typical lot split/property line adjustment. Water and Sewer System: While the parcels proposed are located within the City of Fayetteville water service area, they do not currently have access to a water main, and the nearest access is approximately 2,400 feet to the east at S. Cato Springs Road, and beyond reasonable distance Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevilWb� Y.�Sr� 2021 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Age da Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 1 of 14 for extension or connection. New lots created will be served by private wells. The lots will also be served by private septic systems, which will be permitted through Washington County. Right-of-way to be dedicated: No additional right-of-way will be dedicated. Kessler Mountain Road currently has 60 feet of County right of way, which meets the minimum standards in the county, and is beyond the 52 feet required by Fayetteville's Master Street Plan for a Residential Link. Access and connectivity: Individual lots have required street frontage to W. Kessler Mountain Road, which is public right-of-way, with one point of access with S. Cato Springs Road approximately'/2 mile to the east. Street Improvements: As stated above, the lots have street frontage to W. Kessler Mountain Road, which is a 14-foot wide gravel road, the length of which is approximately'/2 mile. Based on the impact of the development request, staff does not find that requiring the applicant to improve the frontage to typical Master Street Plan requirements along their site's frontage would be proportional to the overall impact, so is not recommending those street improvements at this time. However, staff does find that the existing conditions of the intersection with S. Cato Springs Road, the site's only point of access, justify a roughly proportional improvement to that intersection. The applicant proposes to pave and widen W. Kessler Mountain Road (exhibit attached). Since the nature of these off -site improvements will largely require coordination with Washington County, staff finds that the platting process and the street improvements can run concurrently, though recommends that the requested improvements be made prior to City signature and recordation of the plat. Tree Preservation: N/A; the City of Fayetteville Tree Preservation Ordinance does not extend to property located within Washington County. Parkland Fees: N/A; the City of Fayetteville parkland dedication requirements do not extend to property located within Washington County. Public Comment: Staff has received public comment from surrounding property owners who expressed concerns about the availability of water to the site. Many of the homes in the area use surface water through springs and haul water during dry seasons to their properties. The City is not involved in the construction or permitting of wells. In response, staff finds that the applicant should plan to include a note on the plat regarding the availability of water to the site. One member of the public also called in to the Subdivision Committee meeting with questions about the street improvements and any future water service connections that may be made on Kessler Mountain Road. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CCP-2020-000003, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends applicant's proposed street improvements at W. Kessler Mountain Road's intersection with S. Cato Springs Road. Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of this determination. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 2 of 14 2. The applicant shall provide on the plat: a. Please provide full suite of required signatures for concurrent plat; b. Include a note on the plat regarding availability of water on site; c. Street table with W. Kessler Mountain Road information required (ROW width, dimension from centerline, paving information and dimensions); d. Include City Plan 2040 Master Street Plan information on vicinity map; 3. All remaining comments from other City departments shall be addressed; 4. Washington County approval of the plat is required prior to recordation. Standard conditions of approval: 5. All lots shall be labeled with addresses as approved by the 911 Coordinator on the final plat (if applicable). 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his/her representative, and all comments from utility representative: Black Hills Energy, AT&T, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communication). 7. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: February 8, 2021 O Tabled O Approved O Denied Motion: Second: Note: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Engineering Memo • Applicant Cover Letter • Site Plan • Proposed Street Improvements Exhibit • Exhibit: Site Photos from Cato Springs and Kessler Mountain Road Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 3 of 14 One Mile Map Close Up Map Current Land Use Map Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 4 of 14 CITY OF . FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS TO: Jessie Masters, Senior Planner FROM: Jonathan Ely, Development and Construction Manager DATE: January 5, 2021 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Engineering Comments for CCP-2020-000003 STAFF MEMO The parcels proposed as a part of this project are located within City of Fayetteville water service area, but do not have access to a city water main. The applicant has acknowledged this and stated that the new lots will be served by private wells. If for some reason this changes, and a water connection is desired for the property, it will require a main extension at the expense of the developer. The property is outside city limits and now allowed to hook onto sanitary sewer. The applicant has responded that each lot will be served by its own private septic system, which is required to be permitted by Washington County. Engineering staff recommends approval with a condition that prior to filing the plat that the described street improvements to Mt. Kessler Road near Cato Springs be completed by Washington County, and/or the developer in conjunction with Washington County. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 www.fayetgmpgzR�wission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 5 of 14 ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. 1207 S. Old Missouri Rd. • P.O. Box 282 • Springdale, Arkansas 72765-0282 4203 Richmond Place. • Texarkana, Texas 75503-0004 December 23, 2020 Fayetteville Development Services 125 W Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Kessler Mountain CCP Fayetteville, AR To whom it may concern. Ph:479-751-8733 •Fax:479-751-8746 Ph:479-318-7248 Please let this letter serve as a narrative accompanying the 2nd submittal for a Property Line Adjustment and Lot Split for a property located along Kessler Mountain Road. This project is outside of the city, but within the City's planning area. The project area consist of Parcel Numbers: 001-11311-000 (Diane Nichols), 001-11311-006 and 001-12635- 000 (Vera Nichols) AND 001-12635-000 (RONNIE REYNOLDS). The entire tract is approximately 101.56 acres as shown on the CCP drawing. It is desired to adjust the existing property lines in this area, and to split the lots into a total of 10 new lots. No drainage improvements are proposed to Kessler Mountain Road. Mt. Kessler No drainage improvements are proposed to Kessler Mountain Road, at the project area, or at the intersection of Kessler Mountain Road and S Cato Springs Rd. Street Improvements are proposed at the intersection of Kessler Mountain Road and S Cato Springs Rd. in accordance with the included exhibit. This has been discussed in detail with Fayetteville Engineering as well as Washington County Engineering. The original goal was to improve Kessler Mountain Road to be 20' wide and 130' in length. After many attempts at redesigning the street, it was determined that this was not physically possible due to excessively steep slopes along Kessler Mountain Road, as well as the street side slopes north and south of the street. Because of this, these improvements were scaled back as shown on the attached exhibit, and guardrail has been added as an additional safety measure. Utilities The site has no access to existing water or sewer infrastructure. Water for each lot will be by on -site private wells, and sewer will be by on -site private septic systems. Drainage As this is currently 100+ acres of land, and the resultant lots will be large in nature, it is not anticipated that there will be any drainage changes. No drainage report or letter is included in this submittal. If a drainage letter is required, please let me know and this can be submitted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this application or if you need anything further. Thank you, Blake Murray, PE, CFM Project Engineer Brian J. Moore, P.E. I Tim J. Mays, P.E. I Jason Appel, P.E. I Jerry W. Martin President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Chairman of the Board Planning Commission Consulting 8, 2021 ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.. Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 6 of 14 o3 iiapkR of a t R ------------- I110I0000000000II ------------ - M """"° "° — CCP 20-00003 N Commission uary 8, 2021 ienda Item 2 Page 7 of 14 9 Ellx d $ 6 k€€ E �E €ywe 'd i �a _k� s n 3pW� �IHN g�s �H� $ LL 'w4gw °"$ a yy p9k�o t : '$ = a �s x} a H 1 iqk '�'qiEc a x 'iQaRgaBs k a k kp'ga€eF�anek=°s%kw I I fig " L d $3 s3¢s a k @ adkEl sq�� ea��0¢� �« I • 000® °ws 2 0 dM4� iw� I i 8 ill I 4 � 1= a $ E g ecy� a� qlj, ; gaxgla p SpiN ek k`� G�&y§k @g§i yy GsaE3��Yy°^g yy �p�p3eikM£` i kw '€ "a ' qq; 3kp7^ffa gq� 8a5�§ Commission •uary 8, 2021 aenda Item 2 ols-Reynolds Page 8 of 14 Zz CH D G O N U LL z - WO Z W = o � Q z ry w J V) W Y M al ig Commission bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 Page 9 of 14 STAFF EXHIBIT — CURRENT CONDITIONS AT CATO SPRINGS AND KESSLER MOUNTAIN ROAD Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 10 of 14 STAFF EXHIBIT — CURRENT CONDITIONS AT CATO SPRINGS AND KESSLER MOUNTAIN ROAD Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 11 of 14 CCP-2020-000003 Nichols -Reynolds One Mile View 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles -------------, Planning Area �- - - Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) P-1 i --- — — — ----——--—--—— Subject Property RSF-.5 NORTH r--- Zoning RESIDENT IALSINGLE-FAMILY L2 Gen Ih—hial EXTRACTION _ _ _ _ _ N8-G E-1 _ _ _ . RI-U COMMERCIAL � RI-12 Reaieaneal-Ofice NSL M.- - - � e-.1-Agn.1-1 C-2 RSF-.5 : C-3 _ R. FORM BASED DISTRICTS - RSF-2 Downtown Care ' RSF-4 Umen TM1omugMare RSF-] Main B Center RSF-8 Downtown Gener9 RDEN Camri,... BerNcea RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY NeigM1bamooe services Q 1♦ R 6 1♦ Neighbamooe Conservaecn r RMF-12 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS ' ' - - - l � RMF-18 � Commercial, Ineuatnal, Reaieenrlal Planning Area -- -- �RMF-2a INSTITUTIONAL �FayettevilleCityLimits RMF-ao INDUSTRIAL P-, Plannin Coi --_-J L,NaaCemarcialandLight neuaNai g ssion 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 12 of 14 CCP-2020-000003 Nichols -Reynolds Close Up View r I 1 — — P-1 RSF-.5 L'ER'MO(�Hr Subject Property PEAR Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District Feet ` Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits 0 180 360 720 1,080 1,440 L — � Building Footprint 1 inch = 500 feet NORTH RSF-.5 P-1 Planning Corilmission Coti• QIQ 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 13 of 14 CCP-2020-000003 Current Land Use Single -Family Residential �� W� �Industrial if, Nichols -Reynolds Undeveloped f F• •- Sub'ect Pro ert Single -Family Residential F Planning Area - - -; Fayetteville City Limits Single -Family Residential NOKESSLER,Mn11MTA1K r k,,_. i p y I Undeveloped Feet 0 Floodway 0 220 440 880 1,320 1,760 1 inch = 600 feet Planning Corilmission r WF6 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 14 of 14 if, Nichols -Reynolds Undeveloped f F• •- Sub'ect Pro ert Single -Family Residential F Planning Area - - -; Fayetteville City Limits Single -Family Residential NOKESSLER,Mn11MTA1K r k,,_. i p y I Undeveloped Feet 0 Floodway 0 220 440 880 1,320 1,760 1 inch = 600 feet Planning Corilmission r WF6 8, 2021 Agenda Item 2 CCP 20-00003 Nichols -Reynolds Page 14 of 14 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0082 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 3. File Type: Agenda Item VAR-2021-000015: Variance (NORTH OF 6114 W. JANA PUKERN, 279): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NORTH OF 6114 W. JANA PL. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 10.15 acres. The request is for a variance to the street frontage requirements due to a proposed split of the parent tract. Planner: Ryan Umberger City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 1p"l - TO: THRU: FROM: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS MEETING DATE: Fayetteville Planning Commission Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Ryan Umberger, Planner February 8, 2021 SUBJECT: VAR-2021-000015: Variance (NORTH OF 6114 W. JANA PL./KERN, 279): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NORTH OF 6114 W. JANA PL. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 10.15 acres. The request is for a variance to the street frontage requirements due to a proposed lot split of the parent tract. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAR-2021-000015 with conditions, based on the findings contained in this report. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve VAR-2021-000015 with conditions, determining: In favor of Condition #1, a variance of §166.05, Development in the Planning Area; and In favor of all other conditions as recommended by staff" BACKGROUND: The variance request is for an approximately 10.15-acre property located west of Fayetteville in unincorporated Washington County. The property is situated approximately 700-feet east of the intersection of N. Clark Road and N. Double Springs Road; it has approximately 100 linear feet of street frontage on N. Clark Road. The property is within the City's Planning Area and is currently undeveloped. There is dense vegetation throughout the property and the topography creates steep slopes. High points in the northeast and southwest corners create a valley which bisects the property from the access point along N. Clark Road to the southeast. Grades on either side of the valley range from greater than 60% to less than 15%. The property is designated as a Rural Residential Area by the City Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map. Surrounding land uses and zoning are depicted in Table 1. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 1 of 9 Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Site Land Use Zoning Washington County Ag/SF 1 North Single-family Residential (Agricultural/Singe-family Residential, One Unit per Acre Washington County Ag/SF 1 South Single-family Residential (Agricultural/Singe-family Residential, One Unit per Acre Washington County Ag/SF 1 East Single-family Residential (Agricultural/Singe-family Residential, One Unit per Acre Washington County Ag/SF 1 West Single-family Residential (Agricultural/Singe-family Residential, One Unit per Acre Request: The applicant proposes to split the lot in half with each resulting parcel encompassing roughly 5.08 acres. As proposed, the north property would have about 100-feet of unimproved right-of-way frontage and the south property would access W. Double Springs Rd. by way of a 30-foot access and utility easement. The request creates a new lot without frontage which necessitates a variance to the 75-foot minimum street frontage required of properties in Washington County. Public Comment: Staff has received no public comment regarding this request. DISCUSSION: N. Clark Road curves northward just as it reaches the subject property in a way which minimizes right-of-way frontage for the subject property. Despite being undeveloped, the property is surrounded on three sides by large -lot residential properties of varying sizes and arrangement and more traditional suburban developments to the east. The property's topography presents challenges which would likely prevent development that would be out of character with the surrounding area. Staff finds the applicant's proposal will likely have the effect of preserving the limited, low impact development pattern consistent with the neighboring properties and could potentially reserve open greenspace. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAR-2021-000015 subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of a variance of UDC 166.05.A.3 requiring all lots in the Planning Area to have direct street frontage of 75-feet in width. Staff recommends in favor of the variance. 2. Variance approval shall be subject to dedication of access easement adequate to serve Tract B. 3. The variance does not grant City lot split approval. Review and approval of the lot split, including items such as septic permits, shall be required in accordance with City code. 4. The applicant shall receive approval from Washington County prior to recordation. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission Action: O Approved O Tabled O Denied Meeting Date: February 8, 2021 Motion: Second: Vote: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • UDC Chapter 166.05 - Required Infrastructure Improvements and Subdivision Regulations - Development In Planning Area • Applicant's Letter • Applicant's Exhibit • One Mile Map • Close-up Map • Existing Land Use Map Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 3 of 9 166.05 - Required Infrastructure Improvements and Subdivision Regulations - Development In Planning Area (A) Required Infrastructure Improvements and Subdivision Regulations Outside the City. (1) Within 1 Mile of City Limits. On and off -site improvements and subdivision regulations for development outside the city limits and within one mile of the city are the same as for those developments within the city limits, with the exception of park land dedication requirement which is not required. (2) Beyond 1 Mile of City Limits. On- and off -site improvements and subdivision regulations for development outside 1 mile of the city limits shall meet Washington County standards. (3) All lots in the planning area shall have direct frontage to a public street, with the minimum frontage required by Washington County pursuant to residential lot and block standards. (B) Developments Outside City Developed to All Inside the City Standards. If the City Council grants access to the City's sewer system pursuant to §51.115. (C) and the owner/developer agrees to petition for annexation as soon as legally possible and develop the subdivision in accordance with all city development requirements including payment of all impact fees, the bulk and area requirements for this subdivision shall conform to those within the RSF-4 Zoning District or as otherwise designated by the City Council rather than those within the planning area. (Code 1965, App. A., Art. 8(11), App. C., Art. IV; Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; 1750, 7-6-70; Ord. No. 1999, 5-7-74; Code 1991, §§159.54, 160.120; Ord. No. 3925, §6, 10-3-95; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4753, 9-6-05; Ord. No. 5215, 1-20-09; Ord. No. 5270, 9-1-09; Ord. No. 5296, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 5546, 12-04-12) Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 4 of 9 APA Alan Reid A bULA/AI PROFEIIOCI.. LAND SUFIVEYORS January 7, 2D21 City of Fayetteville Planning & Engineering 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: Variances Clark Read & Double Springs Road (Corresponding with Tract Split - City of Fayettevilfe ESP-2020-0OOO49) Dear Han ning Commission_ On behalf of my clients, Jack and Debbie Kern_ I am submitting for ypur review a variance request for lack of required road frontage for a property division already under your review (LSP-2020-000049_} The sub_ect property is parcel 0O1-1758'' (10.15 acres) and is proposed to be subdivided into two (2} parcels of 5.075 acres each. The property is located autside city limits but within the Fayetteviolle's growth area_ The property does not have frontage on a pub€ic street/road but is connected to Clark via a recorded easement. This easement will serve the North tract_ A second easement will be provided to serve the South tract_ The property is currently zoned AG/RES-1_ lfyou have any questions, please feel free to call me at my office_ Best regards, Alan Reid Professional Land Surveyor Arkansas Registration 1005 479.44-4.8784 f16 S college Avenue F =G'WiIJe; ArkHnsHa 72701 4:79 444 9784 2race,r,ueying@e5bcgloba1.ng�,nning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 5 of 9 m Pmm�TN�muxmoo�� ono _-mA = 1= m` - - n �� A�Anygz-o 0 0 ��> my� o>z y�mA om m 2- po - y n oA<pam z-�'�i�NmomzmAm+oi a czo� £ ZOA mom z m�n Z Anvz - - n� yomzo poi zm� = Am`f anoo�n o���> f j mo'>>pmN4o Nyzoo yfi c�mzmD o open ��m 'mn o;As o�n^51y Fm DxAo�A - �� i5 m = o m =— m mix mz� mo o"z e z�u gpgFos ml666 P9oNmY m . no�im9- n oo x I PIP ap sFo s - i e H f g NF o� ¢ II o®►�o►me®o® oo+xoo®++® I II I I I 9=1=m=UU918H2gT$p' F-9 U=M-m=4hcb �z o�tt+ott®;ieoonpoo®o o-sae IIIIIIII'�g$o $HMm�,mme �� ;�mAo� :am®�®O+oomO®�000000-0 yMMEMIL a a 1 o� �10 µUr 8 OD 43� Jk v a TTa s o el �I Iz Im it it e.s.s333.85 5958'E +-t" C _ III- on'ymcnn mfvz A'A wNo��z� `^_��'n° A�OmtZi r�ptimimrri A<i cZizA�myuN Zyz p yA�D�An��y mmm ,00�omy -my�aZF=�m�ym�DmAZ2VDi n�o�fZ monzr omA N��_�FN �Nm z- o4�czin zoo mom ohm 'm- 'z' - v_- Apm- -oy�>-3ar o o o z ag�g 1--` 658.30' Ptgess m sP z E o mc_ _ o n �rwD�o a£n�a��na DAc n zAoz D..'A F.ipO �_➢ynzQ m my oT�Nm m$Yz j AyZmmyZ� v __ s�> omz�£mmAAmZ orn<+Oiz>9 zK o tromp yf�ZOm ym�y - m�?ofa mpyADz�� nn- �i>' >A yFo -OmACM � mA_ oN�mr m\Nzm ��c mnF� boo z =o z o zA 0m =Z om mmp 4 ANm�= i tS �Apoo��m - o o.\^. AOAZNo+om>u, Q AZp�7�70ynn���ao�;�Zaf O4y � O _ oFmom" n �A£DN o�mOo�m m�y m nm iFzzmN O�n�z�Aooy�zAo z �mo n�A�mr�'m£EZAnQm i�mA � -AAA_ cc=��� Pla y m m o p m = y Ig Commission bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 1-000015 Kern Page 6 of 9 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 7 of 9 Feet Planning Area 0 112.5 225 450 675 Building Footprint 1 inch = 300 feet Planning Co mission 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 8 of 9 VAR-2021-000015 Kern Current Land use NORTH I I Single -Family Residential l N�A i t t P b Sujecropery • � Single -Family Residential — Single -Family Residential va I � I I J I •. • Single -Family Residential .,. .. ' A> , a J A7NA-k- P L Feet 0 75 150 300 450 1 inch = 200 feet .11 FEMA Flood Hazard Data too -Year Floodplain Floodway Planning Area Planning Co mission 8, 2021 Agenda Item 6 VAR 21-000015 Kern Page 9 of 9 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0048 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 4. File Type: Agenda Item ADM-2020-000020: Administrative Item (Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment): Submitted by CITY STAFF. The request is to eliminate the secret ballot when voting for Officers of the Planning Commission. Planner: Jonathan Curth THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE JANUARY 25, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney MEETING DATE: February 8, 2021 SUBJECT: ADM-2020-000020: Administrative Item (PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE/NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS): Submitted by CITY STAFF. The request is to amend the Planning Commission Rules of Order and Procedure to remove secret balloting for election of officers. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving ADM-2020-000020. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve ADM-2020-000020." At the January 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners voted to table the amendment to afford time to evaluate potential, additional amendments. None have been received to date and the amendment remains as recommended on January 25t", 2021. BACKGROUND: Following the 2020 nomination and election of Planning Commission officers, the City Attorney's Office advised that the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act does not allow public bodies to conduct their business in secret, with the exception of executive sessions. Executive sessions are reserved for the "employment, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining, or resignation of any officer or employee", which does not extend to the election of officers. Although votes may be done by ballot, these must be held and made publicly available. Request: Staff has drafted an amendment to the Planning Commission Rules of Order and Procedure to: • Strike the words `by secret ballot' under Section D.1, Officers, Nominations and Elections RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends placing ADM-2020-000020 on the agenda of the February 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 1 of 12 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES (Date: February 8, 2021 O Tabled O Approved O Denied IMotion: ISecond: I Vote: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: City Attorney's Office Memo Planning Commission Rules and Procedures: o Section D.1 — Current o Section D.1 — Proposed Amended Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 2 of 12 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: Planning Commission CC: Jonathan Curth, Development Review Mana FROM: Blake Pennington, Assistant City Auume DATE: November 30, 2020 RE: Amendment to Rules of Order and Procedure Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Jodi Batker Paralegal Section D.1 of your Rules of Order and Procedure currently provides for the election of officers by secret ballot. We need to amend that rule to remove the secret ballot provision to ensure we are in compliance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101, et seq. The legislative intent of the Freedom of Information Act is set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-102: It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. Toward this end, this chapter is adopted, making it possible for them or their representatives to learn and to report fully the activities of their public officials. The Arkansas Supreme Court considered the legislative intent when faced with a lawsuit against the Arkansas Activities Association which had voted on several matters by secret unsigned ballots. Depoyster v. Cole, 298 Ark. 203 (1989). The Supreme Court went on to say: Looking about us, we readily see that the decisions of this court, as well as those of the legislature, city council, and other governmental agencies are all made public to the extent of each individual's vote. There can be no doubt that the use of unsigned written slips as ballots which are not Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 3 of 12 retained as part of an organization's records does little to assist the public in being advised as to the performance of the organization's members or the decisions reached by those individuals. Obviously, it makes it impossible, rather than possible, for concerned citizens or their representatives to learn and report fully the activities of the officials of such organizations. Id. The Court held in short, the voting should have been handled in such a way that the public was, or could have been, advised of the performance of the individual members of the AAA's executive committee." Id. The Freedom of Information Act does not prescribe any particular voting method so the Plaruvng Commission may vote by ballot; however, those ballots must be signed and retained as part of the official record of the Planning Commission's actions. Furthermore, as the Depoyster opinion provides, the public must have access to those records upon request: Section 25-19-103(1) of the FOIA requires that all writings or data compilations in any form, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by any agency supported by public .funds, "shall be public records". The recorded votes of individual members of the executive committee of the AAA obviously constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions carried out by the AAA, and there was testimony that it was the general practice of the AAA to retain mailout ballots used in voting on matters coming before the AAA. The vote slips at issue, being records generally or otherwise kept by the AAA, therefore constituted public records which should have been retained. Finally, those records must be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of this state, except as otherwise specifically provided in the FOIA. Section 25-19-105(a). See e.g., Arkansas Highway & Trans . De 't. v. Hope Brick Works Inc. 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988) ... Section 25-19- 105(a) envisions that public records will be retained and made available for all citizens to examine. Id. The Planning Commission could also consider following the method used by the City Council. After interviewing applicants for boards and commissions, the Nominating Committee forwards a list of nominees to the full City Council. At the City Council meeting, a motion is made to adopt the Nominating Committee report and, after receiving a second, a roll call vote occurs. When electing the Vice Mayor, a nomination is made at the meeting, the nomination receives a second, then a roll call vote occurs. Planning Commission 2 February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 4 of 12 RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION (CURRENT) D. OFFICERS 1. Nominations and Elections The Chair shall appoint three (3) members from the Planning Commission to serve as a nominating committee for the positions of Chair, Vice -chair and Secretary. The nominating committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect, by secret ballot, the Chair, Vice -chair and Secretary annually no later than the first regular meeting in the month of April. An officer of the Planning Commission may serve in any one position for no more than two consecutive terms. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION (PROPOSED) D. OFFICERS 1. Nominations and Elections The Chair shall appoint three (3) members from the Planning Commission to serve as a nominating committee for the positions of Chair, Vice -chair and Secretary. The nominating committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect, by secret haslet the Chair, Vice -chair and Secretary annually no later than the first regular meeting in the month of April. An officer of the Planning Commission may serve in any one position for no more than two consecutive terms. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 5 of 12 RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS 1. Regular Meetings The Planning Commission shall meet in regular session on the second and fourth Monday of each month at 5:30 P.M. except for December when there shall not be a second meeting. When a holiday occurs on any such Monday, the regular meeting shall be held on the following Tuesday at the same hour unless otherwise provided for by motion. The regular meeting time may be rescheduled by the Planning Commission in special circumstances, but when so done the change must be made far enough in advance to allow normal public notification. 2. Location The place of Planning Commission meetings shall be in the Council Chambers (Room 219) in the City Hall unless another place has been previously set by the Planning Commission. 3. Special Meetings Special meetings may be called by three or more members of the Planning Commission or by the Chair. Notification of a special meeting, including specific items to be considered, should be at least four days prior to the meeting, but under extraordinary circumstances may be called as soon as legally permissible pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and any other legal notice requirements. Such notification shall be by personal service to each commissioner or by telephone, specifying time and place of meeting. The public shall be notified as soon as possible. 4. Quorum A majority of the Planning Commission (five commissioners of the nine authorized for appointment) shall be necessary to constitute a quorum to do business at a Planning Commission meeting. The concurring vote of a majority of those attending a meeting shall be sufficient to pass all motions except for Amendments to the Master Street Plan, Conditional Uses and any changes or revocation thereof, and Amendments to these Rules, which all require five affirmative votes to pass. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 6 of 12 5. Public Notification The City will go further than legally required in order to inform citizens of the items to be considered by the Planning Commission. The means used may include press releases or advertisements in a local newspaper, special notice to citizens who have shown a direct interest in matters to be considered, Government Channel announcements and presentation, and agenda copies available at Planning Commission meetings 6. Presentation of Agenda Items at Planning Commission Meetings a. Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda items shall be read by the Chair and voted upon as a group without discussion by the Planning Commission. If a Planning Commission Member wishes to comment upon or discuss a Consent Agenda item, that item shall be removed and considered immediately after the Consent Agenda has been voted upon. b. Unfinished Business and New Business. (1) Presentations by Staff and Applicants. Agenda items at a Planning Commission meeting shall be introduced by the Chair. City staff shall then present a report. An agenda applicant (person seeking vacation or variance, rezoning or development applicant, etc.) may present its proposal only during this presentation period, but may be recalled by a Planning Commission Member later to answer questions. City staff and applicants may use electronic visual aids in the Planning Commission meeting as part of the presentation of the agenda item. (2) Public Comments. Public comment at a Planning Commission meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience on all items of unfinished and new business and subjects of public hearings. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of (3) three minutes so that all other citizens desiring to speak on that agenda item or a later item will not be unnecessarily inconvenienced. By a majority vote of the Planning Commission Members present and voting, this time limitation may be altered for a specific agenda item. A simple majority of the Planning Commission Members, present and voting, may authorize a representative of a Fayetteville citizens' group opposing the development, rezoning or other matter to present an electronic visual aid not to exceed five minutes, but no other electronic visual aid presentations will be allowed. However, the public may submit photos, petitions, etc. to be distributed to the Planning Commission. Any member of the public desiring to speak shall first state his or her name and address, followed by a concise statement of the person's position on the question under discussion. Repetitive comments should be avoided; this applies to Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 7 of 12 comments made previously in earlier Planning Commission meetings. All remarks shall be addressed to the Chair or the Planning Commission as a whole and not to any particular member of the Planning Commission. No person other than the Planning Commission Member and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter into any discussions without permission of the Chair. No questions shall be directed to a Planning Commission Member or city staff member except through the Chair. c. Courtesy and Respect. All members of the public, all city staff and all Planning Commissioners shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements about motives or personalities. Citizens, city staff and Planning Commissioners shall confine their questions and comments to the particular agenda matter and issue before the Planning Commission at that time. Any member of the public who violates these standards or rules shall be ruled out of order by the Chair and must immediately cease speaking. The Chair may order that the speaker must immediately leave the podium or that the speaker may continue after promising to obey all the standards and rules in all further comments and questions. 7. Cell Phones. Cell phones must be turned off or put in silent mode and not used within the Council Chambers during Planning Commission meetings. Pagers must be turned off or put in silent mode within the Council Chambers during Planning Commission meetings. These restrictions also apply during Agenda Sessions. B. DUTIES AND PRIVILEGES OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS 1. Seating Members shall occupy the respective seats in the Council Chambers assigned by city staff. The chair shall be seated near the center of the Council table. 2. Conduct During Planning Commission meetings, commissioners shall preserve order and decorum and shall neither by conversation or otherwise delay or interrupt the proceedings. Neither shall they refuse to obey the orders of the Chair nor these Rules. Every member of the Planning Commission desiring to speak shall address the Chair and, upon recognition by the Chair, shall confine herself or himself to the question under debate and shall avoid all personalities and indecorous language. A commissioner once Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 8 of 12 recognized shall not be interrupted while speaking unless called to order by the Chair, unless a point of order is raised by another commissioner or unless the commissioner chooses to yield to questions from another commissioner. If a commissioner is called to order while he or she is speaking, the commissioner shall cease speaking immediately until the question of order is determined. If ruled to be not in order, the commissioner shall remain silent or shall alter his or her remark so as to comply with those rules. 3. Financial Interest No member of the Planning Commission with a direct or indirect financial interest in any items before the Planning Commission shall participate in the discussion of or voting on such matter. 4. Voting Every member present when a question is put to a vote shall vote either "yes" or "no", except that a member may abstain from voting if he or she has not participated in the preceding discussion of the question and if that member has previously stated the reason for the abstention. Except for a question necessary to clarify the meaning of the motion being voted upon, no questions or comments by members of the Planning Commission including the Chair shall be made during the voting on the pending motion. The Planning Commission will vote at the Planning Commission meetings in the order they are called, but with a progressively different position voting first at each meeting. 5. Roll Call Upon every vote the affirmative and negative votes shall be called and shall be recorded on every motion, however, items which may be approved by motion, may be grouped together and approved simultaneously with one roll call, under a "Consent Agenda. C. PROCEDURES AND PARLIAMENTARY RULES 1. Agenda All items for discussion or action at the regular Planning Commission meeting shall be included in a Tentative Agenda provided to Planning Commission prior to an Agenda Session where the Planning Commission shall determine the final arrangement of the Agenda. At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission, by majority vote, may rearrange the order of the Agenda. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 9 of 12 2. Precedence of Motions The Planning Commission shall follow the precedence and classification of motions as given in the most recent edition of the Arkansas Municipal League's Procedural Rules for Arkansas Municipal Officials. In the event a matter is not covered by the Procedural Rules for Arkansas Municipal Officials, the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall apply. On questions of appeal, a majority of those present is required to overturn a ruling by the chair. 3. Motions to be Stated by the Chair/Withdrawal When a motion is made and seconded, it shall be stated by the Chair before debate. After being stated by the Chair, a motion may not be withdrawn by the mover without the consent of the member seconding it. 4. Reconsideration After the decision of any question, any member of the prevailing side may request a reconsideration of any action at the same or the next succeeding meeting. A motion to reconsider requires a simple majority for passage. After a motion for reconsideration has once been acted on, no other motion for reconsideration thereof shall be made without unanimous consent. 5. Items Tabled Indefinitely Any item tabled indefinitely may be taken from the table by majority vote of the Planning Commission during the calendar year in which it was tabled indefinitely. All items tabled indefinitely and remaining on the table at the end of the calendar year shall be deemed denied and rejected for appellate and all other purposes on December 31 st and shall not be considered by the Planning Commission in the future unless brought forward as a new item. D. OFFICERS 2. Nominations and Elections The Chair shall appoint three (3) members from the Planning Commission to serve as a nominating committee for the positions of Chair, Vice -chair and Secretary. The nominating committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect the Chair, Vice -chair and Secretary annually no later than the first regular meeting in the month of April. An officer of the Planning Commission may serve in any one position for no more than two consecutive terms. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 10 of 12 3. Powers of the Chai The Chair shall preside at all meetings and public hearings of the Planning Commission and shall decide all points of order or procedure. All plans, plats, etc., requiring the signature of the Planning Commission shall be signed by the Chair, Vice -chair or the Secretary; when authorized by the Planning Commission. These officers or any of them shall sign all other documents on behalf of the Commission. 4. Vice -Chair The Vice -chair shall assume the duties of the Chair in the Chair's absence. In the event of the absence or disability of both the Chair and Vice -chair at any meeting, the Secretary shall assume the duties of the Chair. The longest serving commissioner shall act as Chair if no officer is present during such meeting. Should any unusual circumstance prevent the election of officers at the regular annual meeting, officers shall serve until their successors are elected. E. COMMITTEES 1. Special Committees The Planning Commission may establish such standing, special or advisory committees as it deems advisable, and may assign to each committee specific duties or functions and establish the terms of members of each such committee. Members of such committees may be persons other than members of the Planning Commission, but a member of the Planning Commission shall be named as chair, either active or ex-officio, of each such committee. 2. Appointments by Chair The Chair of the Planning Commission shall name the chair and members of each such committee subject to approval of the Planning Commission and any vacancies on such committee shall be filled in the same manner. 3. Subdivision Committee A Subdivision Committee consisting of at least three Planning Commissioners shall serve as a standing committee that reviews development items after Technical Plat Review and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Chair shall designate three (3) teams of three (3) Planning Commissioners to alternate as Subdivision Committee members, along with a chair of each Subdivision Committee. All members of the Planning Commission shall be eligible as alternates who shall sit with full voting rights in lieu of a regular member or members who are absent from the meeting. The Chair shall designate the order of alternates. a. The Subdivision Committee shall approve, disapprove, refer back to the developer for more information, or refer to the Planning Commission development items. b. A unanimous vote of the Subdivision Committee is required for final approval of a Large Scale Development. An applicant has the right to have a rehearing before the full Planning Commission. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 11 of 12 C. No development item can receive final approval at Subdivision Committee level if waivers or variances are being sought. Any development with a waiver or variance request must be forwarded to the Planning Commission. All preliminary plats shall be referred to the Planning Commission for action. d. In order to conduct the business of the Subdivision Committee, at least one (1) member shall be present. No item may be approved, however, unless at least two members present vote in favor of the request. Should two or more members of the committee abstain from an item or be absent, the item shall be forwarded for consideration by the Planning Commission. Should two members of the Subdivision Committee not agree on the recommended action for an item, the item shall be automatically forwarded to the full Planning Commission for consideration. F. AMENDMENTS These Rules of Order and Procedure may be amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the full membership of the Planning Commission. Any proposed amendment shall first be presented in writing at a regular meeting and placed on the agenda of a subsequent regular meeting for action unless ten (10) days' written notice of the proposal has been given to all Commissioners, in which case action may be taken at any regular or called meeting. However, an amendment may be made without notice if passed by a unanimous vote. Revised and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on the 8t" day of February, 2021. APPROVED: Matthew Johnson Chair ATTEST: Leslie Belden Secretary Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 3 ADM 20-000020 PC Bylaw Amendment Page 12 of 12 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0046 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 5. File Type: Agenda Item VAR-2020-000014: Variance (20 S. HILL AVE./PUTMAN HOUSE, 522): Submitted by EXPEDIENT CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 20 S. HILL AVE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is for a variance to the driveway separation and greenspace requirements. Planner: Jessie Masters THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE JANUARY 25, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 22, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 1p"l - TO: THRU: FROM: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS MEETING DATE: Fayetteville Planning Commission Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Jessie Masters, Senior Planner February 8, 2021 SUBJECT: VAR-2020-000014: Variance (20 S. HILL AVE./PUTMAN HOUSE, 522): Submitted by EXPEDIENT CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 20 S. HILL AVE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is for a variance to the driveway separation and greenspace requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tabling of VAR-2020-000014, until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table VAR-2020-000014 at the applicant's request to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting." January 25, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission voted to table the request until the February 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to clarify the needed variances associated with the request, as well as clarify the proposed use so that the amount of parking was allocated accordingly. The Planning Commission offered consideration for landscape or masonry screening, asked whether the applicant could wrap parking around the rear of the structure, issued concerns with the number of compact spaces, and offered an interest in supporting variances at the site to allow for the adaptive reuse of an historic structure. In the interim, the applicant has indicated an intention to substantially change the nature of the requested variances, so has requested to be tabled until the February 22, 2021 Planning Commission in order to solidify the proposal and re -issue public notification accordinalv. (PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: February 8, 2021 Motion: Second: Vote: O Tabled O Approved O Denied Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 4 VAR 20-000014 Putman House Page 1 of 1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2020-1169 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Tabled In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 6. RZN-2020-000024: Rezone (916 N. SANG SOUTHERN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL approximately 0.70 acres. The request is to FAMILY, 7 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Ryan Umberger THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE COMMISSIONS. File Type: Agenda Item AVE./GLORIOUS ASSETS, INC., 442): Submitted by INC. for property located at 916 N. SANG AVE. The SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains rezone the property to RSF-7, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE JANUARY 11 & JANUARY 25, 2021 PLANNING City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 1p".- - TO: THRU: FROM: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS MEETING DATE: Fayetteville Planning Commission Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Ryan Umberger, Planner February 8, 2021 SUBJECT: RZN-2020-000024: Rezone (916 N. SANG AVE./GLORIOUS ASSETS, INC., 442): Submitted by SOUTHERN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC. for property located at 916 N. SANG AVE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.70 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-7, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 7 UNITS PER ACRE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN-2020-000024 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward RZN-2020-000024 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval." JANUARY 11, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On January 11t", the Planning Commission voted to table the item until the meeting scheduled for January 25t" to address concerns with public notification requirements. Additionally, the commission asked staff to gather information on the maximum number of units which could be developed on the lot given the dimensions in RSF-4 and RSF-7 zoning. JANUARY 25, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On January 25t", the Planning Commission voted to table the item until the meeting scheduled for February 8t" to allow for completion of required public notification. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the southeast corner of N. Sang Avenue and W. Ora Drive. The property currently has a single-family home and is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 Units per Acre. Surrounding land uses and zoning are depicted in Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction Land Use Zoning North Single-family Residence RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre South City -owned Facility RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre East Single-family Residence RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre West Single-family Residence RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 1 of 34 Request: The request is to rezone the subject property from RSF-4 to RSF-7, Residential Single- family, 7 Units per Acre. The applicant intends to split the lot for additional single-family infill. Per the Planning Commission's January 11, 2021 request, staff evaluated the potential number of lot splits under the existing and proposed zoning districts. Based on bulk and area dimensional requirements the property could be subdivided up to three times under the current RSF-4 zoning and four times under RSF-7 zoning. Public Comment: Staff has received a fair amount of public comment on the item including 16 emails, a meeting with Ward 4 residents, and a few phone calls. During the Ward 4 meeting a neighbor spoke in opposition to the request. The neighbor expressed a desire to retain the older, historic character that is supported with the existing RSF-4 zoning. Another Ward 4 resident asked if any there has been any adaptation to the public notification requirements, particularly regarding the 15-day notification period. Callers cited traffic, potential removal of tree canopy, and inconsistency with the existing neighborhood among their concerns. During those calls staff recommended submitting a written description of their comments to accompany the staff report. Most, if not all of the callers followed up with a written comment. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The subject area has frontage along N. Sang Avenue. N. Sang Avenue is a partially improved Neighborhood Link Street with asphalt paving, curb, sidewalk and open ditches. The subject area also has frontage along W. Ora Drive. W. Ora Drive is an unimproved Residential Link Street with asphalt paving, and open ditches. Any street improvements required in these areas would be determined at the time of development proposal. Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage will be determined at time of development. Water: Public water is available to the subject area. An existing 8-inch water main is present along the west side of N. Sang Avenue. An existing 4-inch water main is present in the center of W. Ora Drive. Sewer: Sanitary Sewer is available to the subject area. An existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main is in the center of N. Sang Avenue. An existing 6-inch sanitary sewer main is along the south side of the lot. Drainage: No portion of the site lies within floodplain, a streamside protection area, or the Hilltop -Hillside Overlay District. However, hydric soils were identified throughout the subject property. Fire: Station 2, located at 708 N. Garland Ave., protects the site. The property is located approximately 1.1 miles from the fire station with an anticipated drive time of approximately three minutes using existing streets. The anticipated response time would be approximately 5.2 minutes. Fire Department response time is calculated based on the drive time plus one minute for dispatch and 1.2 minutes for turn -out time. Within the City Limits, the Fayetteville Fire Department has a response time goal of six minutes for an engine and eight minutes for a ladder truck. Police: The Police Department did not express any concerns with this request. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 2 of 34 CITY PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates the property within the proposed rezone as a Residential Neighborhood Area. Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and support a variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context, including single-family, multi -family, and rowhouses. Development is encouraged to be highly -connected, with compact blocks, grid street pattern and reduced setbacks. Low -intensity non-residential uses are encouraged at appropriate locations, such as on corners and connecting corridors. CITY PLAN 2040 INFILL MATRIX: City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix indicates a mixed score of 55-66 for the subject property. Per the Planning Commission's Infill Matrix weighting, this represents a score of 6. The following elements of the matrix contribute to the score: • Near Water Main (N. Sang Avenue) • Near Sewer Main (N. Sang Avenue) • Fire Department Response (Station #2) • Near Public School (Asbell Elementary) • Within 1/2 Mile of Razorback Transit FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: Land uses in immediate and general adjacency to the subject property are mostly single-family detached dwellings with the exception of Ranger's Pantry and the Arts Live Community theatre located to the south. Lot shapes and sizes are relatively uniform in the block along W. Ora Drive and in the general vicinity. Most lots have a roughly 80-foot width and range from approximately a quarter acre to one-third of an acre. Corner lots, including the subject property, vary significantly in their dimensional characteristics. The subject property, for example, is 160 feet wide and roughly 0.70 acres. RSF-7, like RSF-4, is exclusively a single family zoning district. Accordingly, staff finds the applicant's request, with its complimentary permitted uses and incremental change in density and zoning requirements, to be compatible with the single -use character of properties in the area. Land Use Plan Analysis: Staff finds the proposed RSF-7 zoning to be generally compatible with the Future Land Use Map and its designation of the subject property as Residential Neighborhood Area. This designation supports a wide spectrum of residential uses and encourages density in all housing types. Although the RSF-7 zoning district is limited to single- family dwellings, there is added flexibility for townhouse dwellings which are permitted by conditional use. The request is consistent with City Plan 2040's adopted goals and policies, particularly encouragement of appropriate infill. The requirements of the RSF-7 zoning district require building form like that of the RSF-4 zoning district, thereby encouraging protection of community character in an Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 3 of 34 established neighborhood. The property's location along a significant north - south transportation route, N. Sang Avenue, provides ready access to infrastructure and amenities making this property well -situated for additional housing. Furthermore, the City's long-range transportation plans show an intent to diversify the transportation network on N. Sang Avenue by way of a planned side -path trail. Addition of a trail will benefit residents and leverage public investment to improve the property's frontage. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: Staff finds rezoning the property to RSF-7 to be sufficiently justified. Proximity to existing and planned amenities, and general alignment of the request with many of City Plan 2040's goals suggest a rezoning to a district that allows incrementally higher density is suitable. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The site has access to N. Sang Avenue, a Neighborhood Link Street, and is approximately one -tenth of a mile south of W. Wedington Drive, a Regional Link Street. A little over a half mile to the west is Interstate 49. Rezoning to RSF-7 will allow densities with the potential to increase traffic over the existing RSF-4 zoning district, however staff finds that development of the property would likely not result in a significant increase in traffic nor appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion in the neighborhood. The applicant suggests that ingress/egress from an additional parcel would be serviced from a shared driveway. That suggestion is in -line with the City's access management standards which encourage ingress/egress from the lower -volume street, W. Ora Drive in this case. Any street improvements or modifications to site access will be reviewed with future development submittals. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Rezoning the property from RSF-4 to RSF-7 will allow a minor increase in single-family development density. Given the marginal increase over current allowances, staff finds adverse impacts to facilities and services are unlikely. Water and sanitary sewer main connections are immediately adjacent to the site and it is proximate to Asbell Elementary, Lewis Soccer Complex, and a future trail connection. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 4 of 34 b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends forwarding RZN-2020-000024 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: February 8, 2021 O Tabled Notion: ISecond: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None O Forwarded O Denied Attachments: • Unified Development Code: o §161.07 — District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four (4) Units Per Acre o §161.08 —District RSF-7, Residential Single -Family —Seven (7) Units Per Acre • Request Letter • Public Comment • One Mile Map • Close-up Map • Current Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 5 of 34 161.07 - District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family - Four (4) Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12a Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development (C) Density. Single-family dwellings Two (2) family dwellings Units per acre 4 or less 7 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. Single-family Two (2) family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum width 70 feet 80 feet Lot area minimum 8,000 square feet 12,000 square feet Land area per dwelling unit 8,000 square feet 6,000 square feet Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 6 of 34 Hillside Overlay District Lot 60 feet 70 feet minimum width Hillside Overlay District Lot 8,000 square feet 12,000 square feet area minimum Land area per 8,000 square feet 6,000 square feet dwelling unit (E) Setback Requirements. Front Side Rear 15 feet 5 feet 15 feet (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 3 stories (G) Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. Accessory ground mounted solar energy systems shall not be considered buildings. (Code 1991, §160.031; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. No. 4858, 4-18-06; Ord. No. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. No. 5128, 4-15-08; Ord. No. 5224, 3-3-09; Ord. No. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. No. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. No. 5921 , §1, 11-1-16; Ord. No. 5945 , §8, 1-17-17; Ord. No. 6015 , §1(Exh. A), 11-21-17; Ord. No. 6245 , §2, 10-15- 19) Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 7 of 34 161.08 - District RSF-7, Residential Single -Family - Seven (7) Units Per Acre (A) Purpose The RSF-7 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of detached dwellings in suitable environments. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 I City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 9 Two family dwellings Unit 12a Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development (C) Density. Single-family dwelling units per acre 7 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. (E) Lot Width Minimum. Single-family Two-family Townhouse, no more than two (2) attached 60 feet 60 feet 30 feet Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 8 of 34 (F) Lot Area Minimum. Single-family 16,000 square feet ITwo-family 16,000 square feet Townhouse, no more than two (2) attached 3,000 square feet (G) Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. Single-family 6,000 square feet ITwo-family 3,000 square feet Townhouse, no more than two (2) attached l 3,000 square feet (H) Setback Requirements. Front Side Rear 15 feet 5 feet 15 feet (1) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 3 stories (J) Building Area. The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 50% of the total lot area. Accessory ground mounted solar energy systems shall not be considered buildings. (Code 1991, §160.046; Ord. No. 3792, §4, 5-17-94; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. No. 4858, 4-18-06; Ord. No. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. No. 5128, 4-15-08; Ord. No. 5224, 3-3-09; Ord. No. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. No. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. No. 5921 , §1, 11-1-16; Ord. No. 5945 , §8, 1-17-17; Ord. No. 6015 , §1(Exh. A), 11-21- 17; Ord. No. 6245 , §2, 10-15-19) Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 9 of 34 Southern Brothers Construction PO Box 1647 Fayetteville Ar, 72702 GC: Brock Posey 479-236-4858 Southern Brothers Construction and its client "Glorious Assets" wishes to rezone 916 N. Sang from RSF- 4 to the next single-family density increase of RSF — 7. The current compatibility of the existing lot does not meet the need for the client with the oversized corner lot for more single family infill. All neighboring properties are RSF-4 zoned in all directions. While proposing the increased density I don't see the a negative effect on the traffic/utility/or neighboring homes displeasure with new development and increased property values. In theory the homes would be serviced from the same driveway coming off of Ora Dr. to the properties North. Southern Brothers Construction and its client thank you for listening to their wishes and looks forward to bringing another quality development with Fayetteville's culture and future goals in mind. Thank you, Brock Posey, Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 10 of 34 From: Donna Leftwich <leftwich@uark.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2021 3:31 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: 916 N Sang Ave property Hello. I am writing about the property at 916 Sang Ave. and the request of a zoning change from RSF-4 to RSF-7. This property is located in an older neighborhood, with neighbors who have long owned homes and made lives for themselves here. Anyone living in this and surrounding neighborhoods, bought housing knowing that the zoning was RSF-4. Property owners should be able to assume that if these neighborhoods have been zoned as RSF-4, they would remain as such. Isn't this what zoning is about? Why do we, as neighbors, have to fight to defend this zoning time and time again? Why can't we depend on our City Planners and City Council persons to fight for neighborhoods instead of allowing entities to come along and change the very nature of what a neighborhood is? I am not sure what Southern Brothers Construction has in mind for this property, but I do know that they came into town and got rezoning at the intersection of Razorback and Cleveland, building units incredibly close to the street and to each other, which will inevitably cause issues with traffic and noise for our neighborhood as soon as they are filled with bodies. Southern Brothers got their way with this property and now they are on to another neighborhood property. This time it is property in a slightly older, very established neighborhood. The only business in this neighborhood is a nonprofit theatre organization, Arts Live, which has, thus far, maintained a very low profile, with little extra traffic. Most of the houses in this neighborhood are relatively small, generally one-story homes. If Southern Brothers Construction Co. intends to build structures similar to the ones at Razorback and Wedington, these will stand out (as they do at Razorback and Wedington) like a sore thumb. The surrounding neighbors would not only have to deal with the subsequent noise and traffic from these structures, but would also have to look forever at the "sore thumb" structures. There would be much profit for the Southern Brothers, but what about the citizens who have made this neighborhood their home for years? Having watched the growth in our area for some time now, it feels like there is a "growth at all costs' mentality for both the City planners and for the majority of our City Council, with little concern about the impact for long-time citizens/property owners. I would like to urge you as our City Planners to consider these citizens who have lived here, contributed to this community, and called Fayetteville home for so many years. Growth is fine. However, it should not be constantly at the cost of long-established neighborhoods and for the profit of often, out of state companies. Please do not encourage the dissolution of our cherished neighborhoods. Please look at this particular neighborhood, this street, these established homes. Please consider another way for this growth to occur. Thank you, Gail Leftwich Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 11 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 11:07 AM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - RZN 20-000024 Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Joe Paul 668 N. Gray Avenue 479-442-6487 6paul91952@aol.com Planning Commission RZN 20-000024 Opposed I oppose the rezoning at 916 N Sang Ave from RSF 4 to RSF 7. It is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is almost entirely RSF 4, and will further increase traffic congestion on Sang Avenue, especially at Sang and Wedington Avenue. It will diminish the value of properties in the surrounding RSF 4 structures. In addition, it will start the degradation of an older, established, well- known and desirable, family -style neighborhood. I have lived on Gray Street, a few block from the questionable parcel, since 1980 and watched / experienced this degradation for many years. My wife and I raised our son and finished our careers, while living on Gray Street. Now retired, we have a front -row seat to the gradual destruction of this incredible neighborhood of Fayetteville that surrounds the campus. Our two -block long street (Gray Avenue) has become the ultimate, cut-thru street between Cleveland and Maple. It is narrow, has no sidewalks, has open ditches, a blind curve, no street parking and hidden driveways. The more these developments between the campus and 1-49 are approved and developed, the more dangerous this short street becomes. Vehicles doing 40+ mph are common, now. Especially, at rush hours and end of class -period times. The street is an accident waiting to occur. Every development, approved in this neighborhood, increases the chances that a wreck will happen, or a pedestrian will be killed or seriously injured. Being two blocks from campus, we have a lot of foot and bicycle traffic on Gray Street. One has to "dive" out of the way of these speeding vehicles. Rarely do speeding drivers care about slowing. Approval of the rezoning this property on Sang will only add to these dangers. As a Fayetteville resident of fifty years, I am wondering, just when will the Planning Commission and City Council consider the destruction of an established and thriving neighborhood, the limitations of infrastructure and the dangers of traveling / walking on these neighborhood streets AGAINST inappropriate development? Is not the Marinoni debacle, and loss of the beauty and solitude of Markham Hill not enough? I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to reject this out -of -place rezoning of one parcel, in an otherwise established, family -oriented, urban, RSF 4 neighborhood. Thank you for your time, Joe Paul Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 12 of 34 From: s raymond <susiegrace@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 12:14 PM To: Teresa Turk <teresa turk@hotmail.com>; Turk, Teresa <teresa.turk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; city fayetteville<jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> Subject: Planning Commission item -- rezone 916 N. Sang Ave Dear Planning Commission and City Council, In regard to rezoning the double lot at 916 N. Sang to a higher density, I suggest that parking and pedestrian safety will be an issue with increased density. There is a ditch instead of a sidewalk on that part of Ora Dr. On Sang Ave, the sidewalk is narrow and the traffic from cars going to and from Wedington is heavy at times. There is no parking allowed on Sang Ave. Parking on either side of Ora Dr is not practical because of the ditch and safety concerns since a parked car makes Ora Dr too narrow for two cars to turn to and from Ora Dr. So, if a larger building is allowed, or two larger buildings, there would have to be ample parking spaces on the lot both for residents and visitors. There would probably be little area remaining for a "yard". Also, since storm water from Sunset Woods and Berry St are diverted to flow through Sunny Acres subdivision and onto the ditch at Ora Dr, every time there is a big rain, the street in front of this lot floods. The city has had this problem on its list to fix for at least fifteen year and has yet to find a solution. Susan Raymond 479-443-2747 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 13 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:40 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - 2020-1169 RZN 20-000024: Rezone of 916 N Sang Ave Full Name Lisa Orton Address 1663 West Halsell Road Ward Phone 4106748440 Email lisa m orton@vahoo.com Meeting Body Planning Commission Agenda Item/Subject 2020-1169 RZN 20-000024: Rezone of 916 N Sang Ave Position Opposed Comments: Dear Planning Commission and City Council, I am opposed to the rezoning of 916 N Sang Ave from RSF-4 to RSF-7. When the developer bought the land, they knew the zoning was RSF-4, like the surrounding properties. They can develop and make money by keeping the current zoning which is more compatible to the neighborhood of mostly one story homes with yards. RSF-4 is not a bad word or horrible thing. Many people of all races, ethnicities, and income levels really enjoy living in lower density zoning. Families are raised in this zoning. Our neighborhood encompasses Markham Hill and Maple Hill. To keep it simple, it's bordered by Wedington on the north, 49 on the west, Nettleship on the south, and Razorback on the east, but including Sunset and Hall neighborhoods north of Cleveland. We're an older neighborhood in Fayetteville. From talking with neighbors, I believe most of us want to remain low -density and historically -important to Fayetteville. We, as a whole, are tired of developers buying properties and wanting to upzone. This isn't fair to the other properties in the neighborhood who do not want our neighborhood upzoned, piece by piece. Many of us have lived here for years and given much to the city. Others have bought properties here more recently or rent here because of its low density, trees, character, etc. I understand that this goes against the "infill at all costs" mentality that some have. I understand the need to limit sprawl and encourage higher density and mixed -use in large cities. But I have a problem with how it is being done in Fayetteville, not even a large city yet. (1) There is no need to force neighborhoods to increase their density if they don't want it. It seems you are eager to approve upzoning on individual properties within a neighborhood against the wishes of most people in that neighborhood. Like I said, the developer or owner knew the zoning when they bought the property. The new owner/developer could do the neighborly thing and remain truly compatible, keeping the current zoning. (2) There is no need to deforest within our City limits. This will end up very badly for our health and the health of future generations. Both physically and mentally. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 14 of 34 This is my wish and prayer. I would like the City to manage development so that: (1) Existing neighborhoods get to decide if they want properties within them to upzone or not. This includes adjacent properties whose upzoning would send traffic through their neighborhoods. (2) No more deforesting is allowed within the City limits. (3) Residents are believed. If they say harm would be done to them or their neighborhood if such -and - such happens, then please believe them. For example, if it is determined that up to 6000 vehicles could be passing their home each day with the upzoning or street expansion and the residents say this would be bad for them and their neighborhood, please believe that. Please don't say, "No, it won't", like we've been told in the past. This is like a victim of abuse or discrimination telling their story and the listener saying, "Oh, I'm sure it wasn't that bad." Please respect and believe your constituents when they come to you with concerns. They are looking to you to represent them. You are in the power position and they are not. They need your support and defense. I say again, please do not upzone the 916 N Sang Ave property. The developer bought it as RSF-4 and can still make money under that zoning. Almost all in our neighborhood value our historical area, low density, nature, trees, wildlife, birds, diverse cultures, pets, and walkable streets with normally little traffic. Thank you for reading my letter and considering my thoughts. Sincerely, Lisa Orton Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 15 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:45 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - Rezoning 916 SANG From RSF4 to RSF 7 Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Michelle Gayon 2032 W. Ora Drive 479-439-2746 mgayon1976@vahoo.com Planning Commission Rezoning 916 SANG From RSF4 to RSF 7 Opposed Comments: My name is Michelle Gayon and I live at 2032 W. Ora Drive. I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting to object in person due to health concerns. My home is directly across the street from the property that is to be re -zoned. My mother and I purchased our home in 1985 and have been meticulous in our upkeep of the property. Our home has seen two generations of our family celebrate family holidays and the births of the current generation of children who play in the front and back yards. We settled here because it was a safe, relatively quiet neighborhood. I worked as a teacher in the Fayetteville schools for 30 years to pay for our home. Granted, on game days, the traffic from the University is heavy and we do have trouble with drivers who exceed the speed limit on Sang. The other properties across from the 960 Sang address are also families who have been in the neighborhood for many years. I am against re -zoning the lot on 960 Sang to allow "2-3 Family Homes". 1. It will increase the traffic at out intersection of Ora and Sang, making it more dangerous for the neighborhood children. 2. It will increase the strain on the water and drainage system along Ora Drive that already has problems with flooding during heavy rains. 3. It will change the tenor of the neighborhood from single family homes with large lots and most likely mean the loss of some 50 year old trees that form part of the green canopy of the area. I hope you will consider my concerns and vote against this plan to re -zone. Michelle Gayon Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 16 of 34 From: Sarah Lewis <sarahelainelewis@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 5:35:48 PM To: Meetings <meetings@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Sang Avenue Rezoning Hello everyone, We would like to request that a tree preservation area be added to the rezoning request and that the rezoning only be approved if the tree preservation contingency is included. The trees along Sang Avenue are big old oaks and add canopy to the neighborhood. Cutting them down would be a big loss to the experience of entering the Sang Valley Neighborhood and would affect the value of all of the homes there. Is this something that can be added? THank you. Sarah Lewis and Kelly Tribell 1908 W Berry Street, Sang Valley Neighborhood Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 17 of 34 From: Tami Banister <tbnkeywest@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 6:06:47 PM To: Meetings <meetings@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: zoning change from RSF-4 to RSF-7 at 916 N. Sang I own & live at 2159 Loren Circle. I am opposed to this rezoning. A zoning change from RSF-4 to RSF-7 at 916 N. Sang does not fit into a neighborhood with modest, generally single story homes. The property at 926 N. Sang has a very modest home (1434 sq.ft) on a large lot, sold in Oct. 2020 for $200,000 located at the north corner of Sang and Ora, near a speed bump. There is NO way an RSF-7 fits in these neighborhoods. Thank you. Tamara Trzeciak Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 18 of 34 From: Dana Bassi [mailto:dbassi3939@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:59 AM To: Planning Shared <planning@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: opinion Dear Planning Commision, It seems more and more obvious that your goal is to increase density and always approve development. It is disheartening to most long time Fayetteville residents in established neighborhoods that nothing seems to stop it. You listen to neighbors who are not happy about the changes which are extremely upsetting to them and then decide their opinions don't have enough weight to stop whatever developers want to do. It is feeling like the goal is to cover anything larger than a postage stamp with high density hub bub! Residents don't like it, developers are thrilled. For the record I am angry about any development of Markham Hill, the Marinoni property and the proposed high -density development on the Sang property which appear on the latest map. I also do not want the extension of Sang Ave across Markham hill. We are tired, soul -tired, from all that is occurring in the world right now. What is happening in Fayetteville takes so much resistance from citizens that it's almost impossible. I believed "infill" meant that new builds would replace dilapidated structures with appropriate development. To me, appropriate means similar to surrounding structure, not cramming in high density townhouses! I would love to see our city act as though it appreciates large old growth trees, open green spaces and value what nature already developed, rather than destroying it. Thanks for taking the time to let me express my opinion. Peace, Dana Bassi 1649 N. Timberridge Ct Ward 4, Fayetteville Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 19 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 6:15 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - Rezoning of 916 N Sang Ave Full Name Address Ward Juanita Kaye Muckleroy 937 N Sang Ave Phone 479-200-1040 Email themucks@gmaiI.com Meeting Body Planning Commission Agenda Item/Subject Rezoning of 916 N Sang Ave Position Opposed Comments: We have concerns about the rezoning of this property. We at this time do not know what the owner wants to do. 1) We have a beautiful tree lined Avenue that leads to the University. To take these trees down would be detrimental to the birds and the beauty of the Avenue. These are mature trees that are quite old located at 916 N Sang Avenue where the proposed rezoning is being considered. Fayetteville is the city of trees and if they build more structures on this property that will destroy the trees. 2) Currently in this neighborhood there are only single family homes. If this goes through, there will be more properties wanting to build more duplexes or townhouse which will destroy this old existing neighborhood. 3) Right now with it like it is the drainage in the area is terrible. Our garage floods when it rains a lot as the drainage ditch which is on both sides of Ora cannot handle the overflow coming down the hill. Sang Avenues road is now higher then the driveways and that causes some of the flooding. The city did come install a drainage ditch on Sang but when it overflows at the intersection of Sang and Ora our garage floods and so does the yards directly North of us. Also the house at 2021 Ora also floods. We have had to put sand in front of our garage to keep it from flooding. This has been an issue for a while. Adding more houses and not considering the drainage will be even more detrimental to our properties. 4) Sang Avenue is a cut through for the University of Arkansas. On any given day the traffic is horrible, especially if there are any games going on. Right now with all the construction going on up on Markham Hill there is even more traffic and trucks everyday. After about 4:30pm the traffic is often backed up to Cleveland. You can't get out of the drive. Our drive is on Sang Avenue. On game days it is worse. Adding more houses will bring more cars.... I personally would like to keep Sang Valley the way it is but, I do know that construction will be happening. With the Marrionni property getting rezoned and the Markham Hill project going in, I feel that our neighborhood will change enough already. Please consider my concerns. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 20 of 34 Thank you for your considerations to this rezoning. Please let us know what the owner plans on doing on this property as it does not show in the request to rezone. I would like to be on the Zoom meeting but do not see anywhere to be added to the meeting. our email address is themucks@gmail.com Juanita & Jeffrey Muckleroy 937 N Sang Ave Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 21 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:19 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - RZN-2020-000024 Full Name William L. Russell Address 2134 West Berry Ward Phone 501 590-9622 Email russcommunications@cobridge.ty Meeting Body Planning Commission Agenda Item/Subject RZN-2020-000024 Position Opposed Comments: We are concerned about the proposed rezoning from RS4 to RS7 of the property at 916 North Sang (corner of Sang and Ora Street). This site is less than a block from our house at 2134 West Berry Street, which has been in our family since 1965. The rezoning proposal is identified as RZN-2020-000024 on the Fayetteville Planning Commission agenda for the January 25th meeting. Our concerns are as follows: Traffic — Sang is a narrow street often used by UA students to get to and from the campus, making it increasingly difficult for neighborhood residents to safely drive in (not to mention walk in) the neighborhood. The traffic also creates a significant amount of noise, especially from trucks and scooters/motor cycles. The proposed rezoning would add to the already existing traffic problems. Noise — In all likelihood, rezoning would result in the building of apartments or multi -dwelling buildings to be rented to students. Numerous residents in this area have lived in their homes for many years and have already seen an increase in the noise level (vehicular, parties, etc.) as more and more properties have been converted to student rental properties. Adding more residents to the neighborhood would increase the noise level even further. Appearance - Increased density of population (crowding) in the area, the potential destruction of trees to make way for multi -dwelling buildings in small spaces, and the appearance of the multi -dwelling buildings themselves (as compared to single houses on each lot) would impact the ambiance and aesthetics of the neighborhood. In summary, we oppose the proposed rezoning because of the issues mentioned above which would negatively impact the quality of life for the current residents. Also, we are concerned about the lack of outreach to the current residents of the neighborhood concerning this issue. We did not know about the proposed rezoning before it was discussed at the January 11th Planning Commission meeting, and only found out a few days ago from a neighbor. We would like to have more information about the composition of the Planning Commission. How many of the Commission members are related in some way to real estate development (developers, builders, engineers, architects, etc.) and who may have a vested interest in promoting rezoning at the expense of current property owners? How many Commission members represent the viewpoint of existing property owners and long-time residents of neighborhoods being affected by rezoning? Thank you in advance for considering our objections and for providing information about the composition of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 22 of 34 Bill Russell & Mary Ryan, 2134 West Berry Street, Fayetteville 501 590-9622, russcommunications@cobridge.ty Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 23 of 34 -----Original Message ----- From: Bettie Hartman <bettiehartman46@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:43 PM To: Umberger, Ryan <rumberger@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Property at Sang and Ora I would like to say that I am against the plans for this property. We do not need any more multiple housing in a residential area. The traffic out here is bad enough and we would like to keep it single dwellings in a family friendly neighborhood. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Bettie Hartman 2221 West Berry St. Fayetteville Arkansas Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 24 of 34 From: Vicki Morgan <vkm816@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:50 PM To: Umberger, Ryan <rumberger@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Rezoning proposal RZN-2020-000024 Hello Ryan, We just heard about the proposed rezoning from RS4 to RS7 of the property at 916 North Sang (corner of Sang and Ora Street), identified as RZN-2020-000024 on the Fayetteville Planning Commission agenda for the January 251h meeting. This site is one block from our home at 2133 West Berry Street. We have owned the home for a few years and just moved here from Branson this past September. Our concerns are as follows: Traffic — Sang is a narrow street often used by UA students to get to and from the campus, making it increasingly difficult for neighborhood residents to safely drive in (not to mention walk in) the neighborhood. The traffic also creates a significant amount of noise, especially from trucks and scooters/motor cycles. The proposed rezoning would add to the already existing traffic problems. Noise — In all likelihood, rezoning would result in the building of apartments or multi -dwelling buildings to be rented to students. Numerous residents in this area have lived in their homes for many years and have already seen an increase in the noise level (vehicular, parties, etc.) as more and more properties have been converted to student rental properties. Adding more residents to the neighborhood would increase the noise level even further. Appearance - Increased density of population (crowding) in the area, the potential destruction of trees to make way for multi -dwelling buildings in small spaces, and the appearance of the multi -dwelling buildings themselves (as compared to single houses on each lot) would impact the ambience and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Just across Weddington there are numerous apartments. It is a completely different atmosphere from our quiet neighborhood. Please protect our neighborhood! We are opposed to the proposed rezoning which would negatively impact the quality of life for the current residents. We are also concerned about the lack of outreach to the current residents of the neighborhood concerning this issue. We did not know about the proposed rezoning before it was discussed at the January 111h Planning Commission meeting, and only found out today from a neighbor. We would like to have more information about the composition of the Planning Commission. How many of the Commission members are related in some way to real estate development (developers, builders, engineers, architects, etc.) and who may have a vested interest in promoting rezoning at the expense of current property owners? How many Commission members represent the viewpoint of existing property owners and long-time residents of neighborhoods being affected by rezoning? Thank you in advance for considering our objections and for providing information about the composition of the Planning Commission. Bruce and Vicki Morgan, 2133 West Berry Street, Fayetteville 417-593-1188, vkm816@gmail.com 417-294-3110 brubakermo@gmail.com Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 25 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:24 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - Zoning 216 Sang Avenue 1/25/21 ?493? Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Carol Traphagan 1840 Ora Drive 4798416147 ctrap1013@aol.com Planning Commission Zoning 216 Sang Avenue 1/25/21 ?493? Opposed I live in Sang Valley Neighborhood. I concerned about the proposed zoning change for the 216 Sang Avenue property and what it portends. It is worrisome that current property owners did not have first say in what happens in their neighborhood rather to be asked to react to what a commercial developer wishes to do in their neighborhood retrospectively. This is an area of single family dwellings. I believe rezoning would create inherent problems such as with drainage and traffic that are unreasonable. Markham hill is one of few accessible wooded areas in our immediate area. Maintaining such space is important for maintaining a corridor for wildlife, peace and quiet for the area and greenspace. There is a dearth of parks and greenspace on this side of town; what we have seems to be under constant threat. Development on the corner of Cross and Markham is in progress. It and appears they have stripped the property of established mature trees and canopy. Even if the intent of the developers or current zoning is to 'replace trees', this is not likely to happen within the lifespan of current bird / wildlife population. Therefore, it is likely to have the effect of negating next generation inhabitation and continued disruption and perpetuation of shrinking native wildlife habitat. Please consider other areas of the city that are less heavily developed with higher density housing if there remains need for such. Please do not allow zoning in this specific area of west Fayetteville to be changed. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 26 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 12:35 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - RSF-4 - RSF-7 Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Leslie S Gardner 2144 W Ora Drive 479-799-9044 mrseardner@outlook.com City Council RSF-4 - RSF-7 Comment Only I am not for or against this issue just concerned about the long term impact on this single family area. I own and live in my home which is rare on my stretch of Ora. Along with the fact that we don't have sidewalks, increasing traffic that is NOT concerned about pedestrian/child traffic is less than an ideal add to the congestion that exists. I want to ensure that long term planning for Sang & the coming changes on Markham Hill have been studied so there is a plan to maintain the feel of our neighborhood while ensuring that the impact to nature is minimal. Many turtles cross the road in front of the property on Sang due to the ditch/stream on the North side. We cannot lose site of what makes Fayetteville so unique and wonderful to live in. We don't want to become synthetic or take for granted the nature we are surrounded by. Leslie Gardner Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 27 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 12:47 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - RZN-2020-000024 - Rezone 916 Sang Ave Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Kenton Pauls 1794 W Ora Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72701 7122304278 kpauls1840@gmail.com Planning Commission RZN-2020-000024 - Rezone 916 Sang Ave Opposed There are a number of reasons for my objection to the proposed rezoning of 916 Sang Avenue (the property just down from my home — at the corner of Sang and Ora) The addition of additional units to this property would result in additional stress on water run-off infrastructure which is EXTREMELY limited and insufficient in the area. Everytime there are large amounts of water, that area of Sang/W.Ora is inundated with overland flooding (out of culverts onto the road, etc.). Adding structures would likely put additional stress on what is currently an over -taxed existing system. The addition of multi -family dwelling units would result in more surface runnoff, though current surface runnoff is already very problematic... there are errosion problems and dangers to children that would need to be reviewed thoroughly. Adding multi -family units in this location is something that would alter the nature of the neighborhood and signal future changes that would be problematic for current residents. There has no outreach to those in the vicinity ... and there should have been. The density of housing on the north side of Wedington (cars, rental units, parking pressures, reduced green space) has resulted in a vastly different living environment than that which we currently enjoy in our neighborhood. It would be inappropriate to begin such a shift without further engaging the neighborhood. Traffic along Sang is quite steady and swift. Adding more on/off access to Sang would be potentially problematic. If the property were to be arranged to direct access to the W Ora point of access, that would really impact the traffic on Ora. I think there are legitimate safety questions (lots of children up and down Ora, not to mention many walkers) that need proper attention. I'm unaware of any such research or consideration that seems should happen first ... and be reported back fully to all residents and property owners. I have questions about the overarching strategy for property zoning decisions in Fayetteville. I know there were decisions made to allow for additional dwelling units as a way of increasing density without majorly impacting (in negative ways) the fabric of neighborhood communities (preserve trees, etc.). It seems to me that existing channels exist that make rezoning unnecessary... for example, perhaps partitioning the large existing lot into two normal/single-family lots would allow for additional development to occur seamlessly into the existing community. Converting the currently -massive and Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 28 of 34 wide lot into two lots on which (one one) they could build one main dwelling plus an additional dwelling unit (ADU) in the back while adding an ADU to the lot where the current dwelling iswould be consistent with the strategic direction and goals the city zoning and planning commission has already established. Is this type of re -zoning of Sang consistent with the broader strategic focus and direction the Commission is wishing to advance? Or, are there existing tools (that would not require any re -zoning) available to the developer that should be utilized instead? If the goal is to move this region along Sang/Ora to become one that is more similar that what we see north of Wedington, that deserves much more conversation with the neighbors and it's something I would strongly oppose. That said, I'm not opposed to innovation as a whole and neither am I oppposed to creativity on the part of the owner to maximize the potential they see in their property. I'm asking that the Planning Commission pay attention to the above concerns, however, and subject the decision to the overall interests of the City (strategic direction for zoning, the integrity of the process moving forward) and the neighborhood community (drainage, traffic, safety, curb appeal, character of neighborhood) and the residents who call this home. Submitting respectfully. Thanks for the consideration. Kenton Pauls Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 29 of 34 From: Laserfiche <laserfiche@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, January 25, 20214:31 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Public Comment Submitted - #5 Rezone 916 N. Sang Ave. Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Erik M. Greene 2016 W, Berry St. 1-479-372-0523 egreene461@gmail.com Planning Commission #5 Rezone 916 N. Sang Ave. Opposed The property in question is diagonally adjacent to my home. I am a disabled veteran and have a hard time with loud noises. Construction at the proposed address will be a severe disruption to our peaceful neighborhood and my well being. I vehemently oppose this plan. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 30 of 34 RZN-2020-000024 One Mile View R-A \J 1 W WE I \ Glorious Assets 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles RMF-40 RMF-12 1 \ O Q. Z RSF-4 R-O Q� 111111111111 Subject Property W CLEVELAND ST I w Q O z Q z � ltl-U ,--- :1 Planning Area L :1 Fayetteville City Limits 1111 Trail (Proposed) Design Overlay District Regional Link - El Neighborhood Link Institutional Master Plan ' Regional Link - High Activity R Freeway/Expressway Planned Neighborhood Link _ Planning Area "--' Planned Residential Link _ - _ - Fayetteville City Limits _ NORTH RMF-24 CS —-- —— 0- Y U Q m O N Q Z Zoning RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY L2 General Ind. —I EXTRACTION NSG 11 RI-U COMMERCIAL RI-,2 Reaieaneal-0Mce � NSL C-1 Re.ie-.1-Agnwlturel C-2 RSF-.8 C-3 R. FORM BASED DISTRICTS RSF-2 MDowntown Care RSF-4 UTHI TM1e..gI,.. R. Mein I— Center RS1-8 Downtown General RSF-18 Cammunty service. RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY Neighbe .d Servi.. -1 M Wig— Ild Cm.ervauon RM112 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS W, C...—I, Ind-1, Reaieen�lal W124 INSTITUTIONAL RMF-08 INDUSTRIAL Planning Conim Nae Cemmenelene gM1tlneu.Via 8, ssion 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 31 of 34 RZN-2020-000024 Close Up View Glorious Assets HATFIELD ST ' 1 W Q i W ' z � ~ ORE ?r ' NS-L 1 RMF-24 W M U 1 ' J a WEDINGTON DR > 1 A 1 ORA'DR 1 A i i A Subject Property BERRY-ST w AQ - �z is w > A w Q O 1 ' a w � RSF-4 LINCOLNWOOD ■■��a p D R CLEVELAND ST w v I 1 PC i DG A ,z NORTH Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District - ` Planning Area — — L — ' Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Regional Link Neighborhood Link ■ ■ Planned Residential Link Feet 0 112.5 225 450 675 1 inch = 300 feet M RSF-4 RMF-24 Neighborhood Services - Ltd. Planning Co mission �"-wa- 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 32 of 34 RZN-2020-000024 Glorious Assets _ Current Land Use NORTH Single -Family Residential 1. I 1 " Single -Family Residential RA,DR W c� Subject Property t,, — Z .r" Oka y, +f ck Single -Family Residential ¢ •i Y. — - Single -Family Residential Institutional BERRY ST FEMA Flood Hazard Data 100-Year Floodplain Trail (Proposed) Feet Floodway Planning Area 0 30 60 120 180 240 - - -; Fayetteville City Limits 1 inch = 90 feet Neighborhood Link Planning Co mission 8, 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 33 of 34 RZN-2020-000024 Future Land Use 0 ALLEY W—�HATFIELD ST DR O a w a O J w U z Q J �ONCOLNV ` Planning Area L _ I Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Regional Link Neighborhood Link Regional Link - High Activity ■ ■ Planned Residential Link Glorious Assets HOLLY-ST Ir HOLLY�ST w a a w lQ z m WEDINGTON,DR v"nR V 0 1 06 ■ I DRI I —ALLEY-' %r0i i Subject Property 1 Q 1 ORA DR w Q C9 z Q m Residential Neighborhood 1 w 1 Q a 1 6 ' w w 1 > O QQ W m � w CLEVELANDIST U� I 0 � z .y m Dm W m v y� O ARCHER., v Jz 1 Feet 0 145 290 580 870 1,160 1 inch = 400 feet w Q C6 w J 3 W J City Neighborhood Civic Institutional Civic and Private Open Space Industrial Natural Non -Municipal Government Residential Neighborhood Rural Residential Urban Center ssion 2021 Agenda Item 5 RZN 20-000024 Glorious Assets Page 34 of 34 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0081 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 7. File Type: Agenda Item LSD-2020-000012: Large Scale Development (3655 S. SCHOOL AVE./HANNA'S CANDLE, 756): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3655 S. SCHOOL AVE. The property is zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 33.98 acres. The request is for a 99,000-square foot warehouse, 36,976 square foot office/showroom, and associated parking. Planner: Ryan Umberger THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 22, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 CITY OF ti FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director FROM: Ryan Umberger, Planner MEETING DATE: February 8, 2021 SUBJECT: LSD-2020-000012: Large Scale Development (3655 S. SCHOOL AVE./HANNA'S CANDLE, 756): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 3655 S. SCHOOL AVE. The property is zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 33.98 acres. The request is for a 99,000 square -foot warehouse, 36,976 square -foot office/showroom, and associate parking. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tabling LSD-2020-000012 until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table LSD-2020-000012 at the applicant's request to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES j Date: February 8, 2021 Motion: Second: Vote: Notes: O Tabled O Approved O Denied Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 7 LSD 20-000012 Hanna's Exp. Page 1 of 1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0084 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 8. File Type: Agenda Item LSD 2020-000015: Large Scale Development (2231 W. MARKHAM RD./PRATT PLACE INN & BARN ADDITIONS, 481): Submitted by DCI, INC. for property located at 2231 W. MARKHAM RD. The property is zoned CPZD, COMMERCIAL ZONED PLANNING DISTRICT and contains approximately 6.80 acres. The request is for an addition to the inn and event barn that includes 17 guest cabins, 12,000 square feet of commercial space, 5,000 square feet of event space, and an additional 80 guest rooms with associated parking. Planner: Jonathan Curth City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Josh Bocaccio, Staff Engineer Melissa Evans, Urban Forester MEETING: February 8, 2021 SUBJECT: LSD 2020-000015: Large Scale Development (2231 W. MARKHAM RD./PRATT PLACE INN & BARN ADDITIONS, 481): Submitted by DCI, INC. for property located at 2231 W. MARKHAM RD. The property is zoned CPZD, COMMERCIAL ZONED PLANNING DISTRICT and contains approximately 6.80 acres. The request is for an addition to the inn and event barn that includes 17 guest cabins, 12,000 square feet of commercial space, 5,000 square feet of event space, and an additional 80 guest rooms with associated parking. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving LSD-2020-000015, with conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve LSD-2020-000015 determining: • In favor of proposed street improvements; • In favor of the requested alternative street section; • In favor of a variance to block length requirements; • In favor of a variance to parking lot design standards; • And all other conditions as recommended by staff." BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the west end of Markham Road. This property and other parcels along the north and south side of Markham are within the Pratt Place Inn Commercial Planned Zoning District (C-PZD). Development on the site includes the historic Pratt home, several cottages, a barn used for events, and accessory structures. In 2018, the C-PZD was amended to reduce its land area but increase its intensity, allowing for up to 5,000 square feet of event space, 12,000 square feet of restaurant or commercial space, 80 hotel rooms, and 43 dwellings units. In early 2019, a preliminary plat was approved for the detached, single-family element of the C-PZD and construction is under way. Excluding areas under development, the site is wholly within the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, with a mixture of areas under mature canopy and open pasture or greenspace. Despite the HHOD designation, the subject property itself is fairly level, indicating that application of the HHOD may be more related to soil, geology, and visibility rather than terrain. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 1 of 57 Table 1: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction Land Use Zoning North Undeveloped RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban South Undeveloped; RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban; Water Tower & Communications Facilities RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre West Undeveloped RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban East Single-family Residential (Existing & Pratt Place C-PZD; Under Construction) RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre Proposal: The applicant requests large scale development approval to build -out the hospitality elements of the approved Pratt Place C-PZD. This includes phased construction of short-term rental cottages, an 80-room hotel, meeting space, and nonresidential uses totaling approximately 8,500-square feet. Phase I will include the main hospitality building, parking west of the water tower, and associated stormwater infrastructure. The first phase will also include utility connections, and the extension of Markham. The second portion of the hospitality building and its parking will be in Phase la, the conference center in Phase lb, and the rental cottages in Phase Ic. Additionally, and as required under the C-PZD's approval, a street connection is provided, with Sang Avenue extended north to Halsell Road with Phase Ic. As a part of this proposal, the applicant has submitted a request for two variances from the Unified Development Code and one from the Master Street Plan as outlined below alongside staff's recommendations: §166.08(E), Street Design and Access Management Standards, Block Layout/Connectivity. For public streets of Residential Link classification, intersections are required at an interval of no more than every 660 feet. The application proposes extending Markham Road approximately 850 feet, which, when considered with the project's proposed extension of Sang Avenue to Halsell and associated intersection, creates a block length of approximately 1,200 feet. In their variance request, the applicant asserts that additional connections are unfeasible due to terrain, a desire to limit development impacts on tree canopy, obstructions posed by existing infrastructure and development, and the limited likelihood that a connection will be continued to the north or south. o Staff recommendation: Staff supports the request, acknowledging the hardships represented by terrain and the potential that a street stub out is extended. To the north of the subject property, slopes are heavily wooded and range in severity, with some areas exceeding 30%. Beyond environmental impacts and construction challenges, it is questionable whether such a street could meet baseline standards for fire service. To the south, terrain is not so much an issue as existing development. Creating a road connection or accommodating it will necessitate bisecting the existing coherent development and contending with a municipal water tower and communications facility. §172.04(F), Parking and Loading, Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. To reduce grading and cuts in to sensitive hillsides, the parking lot design standards and Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD) require breaking up the size of parking `pads', which are the discrete units of a parking lot, including spaces and drive aisles. Given the level surface necessary for parking, significant cuts are often needed for their construction in steep terrain, which can compromise slopes. The applicant proposes two lots to exceed the maximum of 30 spaces, to allow 35 and 75. In their request, the applicant asserts that increasing pad size will, in fact, reduce impacts due to the location. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 2 of 57 o Staff recommendation: Staff supports the requested parking lot design variance. In considering the proposal, staff determined that meeting the letter of the ordinance would have the perhaps unintended impact of removing more tree canopy and possibly shifting parking in to areas of increasing slope. Despite the parking lot locations being designated as HHOD, the chosen areas are relatively level. Consolidating spaces in to two lots rather than four or more will reduce adverse impacts rather than exacerbate them. Master Street Plan, Alternative Street Section. To reduce excessive land disturbance and offer contextual street construction, the Alternative Residential Link street section reduces right-of-way widths to a minimum of 33 feet and a maximum requirement of 40 feet. The applicant proposes a variant to the Alternative Residential Link street section. This varies as it passes through the subject property, initially continuing Markham's design under the City's previous Master Street Plan for the HHOD street section. That street's design included sidewalk at the back of curb and tightened utility placement to minimize grading. As Markham enters the property, the applicant has proposed a divided roadway, with 6-foot sidewalk to remain at the back -of -curb, each drive lane widening to accommodate emergency vehicles and separated by a median to accommodate existing trees. From there it reverts to the previous Master Street Plan's HHOD street section through the remainder of its path through the property. o Staff recommendation: Staff supports the requested Master Street Plan variance, finding that a continuation of the existing Markham Road street design is appropriate to maintain the existing context and facilitate minimal disturbance. Adjacent Streets and Rights -of -Way: This property has direct access to two existing streets, Markham Road and Sang Avenue, both of which are classified as Residential Links. Right -of -Way to be Dedicated: Markham Road is proposed to extend westward from its terminus and in to the property. Per the applicant's request and as described above, this is intended to be variable in width to maximize opportunities for preserving existing tree canopy and to serve as traffic calming. Accordingly, right-of-way dedication will also be variable, while ensuring adequate width for two-way traffic, emergency vehicles, and sidewalk. Additionally, Sang Avenue is to be extended northward from its intersection with Markham, connecting Markham with Halsell Road. Right-of-way dedication is proposed in the amount of 33 feet in observance of the area's HHOD designation and in accordance with the Alternative Residential Link street section. Street Improvements: Markham Road: As noted above, the applicant proposes a variation of the Alternative Residential Link. This includes accommodation of sidewalk and two-way traffic, but with the potential for median where tree preservation is prioritized. When adjacent, the two travel lanes will be nine - foot wide with additional width in the gutter to accommodate Fire Department service. When separated, the two lanes will not be less than 12-foot, with additional width provided in gutters and/or header curbs. Staff recommends construction as proposed, with street trees where existing canopy does not already address this requirement, and street lights installed with a maximum 300 feet separation. Sang Avenue: Per Ordinance 6096, a new street connection is required to accommodate the volumes of traffic associated with the development. This is proposed as an Alternative Residential Link that connects North Sang Avenue between Markham and Halsell. Staff recommends that Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 3 of 57 sidewalk not be constructed at this time, with grading instead to accommodate the Active Transportation Plan's future 10-foot multi -use trail along the west side of the proposed street. Staff does not recommend installation of street trees at the time of street construction to avoid their damage or construction following later trail installation. Additionally, street lights shall be installed at all intersections where not already present and spaced no more than 300 feet in-between. Water and Sewer System: Public water and sewer lines are available to the site. The applicant proposes to extend new lines, with mains along the extension of Markham Hill and in to the site proper. Tree Preservation: Canopy minimum requirement: 30% (25% per PZD standards + 5% per the HHOD) Existing canopy: 46.8% Preserved canopy: 24.5% Mitigation required: 37,053 square feet (170 2-inch caliper trees). Parkland Dedication or Fees In -lieu: Not applicable for non-residential development. Public Comment: Staff has received public comment in opposition to the request. Although general comments were made regarding the project as a whole and its potential impact on the landscape, environment, and existing neighborhood, the majority specifically opposed the required street connection, which the applicant has proposed from Sang's intersection with Markham northward to Halsell. Comments are attached. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of LSD-2020-000015, with the following conditions. Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends: a. Markham Road: Construction of the proposed variant Alternative Residential Link street section through the site to the western property extents. This is to include sidewalk, streetlights, street trees where existing canopy is not present, and adequate width for 2-way traffic and emergency services; and b. Sang Avenue: Extend Sang Avenue northward from its current intersection with Markham Road, in accordance with the Master Street Plan Alternative Residential Link street section with curb and gutter, and streetlights. In -lieu of sidewalk construction, staff recommends grading work be performed to accommodate construction of the 10-foot multi -use trail indicated in the Active Transportation Plan. Installation of street trees is deferred to developer or municipal construction of the multi -use trail to avoid their damage during trail installation. Alternatively, the applicant may petition the City Council to amend the conditions of Ordinance 6096 to remove the requirement for a street connection. Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of street improvements, with the exception of the trail grading proposed. This was not presented at Subdivision Committee. 2. Planning Commission determination of a variance of Fayetteville Unified Development Code §166.08(E), Street Design and Access Management Standards, Block Layout/Connectivity, to allow a block length in excess of the permitted 660 linear feet. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for the reasons outlined above; Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 4 of 57 Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of the variance. 3. Subdivision Committee recommendation of a variance to the Master Street Plan Alternative Residential Link street section, to allow variable right-of-way and sidewalk at the back -of -curb. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for the reasons outlined above; Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of the variance. 4. Phasing shall occur as indicated in the attached exhibit, with necessary utilities and access accommodated for each phase under construction review; 5. Prior to building permit issuance for buildings 2A and 2B, the easement upon which these structures encroach shall be vacated or the building footprints shall be moved; 6. Contact Drew Cook with the Recycling and Trash Division at acook(a-)fayetteville-ar.gov regarding the proposed dumpster enclosures, their dimensions, and access; 7. Conditions of approval from Engineering, Urban Forestry, and other staff are included in the official conditions of approval, attached hereto. Additional redlines may be issued separately for detail; Standard conditions of approval: 8. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance; 9. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: Black Hills, AT&T, Ozarks, SWEPCO, and Cox Communications); 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements; 11. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut -sheets are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit; 12. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size, type, number, etc. Any proposed signs shall be permitted by a separate sign permit application prior to installation. Freestanding pole signs and electronic message boards (direct lighting) are prohibited in the 1-540 Design Overlay District; 13. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year; 14. Contact the City's Emergency 911 Address Coordinator for addressing prior to building permit. The coordinator has noted that any and all new structures will require addressing action and that no existing addresses may be used; Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 5 of 57 15. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscaping is to be submitted to the Landscape Administrator for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy; and 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area and all utility and access easements; c. Exterior lighting package must be provided to the Planning Division; d. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance; e. Project Disk with all final revisions; and f. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. IPLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Date: February 8, 2021 (Motion: ISecond: Vote: O Tabled Required YES O Approved O Denied Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 6 of 57 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Unified Developed Code: o §166.08(E), Street Design and Access Management Standards, Block Layout/Connectivity o §172.04(F), Parking and Loading, Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District • 2040 Master Street Plan, Alternative Residential Link • 2030 Master Street Plan, HHOD Streets • Ordinance 6096 • City Engineering comments • Urban Forestry comments • Request Letter • Variance Letter • Building Materials • Elevations • Proposed Street Sections • Phasing Plan and Narrative • Plans: o Site o Grading o Tree Preservation • Public Comment • One Mile Map • Close-up Map • Current Land Use Map Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 7 of 57 166.08 - Street Design And Access Management Standards (A) Intent. These standards are intended to ensure that development is designed to be inherently safe, walkable, and efficient for the facilitation of traffic and pedestrian movements. (B) Fitness for Development. Based on topographic maps, soil surveys prepared by the Department of Agriculture and drainage information from the Future Land Use Plan and the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, the Planning Commission may require that steep grades, unstable soil and flood plains be set aside and not subdivided until corrections are made to protect life, health, and property. (C) Applicability. The standards set forth herein shall apply to land which is proposed to be developed with new primary structures and all other developments where the creation of public streets are required, or proposed, or in which new or existing access is created or modified; or developments or expansions containing non -conforming access features which meet the thresholds set forth in subsection (G). (E) Block Layout/Connectivity. (1) Block Length. Block lengths and street intersections are directly tied to the functional hierarchy of the street pattern that exists or is proposed. (a) Regional and Regional High Activity Links. Signalized intersections should be located at a minimum of one (1) every 2,640 feet (half a mile) along regional links and should be based on traffic warrants. (b) Neighborhood Links. Intersections should be located at a minimum of one (1) every 1,320 feet (quarter of a mile) along neighborhood links. (c) Residential Link and Downtown/Urban Street. Intersections shall occur at a minimum of one (1) every 660 feet. (d) Variances. Block length standards may be varied by the Planning Commission when terrain, topographical features, existing barriers or streets, size or shape of the lot, or other unusual conditions justify a departure. (2) With the exception of corner lots, double -street frontage lots are prohibited except where such lots front on access restricted roadways such as expressways. Alleys are not considered as frontage. Double frontage lots may be permitted by the Planning Commission for topographical problems, feasibility issues relating to the parcel's dimensions, or other good cause which must be established and proven by the developer. The Planning Commission may impose additional landscape requirements along the back of such double - frontage lots. Unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, all primary structures shall be oriented toward the higher functional classification street. (3) Connectivity. Wherever a proposed development abuts undeveloped land, street stub -outs shall be provided as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to abutting properties or to logically extend the street system. (4) Topography. Local streets should be designed to relate to the existing topography and minimize the disturbance zone. (5) Dead -End Streets. Dead end streets are discouraged and should only be used in situations where they are needed for design and development efficiency, reduction of necessary street paving, or where proximity to floodplains, creeks, difficult topography or existing barriers warrant their use. All dead end streets shall end in a cul-de-sac with a radius of 50 feet, or an alternative design approved by the city and the Fire Department. The maximum length of a dead end street (without a street stub -out) shall be 500 feet. (Code 1965, App. C., Art. IV, §§C, D, F—H; Ord. No. 1750, 7-6-70; Ord. No. 1801, 6-21-71; Ord. No. 2196, 2-17-76; Ord. No. 2353, 7-5-77; Code 1991, §§159.45, 159.58, 159.51-159.53; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4757, 9-6-05; Ord. No. 4919, 9-05-06; Ord. No. 5156, 8-5-08; Ord. No. 5296, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 5546, 12-04-12; Ord. No. 5642, 12-03-13; Ord. No. 6179, §1, 4-16-19; Ord. No. 6207 , §§1-4, 7-16-19; Ord. No. 6244 , §1, 10-1-19; Ord. No. 6350, §4(Exh. C), 8-18-2020) Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 8 of 57 172.04 - Parking Lot Design Standards (G) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi -Family, and Non -Residential Development. Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum Number of Spaces per Parking Lot for Multi -Family and Non -Residential Uses. Parking pads shall have a maximum of thirty (30) spaces per pad. (Ord. No. 4725, 7-19-05; Ord. No. 4855, 4-18-06; Ord. No. 4917, 9-05-06; Ord. No. 5044, 8-07-07; Ord. No. 5079, 11- 20-07; Ord. No. 5297, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 5592, 06-18-13; Ord. No. 5680, 4-15-14; Ord. No. 5841 , §§1-3, 1-5-16; Ord. No. 5859 , §2, 3-15-16; Ord. No. 6325 , §1, 6-16-2020; Ord. No. 6350 , §9(Exh. G), 8-18-2020) Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 9 of 57 M 03 cd x al 1. bb O O N 4 S". 'C M N O to a o o o �MWUd� �'E�(� >� U � N U cd > O O O bA O 7C . 7d c� �O O > U � > Q U M'Q, cz N N O ,s O (~ En tU. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-00001 att Place Inn & Barn Page 10 of 57 pq B pq w x w V) F- w w � � � � U � � Ln � Q � � w > O w In � � 2 a Oj � .. 2 y E © k 2 % 2 o E 2 � Q # C � rz / a) • m § /=s 20 o £ 2 Q u _@ > ��a) »220 E%0 ra u o @ � 0 > �22£ 3��� \ Z' / 2: £g E4-J2a 7 M _ •- \ 0 / E u �§FOo Ln � E w R -0 o / 4-J 4-1 v, V) U » ± Q 7 % V V) > o / � / § � w & 0 >4/� O -0 Uj0 C�2 j § $� -j § @ 0��� 0 ? zn �E/ ��� ra / 0 t z E E -�U- § � u o L, 4- Ln � � > E L E : oocy,k� 3 $ o R v w 2 1-4 O � w v (U w 2 cL on w-5£ Q M -j CL 4-J � Q O § 20« 2 t a t G G @ � % fa 00000-0-Ln 2on U C 0 V £ § % C� > E E / 0 0 C. � M / o ? o Q 4-- v _ 0 / �q/R�g0-0 �..2 E u E cL Ln q .. £ CO o ® E §\UO\ q / [ § W � � � k 3 o k Ln 2 2 a) — G = t QM -0 % afo k/ >am9cm6ai« February 8,2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD m- 0015 Pratt Place Inn &Barn Pages of 57 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6096 File Number: 2018-0483 C-PZD 18-6318 (2231 W. MARKHAM RD./PRATT PLACE INN & BARN): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED C-PZD 18-6318 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2231 WEST MARKHAM ROAD REDUCING THE EXISTING 68.99 ACRE COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TO 24.06 ACRES WHILE RETAINING THE EXISTING USES, AND ADDING UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF EVENT SPACE, 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT OR COMMERCIAL SPACE, 80 HOTEL ROOMS, AND 43 DWELLING UNITS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves C-PZD 18-6318 as described in Exhibits `A' and `B' and `C' attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo which reduces the existing 68.99-acre Commercial Planned Zoning District to 24.06 acres while retaining the existing uses, and adding up to 5,000 square feet of event space, 12,000 square feet of restaurant or commercial space, 80 hotel rooms, and 43 dwelling units. Section 2: This C-PZD approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of this PZD does not imply compliance with city development or fire codes, grant approval of any development variance, or guarantee that it is feasible to develop to the maximum intensity and density of the proposed C-PZD and comply with all codes. Review for compliance with all applicable development codes will be required at each stage of development. 2. A new street connection will be required to accommodate the volumes of traffic associated with this development, as depicted on Plat 2b. Construction of the street shall be determined at the time of development. Page 1 Prinredon 1013118 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 12 of 57 Ordinance: 6096 File Number: 2018-0483 3. A traffic study will be required with the first phase of development to fully evaluate on and off -site traffic impacts and public improvements necessary to mitigate impacts to a surrounding street network affected by project traffic including streets such as Markham Road, Cross Avenue, Halsell Road and Sang Avenue. Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby approved to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED on 10/2/2018 Page 2 Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk♦` lriII �►�►►►►h OA- =C: Fp,YETTEVILEE;� Printed on 1013118 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 13 of 57 PZD18-6318 PRATT PLACE INN & BARN EXHIBIT A dose up view RZN 18-6318 2Vz Legend Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District - Planning Area L — Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint 1 Subject Property AM .. Feet 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 1 inch = 300 feet i JJ� ff NORTH Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 14 of 57 Lot 1 PZD 2oning Area. EXHIBIT B RZN 18-6318 Part of the Northeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (NE3/4 NW1/4) of Section 17, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Southeast Corner of said Northeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (NE3/4 NW3/4) of Section 17, from which the Northwest Corner of said Section 17 bears North 86'59'32" West 2,638.29 feet and North 02'44108" East 1,323.96 feet; thence by bearing and distance (basis of bearing, Grid North), North 02'36'14" East along the east line of said Northeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (NE3/4 NW3/4) a,distance of 30.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 86'31'48" West a distance of 503.04 feet; thence North 02'18'48" East a distance of 301.41 feet; thence South 87*15109' East a distance of 504.51 feet to said east line of the Northeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (NEl/4 NW 1/4); thence South 02'36'14." West along said east line a distance of 307.75 feet to the Point of Beginning. And, Part of the Southeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW3/4) of Section 17, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (SEl/4 NW 1/4) of Section 17, from which the Northwest Corner of Section 17 bears North 86'59'32" West 2,638.29 feet and North 02'44'08" East 1,323.96 feet; thence by bearing and distance (basis of bearing, Grid North), South 03'21'58" West along the east line of said Southeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (5E1/4 NW114) a distance of 17.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 03'21'58" West Continuing along said east line a distance of 235.32 feet to the northeast corner of Pratt Woods Addition; thence along the north line of said Pratt Woods Addition the following courses (bearing and distance), North 38'01'02" West 75.08 feet, North 56'21'45" West"85 feet, North 77'14'38" West 77.13 feet, North 47'45'03" West 34.56 feet, South 87'35'52" West 48.85 feet, South 65'40'41" West 82.89 feet, South 31'41'49" West 56.24 feet, North 81'21'4W West 54.07 feet, South BW43'17" West 110.16 feet, North 69'31'37" West 57.76 feet, South 71'41'20" West 110.51 feet, South 85'52'08" West 72.06 feet, South 75'29'21" West 67.51 feet, South 30'51'01" West 54.77 feet, South 88'22'32" West 70.39 feet; thence South 74'13'3S" West a distance of 80.54 feet to the northwest corner of said Pratt Woods Addition; thence North 03'30'20" East a distance of 26.67 feet; thence North 54'51106" East a distance of 29.59 feet; thence 162.69 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 106,00 feet and being subtended by a chord bearing and distance of North 29'47'38" East 157,55 feet; thence North 04'44'09" East a distance of 131.77 feet; thence North 47'00'04" East a distance of 26.18 feet; thence South 87'29'43" East a distance of 632.00 feet; thence South 85'07'15" East a distance of 35.01 feet; thence South 87'02'23" East a distance of 40.59 feet; thence South 8S'36'21" East a distance of 27.70 feet; thence South 04'23'39" West a distance of 15.00 feet; thence South 85'36'21' East a distance of 26.81 feet; thence North 04'23'39" East a distance of 15.00 feet; thence South 86'19'40" East a distance of 57.72 feet; thence South 8S'20'04" East a distance of 61.72 feet to the Point of Beginning. And, Part of the Northwest Quarter (NWl/4) of Section 17, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest Corner of said Section 17; thence by bearing and distance (basis of bearing, Grid North), South 02'44'OS" West along the west Ilne of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 1,323.96 feet; thence leaving sald;west line, South 86'59132" East a distance of 2,047.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 62'30'11" East a distance of 126.36 feet; thence North 02'09'11' East a distance of 47.75 feet; thence South 87'50'49" East a distance of 19S.S8 feet; thence North 02'09'11" East a distance of 71.62 feet; thence South 87'SO'49" fast a distance of 452.98 feet; thence South 02'41'24" West a distance of 170.44 feet; thence North 87'29'43" West a d}stance of 13.27 feet; thence North 03'41'14" East a distance of 15.00 feet; thence North 87'29'43" West a distance of 421.02 feet; thence South 02'39'13" West a distance of 55.00 feet; thence South 87'29'43" East a distance of 324.06 feet; thence South 74'44'01" East a distance of 5.87 feet; thence South 04'44'09" West a distance of 147.60 feet; thence 127.70 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 146.00 feet and being subtended by a chord bearing and distance of South 29'47'38" West 123,67 feet; thence South 54'51106" West a distance of 31.42 feet; thence South 60'32'58" West a distance of 194.43 feet; thence 38.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 70.00 feet and being subtended by a chord bearing and distance of South 44*59152" West a distance of 3754 feet; thence South 29'26155" West a distance of $7.77 feet; thence South 27'10'58" West a distance of 149.30 feet; thence 48.15 feet along the are of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 224.40 feet and being subtended by a chord bearing and distance of South 19'52'09" West 48.06 feet; thence South 02'46'58" West a distance of 14.26 feet; thence North 86"14' 11" West a distance of 270.55 feet; thence North 03'45'49" East a distance of 115.00 feet; thence North 96*14'lr West a distance of 270.00 feet; thence South 03'45'49" West a;dlstance of 239.11 feet; thence North 87'50'49" West a distance of 217.06 feet; thence North 02'09'11" East a distance of 720.20 feet; thence South 87'50'49" East a distance of 371.33 feet; thence North 62'30'11" East a distance of 141.46 feet to the Point of Beginning. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 15 of 57 ` v -_-----7 ~CO <r---- Q N !__ «»r- tea P ! a u , L---------- -._--- I ~ w w 1- Q _..__. Q LU ! ` Q L a z O Z W Q F- 1 --•----------•-•- .__.. �•. �' ! O > J W IL Z 1__ 3! Z ! F••___._- q 7 7- CO Z __ IL 1 1r py 1i a z Q � N � ........... - !l { --f ry CIO '' ZO ch 06 i. Z() �` • •••_ l :1 ® 1 i • ii �� O g S� �� is U o N N � < r=Of LU Of 0 I J� 0. Q" s rr •� 1 J ~ Zz q Q L ' 1 I o= J L _ t egi k L------- LU IrZ. o Zm -- -- I 1 I V -------- -j Z U QQ ILA o)� LLJ U 0J Oi o z O ^Q----- Lry ry g H H g I..L P gory ii !•�3 It ;j pit , ! 1 I � IA ���1 i;•1 ! 11 �1{! �� 1! ;� 4 i� 1; lt'i31, itI.1.0 f$ f I E l fLilllr 11 ,t fir, ;' I s I'�i !f I-I�� s•II 1 rt'�! I`�� li �:_ i ; I I',� 1 . � �I I j � � > �� ! t 1,j !t IM � �11 Fe b CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 94ff ARKANSAS TO: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director FROM: Josh Boccaccio, Staff Engineer DATE: February 3, 2021 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Engineering Comments for LSD 2020-000015 STAFF MEMO Plan Comments: 1. Review of Sang Ave extension was conceptual only. During grading permit review the intersection and street extension must meet all applicable standards outlined in the Minimum Street Standards, etc. Alignment may shift, impacting existing trees. 2. Grade Sang Ave extension for 6' greenspace, 10' sidewalk/trail, and 2' clear zone on the west side. 3. Show sewer and water services for existing Inn and barn. 4. FYI... Engineering will not sign off on hotel building permit until easement is vacated and water main abandoned. 5. Provide additional information on the wall located in the building setback on the west side of the water tower. 6. Provide combined water demand for hotel and existing inn. 7. Not needed for this development, but keep in mind how future development on the hill will be connected to a looped water distribution system. 8. Provide line size information for proposed sewer service running west of barn. Drainage Comments: 1. Area between north pond outfall and berm and the pipe under the berm must be included in the drainage model. 2. Please provide additional information on the feasibility of the Aqua -Swirl controlling the flow at Study Point 5 and meeting CPv minimum standard. Typically, these units have a high flow bypass that does not restrict flows. 3. Revise statement for Minimum Standard 1 — "It is understood if development occurs within the area used to calculate the Rv value for Study Point 6 and the Rv value is increased above 0.2, the water quality for Study Point 6 must be met another way." Standard Comments: 1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets and drainage). Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements, and all proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. 2. Any damage to the existing public street due to construction shall be repaired/replaced at the owner/developers expense Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 www.fayetiFAgn�gdy.4�ission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 17 of 57 3. All public sidewalks, curb ramps, curb & gutter, and driveway aprons along this project frontage must meet ADA guidelines and be free of damage. Any existing infrastructure that does not conform to ADA guidelines or is otherwise damaged must be removed and replaced to correct the issue. Coordinate with the engineering department for inspection of existing facilities to determine compliance. 4. Water and sewer impact fees will apply for the additional impact to the system. The fees will be based on the proposed meter size and will be charged at the time of meter set. 5. Note, the following portions of all projects will typically not be reviewed by the Engineering Division until time of construction -level review (unless specifically requested at plat review): o Storm Sewer pipe/inlet sizing, gutter spread, profiles, or utility conflicts o Sanitary Sewer pipe sizing, profiles, or utility conflicts o Waterline fittings, callouts, or utility conflicts o Street profiles o Fine grading/spot elevations Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Irl & Barn Page 18 of 57 URBAN FORESTRY 4�' TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS To: Leslie Tabor, DCI From: Melissa Evans, Urban Forestry CC: Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager Meeting Date: February 8, 2021 Subject: LSD 20-000015: Pratt Place Inn & Barn: 2231 W. Markham Rd. 1. Submittal Requirements Yes Initial Review with the Urban Forester X Site Analysis Map Submitted (if justification is needed) Site Analysis Written Report Submitted (justification is needed) Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted X Tree Mitigation Table on Plans X Tree Preservation Wavier Submitted (only use if no trees onsite or near P/L) 2. Tree ervat' No N/A X X X Tree Preservation Calculations Square Feet Percent of site Total Site Area *Minus Right of Way and Easements 528,808 100% Zoning Designation * Select Below with drop down arrow PZD, Planned Zoning District 132,202 25% HHOD * Select Below with Drop Down Arrow Yes 26,440 5% Total Canopy for Minimum Preservation Requirements 158,642 30.0% Existing Tree Canopy * Minus Right of Way and Easements 247,636 46.8% Tree Canopy Preserved 129,467 24.5% Tree Canopy Removed *On Site 118,169 22.3% Tree Canopy Removed *Off Site 7,878 Tree Canopy Removed Total 126,047 23.8% Removed Below Minimum 29,175 Mitigation Requirements 37,053 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 19 of 57 3. Mitigation Requirements Canopy below Number of 2" caliper requirement trees to be planted High Priority 37,053 170 Mid Priority Low Priority Total Mitigation Trees Required 37,053 170 4. Mitigation Type Yes No N/A On -Site Mitigation X Off -Site Mitigation X Tree Escrow (See Conditions of Approval) X 5. Tree Preservation Plan Checklist UDC Chapter 167.04H1 a. 5 year Aerial Check on Existing Trees b. Property Boundary c. Natural Features (100ft beyond limits of disturbance) d. Existing Topography and Proposed Grading e. Soil Types f. Significant Trees g. Groupings of Trees h. Table Inventory List (species, size, health, priority) i. All Existing and Proposed Utilities j. All Existing and Proposed Utility Easements and ROW's k. All Streams (with approximate center line) I. Floodplains and floodways m. Existing Street, Sidewalk or Bike Path ROW n. Submitted Site Analysis Plan (if required) o. Shows ALL Proposed Site Improvements p. Delineates trees/canopy to be preserved and removed Tree Protection Methods a. Tree Protection Fencing b. Limits of Root Pruning c. Traffic flow on work site d. Location of material storage e. Location of concrete wash out f. Location of construction entrance/exit Tech Subdivision Planning Plat Committee Commission Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Planning Commission ` February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 20 of 57 6. Site Analysis Report (if required) UDC Chapter 167.04H4 a. Provide graphic examples of multiple options used to minimize removal of existing canopy b. Submitted Analysis Statement — Note the process, iterations, and approaches to preserve canopy. 7. Review Status (See Comments) Conditionally Approved Approved Tabled Denied Comments Yes No N/A X X Tech Plat Subdivision Planning Committee Commission 12-14-20 01-26-21 02-02-21 1. Address items above marked "No" and all Redlines provided. 2. Please try to plant as many mitigation trees on site as possible. 3. Please include the range of trunk sizes and health of the existing trees in the detention pond areas (is this what is listed as the Northeast and Southeast sections in the Tree Survey lists?). Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 21 of 57 l� CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS To: From: CC: Meeting Date: Subject: Leslie Tabor, DCI URBAN FORESTRY LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS Melissa Evans, Urban Forestry Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager February 8, 2021 LSD 20-000015: Pratt Place Inn & Barn: 2231 W. Markham Rd. 1. General Landscape Plan Checklist Yes No N/A a. Irrigation (notes either automatic or hose bib 100' o.c.) X UDC Chapter 177.03C7g, 177.04B3a b. Species of plant material identified X UDC Chapter 177.03C7d,e c. Size of plant material (minimum size 2" caliper for trees and 3 gal. shrubs) X UDC Chapter 177.03C7b,c d. Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed X UDC Chapter 177.03C6b e. Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds X UDC Chapter 177.03C6c,d f. LSD, LSIP, and Subdivisions (PPL & FPL) plans stamped by a licensed X Landscape Architect, others by Landscape Designer UDC Chapter 177.03B g. Planting bed contained by edging X UDC Chapter 177.03C6f h. Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual X UDC Chapter 177.03C6g i. Provide information about 3-Year Maintenance plan. The owner shall deposit X with the City of Fayetteville a surety for approved landscape estimate. UDC Chapter 177.05 A2g 2. Parking Lot Requirements 1 Tree : 12 Parking Spaces Yes No N/A a. Side and Rear Property Lines (5' Wide Landscape Area) X UDC Chapter 177D1 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 22 of 57 b. Narrow Tree Lawn (8' min. width, 37.5' length) X UDC Chapter 177.04C c. Tree Island (8' min. width, 18.7' min length OR 150 square feet) X UDC Chapter 177.04C d. Placement of Trees (either side at entrances and exits) X UDC Chapter 177.04C2 e. Wheel Stops/Curbs 177.04 131 X 3. Perimeter Landscaping Requirements Yes No N/A a. Front Property Line (15' wide landscape) and five on sides. X UDC Chapter 177.04D2a b. Shade trees planted on south and west sides of parking lots X UDC Chapter 177.04D2e c. Screening of parking lot from adjacent residential properties. X 4. Street Tree Planting Requirements Yes No N/A a. Residential Subdivisions X 1 Large Shade Species Tree per Lot UDC Chapter 177.05B1a b. Non -Residential Subdivisions X 1 Large Species Shade Tree every 30' (planted in greenspace) UDC Chapter 177.05B2a c. Urban Tree Well — Urban Streetscapes X Trees every 30' (8' sidewalk) UDC Chapter 177.05B3a-f d. Structured Soil — Urban Tree Wells X Include a note and/or detail of structural soil on Landscape Plan UDC Chapter 177.05B3a-f e. Residential Subdivisions X Timing of planting indicated on plans UDC Chapter 177.05A4 f. Residential Subdivisions X Written description for method of tracking planting UDC Chapter 177.05A4e 2 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 23 of 57 5. Landscape Requirement Totals Mitigation Trees Parking Lot Trees Street Trees Detention Pond — Large Trees (1 Tree/3,000 square feet) Detention Pond — Small Tree/Large Shrub (4 small trees or large shrubs/3,000 square feet) Detention Pond — Small Shrubs/Large Grasses (6 shrubs or grasses (1 gallon)/3,000 square feet) 6. Review Status (See Comments) Conditionally Approved Approved Tabled Denied Amount = 170 required, off - site preservation will be provided 9 31 7 30 45 Plat Subdivision Planning Committee Commission 12-14-2020 01-26-21 02-02-21 Comments 1. Address items above marked "No" and all Redlines provided. 2. Please show the location of the off -site preservation easement (LSD projects are required to dedicate a Tree Preservation Easement). 3 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 24 of 57 LO O (D O O O N O N J OZOZ 'Z Jagwaoap OZOZ 98AR OO SeSueIJV ` alliA9jj9Ae j IM WegVeW 0 C a) 'O C 0) C N fp 0 a) y 0) -am T C O d 0 0 C N L O a) 0) N C 0,'-- ap C C C f0 O C C a, C N ay+ y C - C C 7 10 Y � N .2 O a) U C W C Em= r) > >@ N '3 > wp 0 m a >' >� @ t m o m n y N L m y 'a aci E na=m o 00 y 0 > o❑ 0 0 n> c c a) a) 0 U� 00 o N - 3 C @ E@ w o D 3@ c E 0 0� aa))❑ ° °� L0 @ m a)-0 @ c -_ 0 ct o 2 ' c a o 0 c a @ o� nN =_ o.L n E E n@ _ @ 0 0 E >@@❑ O "O O@ O 'L"' O C 3 C,C 0 = N '-' >i C 'O to 0@@ O _ 2 n C N O L ❑ a-E N Q@ 'O "0 "0 N L a0 06 O U] am n N 0 E CD lb C@@ C Y y n 0 N C@ @ y +O-' L E L 0 @ m@ a W C '0 C C ~ ('7 - U 7 C @ '- 0 @ - N@ "-' @ C a L >j y0 @ .L... (i a' N@@@ N a Cfl N N_ N L N C a) w N 0@ a) ++ C @ Y 7 u m 3 E U CO m N- @ p L O N @ 0) L@ E2 O 7 "' O) L N O@ C .L... N to fU c> o w m o> L H 3 @ E c C c-0 C o _' N w 0. CO (a w 0 c a rnma)o2CCUU)1` 0)��Cy-mo�t�m�¢aaE)@ o00oa��@3 E0 PE0QE�c n m a) " 0 za > 'c m Co o o ❑@ E@ m p m y 0 z L V E@ o y y m C m M 0 ` C C m @ o> N >❑ a 0 U) J❑ E 'U L� c 0 0 O O 3 a) N O_ N C C N a) @O_ y(0 a) fp N O N n C L +' a o N 0 o Eo N= otAa E w e w rn 0 c o E U> E o m ` c 3m o c.� c 0) aa)i N O` @ p o w a O O s 0 3> L n > N C U U' @ .0 ._ @ ❑ '@ U "6 0 L CO c c 0 >" O- d m 0 a) fp rn p O �' C OL O N@ 2 @ E 3 @ C Y° p N o 0 m E oy rnoQc\i 3 m`o my c@ m �L E 0m,m CL oa E o _ a c E 0 O M o m 3 m a r m N c a N 'n y c E E a 0° Y o 3 w t o °o L ~ w@ E m a o o c 4) N@ ❑_ 0_ 00 0� 0,2 3 '5 'X o a; � o -coo 0 o a) @ o ai Y o Z @ y 0 F. C O1 - U) @ C❑ C CL CO n C E a C Q m C C N E j U U 0 fop N 0) > o 0 0 C (` 0 N N 0 .3-. N '0 0 ❑_ @ O a 0 r UN MO CO L U n o n@ o 0 m° N o 0 o C @ m N 2CO ? oa.N > o = n o m O n L U 0 O.0 d W C U m@ 3@ n@ a) 4 N L_ 0 >O a) .N T E a) N E "O m 0C @@ a)() 3 U L n n n L E X N@ O L x @ a) @= E 0 L (` y 0 N d L N c N@ d m U)-- Lw000 p Ha)a)3MawaHa)oo��3@E� a`KH na�Eci� H�() o°@w II rg Commission :bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 lace Inn & Barn Page 25 of 57 LSD 20-000015 Pratt if O N CD C14 J OZOZ 'Z jagwaoap OZOZ 98RA pp seSUeNJV ` 911iA9119Aej IM WeuWIN C C g (] N y 0 O N @ 6N ID@ C D _ N @ j 0 C 1° yCC �_a3o2mc E a)- ¢c@Cy@C30a�dm wmmmc�ay� O) C p O a1 >° O L = Q -O N O._ O a)-0c2- @= N A O � .L.. p Y_ :; E m e ---0 3¢ n�� O 3P @ c E. C c_ a U N N -o U 0. W U Q m-t E ->' a) 0 U m C �° w a) m a tOi_1 @ O C 0 0 0 3 C 0 Ci a) C (a E O ' ' O E Q O a 0 00 L C O O -C E @ CC C @ L Q E o O a) N a) m U a) .L. U — U M .N. m a y O N E O) .2 U a) CO O a — O— 2 C L C C O _ @ CC win 3 a; a�mc- E L i O O> c E l0 � �' o f CO O O a) C N@ .101 y N 3 o a" O @ m a O O V= o E m o a) E O y y0 m 0- L 'O a c `m i rg O d T@ U .L+ U O >. 0.'- @ O. Z U m a) O U JOD C [L U -_E 3 y D ' o E E o c;°5 0 my o>° m o m w 3 N Y m n 0y E >wJ='a� ° @� y ° a coo m� ac aci O o aE r ° C E O N@ a)j E M, .N E m C> C m N L a) C y a) X N o 'E - N@ N N f C w O Q C° Z� (n (6 y 0 U 0 U C L 3 o -omo c 03-o w @-o =n L @ @ ° Y o m n m `n CO 2 0 3 ms o=o @ ° 3 @ a E @ C m J� 'c c a a m° m C m E U) m w o� m n'x : m aEa@io3mn Ua)o �ac�ocw -oo°o°cmm�d�x�C) �Fmu�LCLimEco E'er 0 2 b m Ma c C 1 C> @w' > m m o w c v, o w m s w o N w U Y o. E E q N O H 0 O a) 0- a) ¢ O@ O C O O .@ O .a U O O N~ C@ a) 0 T O 6.2 N 0@ N CO X 0@0 0 c O> OL0 E¢ O r°0 , @E 0, E UOU 0 0E, m-c Wa cc aO-M. a) Cd - om°°OE M N Ca) a) 0 00 °0.6E � o ° (@ °C .6 C = L@ C a) � > @ @ > C L vCo W > N aO v O Q2a (a C a > a) °oEaEoOQ- 2o m a) QC ..NyNa .0 OLCQ` U O O N m 2 O @ 2 C ID L' 3O aOM �w> c >jm a 0p2 ID O a) dmC @@ U @wcO� >m@ 3a O a)@U@ .�OE ¢co_o3 a rn Y 0 0 ._ C .N C @ m o A @ m _ L@� @ O L o E c w -NO � o L L C) C) N C @ 3 Y r d` "' r 0 U -O a) O) C N 3 @ L a Y U cD nl t{�� _ _ O @ i U O U @@ C O `_' °. 0 C .N C oo N @ U @ �• C ¢ y 3 O) m N a) o .+a)_' (Ca 0- 2 Y O L O. m�' m° w m o� 3w' .0 o mad 3 o ti a) @ n o o @.1 N 1w @ a m E�dcya,� .X @� M E c c@ c.�:>w' c o:? d a Y o O 2 w� y a) a w U—¢. ° c c y 3@ m'm-O � N 2 N °) �' o E° 0 0 a m E C "o m° U : C @� 3 C a� Y c N c L Cl 2 m C N C m 00 - m. v y o C o C >i (7 O C O C 2 � O Y E= aa'i o p o O o =_ n m m C C (A @ 0 :5 T a) 3 N 0 0 0> U C L a7 °@ y° .. @ U) " Y 'O ` -2 O_ N c C.'— T O> C V) 0 N @ O N C O. 3 C U a) M CJ 0 U .O O N> C 0 w Y O. O Cu L M O L 0 U CO a) O @ N Q N L L.. Q 3@ @ Cu U O 6 E T U U C C@ U N@ @ C 8 2 C y O C O C O) O) (a O N~ a) @ @ O N O) `-' a) 2 m 'a)O d C C 0 w 3 m O M U) N U m m >. M 2 Y@ 3 0 M C -O C.C, 0 0 0 0- a) C O 'a'O �) L d a) a) CO 0_' F a) a) a)¢ G= 3 a) n O E O) 0. 7 E T L _0 @ M @ E C U `) C O) @ 41 io @ C :o c�i m n E 3 E �i ° N o a) m y a) c o E y y°- L'L @ -o i s o m r 3 °: m o a) °@ ° C C o a m a E y y n o E n o ac ° o U O 3 N a) W C. C E O L E@ +L• @ O -OO- Y O O EmC mrY=-° N Y@ 3 0 N N a lv c y d� w2 @@mom@ OU a) O- N .L+ O O) O g y E.E &D.2 te a; o w n'-' m� nc o) c -O 0w @RQa) @aa) avr �°)o¢Ea' N>> w -O O O O U a 0 U d N N Y Y U 0 3 fn @ U @ M a) L@ 6@ @ O 0 Y E 0 d N L O@ a= > y X O E@ ��EyYoa2 O@ C �0 0 a) Eo<CO 4? r d@ y d y @ `@tea) 'MC)C)a)a�i�o a�ia6i�°>o�c 25 T C a) C °) — L' C O U 0 U@ N C O a w T C O 0 a C@@ N O V) L N O C Y L C a a�— C C@ O N 3@ U O U L O' ` C Q 2 O @@ N m @O_ O @ 0 O N n@ � O N aj 'L"' 3 O Y E 0 -O @ Y C Y >@off @aTi3`�a-Oi U a) a) L U) — Y w�cra)nm°mm a) N > E M Q 'O Q ° a a) O U O .J o a) @ oo W E�`,°1@ °Nc�awy>n�;� a o @ @ N (7 p N y 'a)O 'O _ 5 0 a N fN`a d' 0 "° ... 3 N N E-) m U' E O. O C C w a) C (a 2 .L.+ O a) C 2 J W Eca 0 a) Z C' ny c0 V) a) N N a) 0- L .0 C w u) -0 a) ° 'y0 D 0)� a) O a) @ N C L C m .c O) w w R N O U N O aa)) 0 E N y (A O C E U N @ -0 E C° I11 O -O 0) (O a) C a Y a) N a) Q O) U N C.L.. O@ a' O @ — C O y Q O O a) .L+ O O C L @ C LO c.i N r O V C N 0- -@owc'`o oCm@ CO y0 N> 3 2 0 v c��.6 ° N >. `N� Z U O) is V! U �` O) ° y @° to 0 a i aa)QE Qasmcc C7oo@� 23:.@3@@ @ m= ai n C 'cu c 3 0@ m 3 o `) c 0. L L m r Q 'c m `m 0 W Q o o E 0 °oa m (m o ,� n .. M o@ E C ° Q w 0 ._ w C ._ H .. ° ._ U >_ 7> Q 2 (� y@ n m- 2 .. Q 3 n o .. T C a) o rn C= .L0 X O C 0 =@ °@ t N N@@ O� O o tD U=� a) f0 O C R a) 0 rn N - 3 =- 3 w Uc C 3 a) 2, a)cC 4) O_ - O O O. O @OCC'aLc3E' !coo -o f0 'O CO �' Y (D �' U O ' O N a) L C L O N .O > L L O C O @@° rL-� ID O O_ > O U C M C@ C) C ?: M@@ a) a) O w -O L a) aN N O O a O. @@ Q a) ° N C w C a J N Q w @ --• a O m C? j C L aL 0= O 3 My Eoa)-oo3 L.• �@Ya°C -po N °tea dca ZZ,ENcc6gCo> v co°) O 3 ca El T �L A� C U @ E 0 3 a)"Y_ -O @ "O p U Y J N o i N N O) " m Q @ E N L m 0I C@ N L_ C c E-2 c_ @-_°'6 ' O.. 4'mY O.. W tyi=@@o N V 0 >i U~ U �L�@ �'a)a)� E 0' T N L L O`�L~ >.. C E' °wu) @ m=@2NE3c°i�o@mac C N N C J N 3 a) L N@ m n Noy m ¢ Y@ w 3� L m y❑ a c Q o -- N m oQ .L-. @ O E --O0 C £ U E w a) n .L@. ID L ID .- a) c� O r a w a) N U N a0 .o @ C@ O N c Y 0? N v o `mCCv) C _j< 4=0-°mo �a)c�iamino °i0�@n�0a)(DIDi d'n=KNt@�a�Cmaa'i@L...4 (a 0�3 wo~a)�3a`)EC@d�Eoa)�=Nmya@i a£ � 0� n c20Naoa.Da m,.0 a) m ma E NO N ox,��.a o � 2n`inw-2 m . o.w E>w 3: Ca m 6 N J @ O 'O ° N O 8 = 0 y 0 U O 42 a)U@ C) N c O > L> � U V V y N m> . C� 3 N Y j y> U O .L-• (a U m L N M �O C N O@@ 0 0 0 y J@ C C 'J C '� C T' a t,• Cu a) C O. (D _O U) N y-+ Z O a) L N Y J@ EO Y O a) E C T > E a) -he E a L U C O @ Q T.2 J y N y� E a N L U C -D N 0 m E� m OL @° @O U O C Y E O -2 O— L O E@ 0 J N N L M o_ a - 0 E U) U= 0 E Q .t/) -a)O U (a a C� c 2 O a) a) m 0 0 N@` E` '-' -O W -0 N L C N m O > C U @ c� C a) � o o>> m m° � w E ai @ L � � 0 r 'L_' N> O O a a a) > Q .- F@ O o O >mn-oa�mv .L.. w .L-• N Q u, L.°aci W y3�a)aci �;ao-mLa)iom C P?p @cam @3 Erg o)�aci ai .CC3°)N' ?nC@ @3@doa��csa)o>52 _EGC`@.- E d wd °aw @ _@ �ooyE O L O Q O) E �m0 E°a)�miYmm6Mm3L_o@n�3 L E .0 K Cr N N L T@ ]. V �ca)ia>iooc°)i�rn� ,.00— N C m U @@ N .O C a O C C.O. O Vl (� �33.Eoo0. yca)i(°noY-o�3-oc'�2>,c°)i i @ c Z C U a w 11 ID oy�KE�a�inacinaNi .. a w > a x '- a) @ o E >: @ co @ SC w a1 0 C a) a@ J V) n@ @ C C N O 4(D O O UCO o° m m m Ka; oC@C N °- a ° c c o o ° :EQ O E a w° c@ c o o 0 E m ° > a)o. °>¢ao. 3L cm om-oC ¢ >wta)o)ao) > Q¢ O U Q-' N �' ==0= 0 C2? > F 2 2 3 CJ N .L.. a) Q) (a mom @- da)a)omCorw°)�a)o)m@ow U L !_ N N O) .L...L.. E b, m m C N m C O> m O N y ig Commission bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 ace Inn & Barn Page 26 of 57 LSD 20-000015 Pratt OZOZ 'Z Jagwaoap OZOZ aaA43 OO SeSUeIJV ` alliA9jj9Ae j Q IM WegVeW t v t m c N m (n0 - C N E a) U L - m 4-- M O O rlK a� L. LSD 20-000015 Pratt ig Commission bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 ace Inn & Barn Page 27 of 57 OZOZ 'Z iagUADOP OZOZ asfyl n I� I ' � a 1 Ir a O O - Y O O O }' o N ; a vz aY N M W ^+ W m c J LU g N S L .9c-loz SeSUe>ay ` a!IlAOjjGAe j IM WeuWIN of DY W .5 F co Z O _ z y O 0 hi g Commission F tl,,uary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 .dace Inn & Barn Page 28 of 57 LSD 20-000015 Pratt OZOZ 'Z Jagwaoap OZOZ aaj43 9 i i SeSueIJV ` alliA9jj9Ae=j IM WegVew ,U9-,UL c E U d LL apV O c 0 0 w L 0 O Z .UV -,Us N O ig Commission bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 ace Inn & Barn Page 29 of 57 LSD 20-000015 Pratt OZOZ 'Z jagwaoap OZOZ 98RA pp �I l 5L-ML SeSUeNJV ` allin9jj9Ae=j IM WeuWIN N G 6 7 ❑ Eil w 7 L M O 6 w C cu U cz Y" _ o cn V w LSD 20-000015 Pratt bi g Commission Ft bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 .dace Inn & Barn Page 30 of 57 OZOZ 'Z Jagwaoap OZOZ aaj43 OO c m E d U m LL , S L -,u L ,S L-,U L SeSueIJV ` alliA9jj9Ae=j IM WegVew w g It C O N w C O 7 LU LSD 20-000015 Pratt hg Commission :bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 lace Inn & Barn Page 31 of 57 OZOZ 'Z jagwaoap OZOZ 98RA pp L- SeSueNJV ` alliA9jj9Ae=j IM WeuWIN w M O a� LU (1) ig Commission -bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 lace Inn & Barn Page 32 of 57 LSD 20-000015 Pratt azaz ,z jGgw8Mp OEOL �W CP �jw Q .n-'M SeSUeIJV ` Gjj!A9jj9Ae j IM WegVeW w m LU a c cc w hg Commission :bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 lace Inn & Barn Page 33 of 57 LSD 20-000015 Pratt OZOZ 'Z jagwaoap OZOZ 98RA pp SeSUe>ay ` a!I!AOjjGAe_j Q IM WeuWIN s s P 4 ip G, q p a p _.. J � ) d 4-J C Y 6T-V c 0 a� w m w LSD 20-000015 Pratt ig Commission -bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 lace Inn & Barn Page 34 of 57 WOZ .Z �a4waaal) 02oel"'W ,ST-.OT a lOZ-,ST sesue�ay ` alliAajjaAej II!H wegAjeA d tt cco mz L — N O w O> e ON ig Commission Fo bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Pace Inn & Barn Page 35 of 57 OZOZ 'Z jagwaoap OZOZ 98RA pp m W SeSueNJV ` alliA9jj9Ae=j IM WeuWIN ,5 a� w s 0 0 U) C 4 Q1 U1 f- 0 Z P 4 G 9 p p -.. - d m a T-_/ H Z LSD 20-000015 Pratt hi g Commission F bruary 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 .dace Inn & Barn Page 36 of 57 Z JO L OVOU WVHMUVW - SNO1133S IVOIdAi 131HISM ADI - -I41ZZHMMVW I 031V'dOdHODNI SiNvi-inSNOO IN3MO13A90 I aWa oz W 33-08d 1 NEF ITi '2 °ed . . . . . . 'MITI . . . . z H m m !H ?*21 z M �aod ad Ell, Planning Pommission Febrpary 8, 2021 '.�Oenda Item 8 OMPGR LSD 2o-o'Place Inn & Barn Page 37 of 57 / o31vmoauoow Siwvi-ioswou Iw3Mo13xao / E. Planning Dommission A, enda Item 8 LSD 2o-oOMPGR'Place Inn & Barn Page 38 of 57 3" ONVS'N• SNO1133S IVOIdAl A O ��a a € o ■■ a e= A§®6 1�IP11SIO AllltllldSOH - IIIH WtlHNBtlW o O 431 Planning ommission Febr ary 8, 2021 enda Item 8 LSD 20-000 MPGRAGl e Inn & Barn Page 39 of 57 LSD-2020-000015 February 1, 2021 Phasing City of Fayetteville Planning Department Narrative 125 W Mountain 5t Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Markham Hill Hospitality District — Phasing Plan Mr. Curth, ■ pill DEVELOPMENT C 0 N 5 U L T A N T 5 I N C 0 R P 0 R A T E D A Phasing Plan has been added to the Markham Hill Hospitality District plans submitted for LSD approval on January 20'0, 2021. Upon LSD approval by the City of Fayetteville, the plan will serve as a guide as to the different phases for which the developer and design team will submit Construction Documents for review and approval. The intent is to obtain separate construction permits and separate Certificate of occupancies far each phase. Further, drainage Systems, utilities, erosion control requirements, and fire and life safety requirements will be addressed within each relevant phase. Tree preservation and/or mitigation within each phase will be per the LSD approval. An overall SWPPP will be obtained prior to construction, cover the entirety of the project, and be updated as required during construction. Phase l will address the following: 1) offsite sewer improvements; 2) water main connection at the pump station per Olsson's plans; 3) extension of W. Markham Road from the east to the western extent of the Hospitality District; 4) the connection of Cabin Ridge from W. Markham Rd. to the internal drive network; 5) the northern and southern stormwater management facilities and requisite drainage structures. Subsequent phases to Phase 1 are shown with letters instead of numbers, but their sequence is yet to be determined. As required by the conditions of approval of the PZ❑ Ordinance, the extension of North Sang will be completed and functional prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the last phase of the LSD. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Ben Kuddes Attachments - Markham Hill Phasing Plan —Sheet C2.01a Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 40 of 57 ■■e�= @ `%� I pie NVId ONINOISN3WI011"3AO 031VNOdk1O3N1 S1NV1lf1SN03 C® z �I �I I II I I I I I I I I I I L — — _1 3� 0 3 0 �U Y 131H1SI0 A111V11dSOH • 111H WtlHNiIVW 1N3WdOl3A30 111—NNM.MN' ` MR1111 Planninj Commission Feb uary 8, 2021 „"—'-"',, . enda Item 8 LSD 20Z0015 Pratt Plate Inn & Barn Pade 41 of 57 Ntlld ONINOISN3WI011"3AO n Q o H p 89 0 ¢ wexrxw'anu3�xw ■■ao=@ �o �' ee 1OR11SIOU11V1IdSOH, 1IIH WVH)IUVW 431VHO=3N1 S1NV1lf1SN03 1N3WdOl3A3O I I 0 ® Z o p i 1 1 g III r I \I � I 111 z I I� � I I i \ p \ \ w N Z `\pas: gaff€, Ex W O \ Z QZZo pzn8 3EIs.§ U) i W o ��N m.m Z Q X z I ;I W \ w - �� I I LLI w� oCOw I=Ig" Q U) I m� 2 2 �— U) — �— �eLL o fa ------------- Al g m € ° PlanniO Commission I Feb uary 8, 2021 ,0enda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Plate Inn & Barn Pa e 42 of 57 »2 o NtlId ONIObHO IIb'N3AOoz r PIN ¢ �' ee 13R11S10 AllltllldSOH • IIIHwexrxWtlH)lwanr f 1 a3lVNOdNO3N1 S1NviinSN00 1N3WdOl3A30 =All ®o III IA ® Z - m »xHa 8§ H, 0 LJ ;;:—z I 1 I 1 �nS Commission uary 8, 2021 „„53m,,,-ouzo . enda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Plate Inn & Barn Pade 43 of 57 9`2 0 0 -- -. -- 141114 NVId NOUVANES311d 3311-1 -1-1-9A0 SIUUI-IVIld H .LOIN 'L "0 1031"OdkI03NI SiNvIinSN03 IN3WdO'13A3a 0 z f Howl R 11 W Qi 57 - 4'a ri _z7 Not A I gj 0 J1 J�- N PT 1 A- -vt 0 L IM fj 7.5 ning Commission uary 8, 2021 8 LSD 20-Z(�'�';' Pratt Plac � Inn & Barn Pa0e 44 of 57 LSD-2020-000015 Public From: Rebecca Harrison <rebeccanewth@gmail.com> Comment Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 9:52 AM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Sang Ave. Connection I would like to persuade you to re -think the Sang Ave connection from the proposed high density development on Marham Hill to Wedington, Cleveland and Oliver outlet. My home has been the Oliver house, a one hundred year old previous farm. I moved here in 1983 and I have noticed the really terrible traffic on Wedington and coming up Cleveland and down around Temple Shalom and on. Sincerely, Rebecca Harrison, 611 Oliver, Ave, Fayetteville From: springfieldranch@aol.com <springfieldranch@aol.com> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 12:41 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: SREG request I understand developer SREG is asking the Planning Commission to connect Sang Ave between Markham Rd and Halsell Rd in order to send traffic from their proposed high density commercial and residential development on Markham Hill down Sang Ave to Wedington, Cleveland, Halsell, etc. This is just another instance of not being able to trust what developers say. Although I do not live in Fayetteville, I appreciate green space and the efficient flow of traffic when I do visit the city. I have already spoken out against this high density proposal from the get go. I feel Fayetteville is being foolish and short- sighted to trade the income of property taxes for the future value of natural green. What would New York be without the iconic Central Park? Our citizens need the qualities only open, natural environments can provide. I cringe every time I drive to Fayetteville and see another apartment complex being thrown up. The city is becoming a metropolis without a plan. I beg you to reconsider. T.A. Sampson From: Sally Wimberly <sallywimberly@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 9:17 AM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Sang Avenue connection Please inform City Council members as well as City Planning Commission members we oppose SREG's request to connect Sang Avenue between Markham and Halsell Roads. We are already experiencing high traffic and speeding vehicles through our Sunset neighborhood as well as surrounding neighborhoods in University Heights. Please do not approve this request. Sally and David Wimberly Sally Wimberly Reflexology, Rosen Movement, Rosen Bodywork Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 45 of 57 (479)442-0002 www.sallywimberly.com Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Denele Campbell 709 N. Sang 4798392475 denele@windstream.net Planning Commission SREG proposal to connect Sang Ave with Markham Road Opposed I'm speaking on behalf of my mother Carmyn Pitts, owner at 709 N. Sang. She is very opposed to anything that will potentially expand the width of Sang or the traffic count on that street. With SREG's proposed development on Markham Hill, the connection of Sang to Markham would channel a tremendous new volume of traffic down Sang. Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Ethel Simpson 409 N Oliver Avenue 4794422925 esimpson@uark.edu Planning Commission Sang Avenue extension Opposed In another effort to convince the Commission that extending Sang up the side of Markham Hill is a bad idea, I repeat my earlier comments that, when this proposal was made years ago, the engineering data indicated that the "lay of the land" would not support such a project, being very steep. Moreover, there is already a connection to Markham road about a hundred yards east of Sang, via Cross Avenue. Why this need for another? But I must also repeat my remarks in another connection: the planners have dedicated themselves to creating a walkable city. At considerable expense the city has built trails for every sort of bicycle and even some for pedestrians, and the public appears to have embraced the idea of walking as recreation if not entirely as transportation. And yet you persist in street construction for automobile traffic through some of the topographic features that make Fayetteville an esthetically interesting, yea walkable, city. Some years ago an effort to build a road up and down the hill west of Crossover Road fortunately failed. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 46 of 57 It would be much easier to "plan" a city built on a flat cornfield, but that is not what we have, and most of us are glad of it. If you want us to walk, please don't allow more car traffic in some of our most walkable areas. Meeting Body -City Planning Commission Position -Opposed Dear City Planning Commission, I oppose the Sang Avenue connection requested by SREG and the variances requests by SREG regarding Markham Hill. Absolutely no more deforesting should be allowed. The part of Markham Hill they have already deforested, altered forever, and removed is heartbreaking. By allowing more street street connections you would be allowing more deforestation, and draw more traffic, congestion, and chaos to the existing streets, neighborhoods, and properties on and around Markham Hill. Fayetteville's last existing and historical urban forest should be preserved and protected, and our low density, tree filled, historic neighborhoods in the Markham Hill area should be respected and preserved. Crisscrossing streets in all directions up and down Markham Hill will add pollution, noise, and cement to the once beautiful, tree covered hill. After submitting plans for zoning on Markham Hill, SREG now comes back asking the city planning commission and city council to give them even more leniency in how they develop Markham Hill. This will include, but isn't limited to, a connection between Markham Hill Road and Halsell Road! This will dramatically increase traffic flow, cause even more destruction to existing green space, and make the area SO congested and over -run with cars, that it will make driving home feel like a NY City alley. SREG also wants to increase square footage for their event space, parking lots, and streets. The city council already went against public opinion and allowed SREG to increase the frontage allowed for the first phase of 'development,' removing more trees! Over the past two years, there were many pre- printed, submitted form letters presented at meetings which were in favor of that move, as documented in the Fayetteville Flyer archives. Guess who filled out those forms? The answer is SREG employees!! There were also many more letters which were presented from local, long standing Fayetteville residents opposing SREG's requests. However, the council and planning commission has to date ignored all of those pleas, and the well expressed ideas of local residents as to why development on Markham Hill is a bad idea. To this point, the council and planning commission have paid little mind to what is good for the existing neighborhood, and current Markham Hill residents. Please answer the question as to why you are not listening to the residents of Fayetteville? Why are you putting SREG first? You, the planning commission, need to say no to a Sang Ave connection, and all future proposed street developments. The hill does not need to be destroyed further with cluster buildings and streets. As you know, right now, there is a petition to stop developing Markham Hill. It has over 10,000 signatures!! Fayetteville's population is about 87,000, so why aren't you paying attention to the gravity of the matter as presented in this petition? The Fayetteville residents do not want Markham Hill developed into a cement city. We are not Japan, or China, and we do not need vertically clustered residential and commercial buildings, set upon the top of our Markham Hill! Please acknowledge the Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 47 of 57 petition, respect what the Fayetteville residents want, and stop acting like you are best friends with the developers. Listen to the people you serve! As I watched the Arkansas Missouri BB game last week, the University played it's allotted video about student life in Fayetteville. The fall view of beautiful Markham Hill just beyond the stadium was shown as the drone flew over. Why do you want to destroy that peaceful and glorious scenery? Change course, now, and stop allowing SREG to destroy the last remaining forested part of town, Markham Hill, which buffers Fayetteville from Interstate 49. Vote against all the proposed street connections, and all of SREG's requested variances on Markham Hill. Lisa Spies Swinford U of A Graduate Fayetteville Property Owner From: Ginny Masullo <masulloginny42@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 12:22 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: SREG request for variance Dear City Clerk, Please distribute to the Planning Commission the following letter before today's meeting. Dear Planning Commission, It appears that SREG development has a strategy for chipping away at what once appeared to be a development that showed at least some concern about the geological, historical, and urban forest significance of Markham Hill. It appears that SREG has a strategy for chipping away at the once almost palatable plan by requesting variances. The recent request for Sang Ave connection must be denied . Thank -you for the work you do. Please know you are much appreciated. I hope you make the decision to deny this variance for a Sang Ave. connection . To do so would to be serve the citizens of Fayetteville. Ginny Masullo 479-530-0280 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 48 of 57 From: Rania Trulley <rtrulley@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 9:09 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: SREG request re: Sang Ave. To all who may be involved in this decision: People from other areas of the country (SREG) are trying to make changes concerning my life here in my adopted hometown of over 38 years. What they want to do just saddens my heart. I can think of no better way to express it. First they refuse all legitimate requests to sell the 144 acres of old growth forest on one of the 7 original hills of Fayetteville. That transaction would allow a philanthropist, who is willing, to allow this area to remain a true original natural setting in Fayetteville. I live on Loren Circle, very close to Sang. I hope that you will not even consider allowing this road to be extended through the woods. Yes, my quality of life is very important to me. Please be very realistic & realize the amount of traffic that would increase exponentially. I do not want to feel that I must find a way to move somewhere else just to have peace in my life. I really do not know how else to explain my very strong feelings of opposition to the possibility of extending Sang Ave. People are moving to Fayetteville in droves. I feel very certain they are also coming here for the beauty and the few unspoiled places remaining in this small city. Please consider the residents' feelings when looking at the many aspects of this situation. Fayetteville really needs to keep it's natural beauty. We should not be catering mostly to businesses who are changing our lives. Thank you for reading this and giving your most sincere thoughts to this very important matter. Sincerely, Panic Trulley 2122 W Loren Circle, Fayetteville, 72701 From: Stegall, Bob <bstegall@workrecords.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:57 AM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Sang Avenue Connection I live at 1764 West Osage Bend and am writing to implore you to reject the developer SREG's request to the Planning Commission to connect Sang Ave between Markham Rd and Halsell Rd in order to send traffic from their proposed high density commercial and residential development on Markham Hill down Sang Ave to Wedington, Cleveland, Halsell, etc. We are strongly against up to 6000 vehicles driving through our neighborhoods every day. There is absolutely no need to turn Sang into a major thoroughfare through existing neighborhoods where we walk our dogs, let our kids play in the streets, etc. There are plenty of existing paths where this traffic could and should utilize to get to their desired destination - Martin Luther King, the access road on 1/49 and even Wedington. This will turn Sang into a high traffic, major bottleneck and funnel traffic through all kinds of side streets to avoid the congestion like our street West Osage Bend. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 49 of 57 There is just no need to accommodate the developer in this request and ruin all of these neighborhoods. SREG can and should use the existing roads or they could reduce the size of their developments. This after the fact request feels like they know they will get a rubber stamp as they have for everything else. Please just once listen to the people and don't destroy neighborhoods just for added convenience for people that are part of a new development - simply use the existing roads! Thank you for your consideration. Bob Stegall Bob Stegall WorkConnect Wori�)Records 214.402.6782 *** Dear Mayor, Planning Commission, and City Council, I am opposed to connecting Sang Ave from Markham Rd to Halsell Rd, i.e., connecting the Sang Ave segment on top of Markham Hill to the Sang Ave segment running from Halsell Rd to Wedington. Especially because *one* developer is asking for it and *many* residents in the existing, historical neighborhoods nearby and on and off Sang Ave are opposed to it. And also because it was specifically removed from the Master Street Plan for 2040 on January 7, 2020 for valid reasons. I would like to remind you of the decision the City Council made on Jan 7, 2020 to remove both connections of Sang Ave from the Master Street Plan for 2040. That is: between Sang Ave at the Halsell Rd turn and Sang Ave near the top of Markham Hill, and between Sang Ave on top of the Markham Hill in the Haskell Heights area to Sang Ave running by Ramay Junior High near Martin Luther King Blvd. Both connections were specifically discussed at the City Council meeting and both were specifically removed from the Master Street Plan for 2040. The title of the agenda item was 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. One of the items in the revised Master Street Plan dealt with adding the Sang Ave connections so that up to 6000 vehicles per day could drive from Wedington to Martin Luther King Blvd and vise versa, through low density neighborhoods and over steep terrain and forested Markham Hill. There was discussion about the Sang Ave connection on the north and south sides of Markham Hill as I just described. As I said, each connection was specifically discussed and each connection was specifically removed from the Master Street Plan for 2040 for valid reasons. I quote from the Minutes: "Council Member Turk: We just discussed needing more trails and getting people off the street. Now we have this proposed cut through and building a big street through a great part of town that has lots Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 50 of 57 of ecosystem services. We already have an improved Razorback Road. We have Futrall Road that could be changed to two ways if we need more road access in that area. The U of A is close by and even if it is downgraded, there are going to be so many cut throughs from students. With the grade and slope it will present challenges with speed and runoff from any development that goes in there. It will destroy the neighborhood and it is a beautiful historic neighborhood. I like the alternative of no connection." "Council Member Kinion: There have been promises made and promises should be kept. He stated when Markham Hill was recently discussed, it was understood there would not be a pass through on this property on Sang from Wedington up to the north. That was one of the reasons I voted the way I did, even though it hurt my heart. I felt it was the best alternative we were faced with when we came down to the vote. I am a neighborhood preservationist. The neighbors were promised not to have Sang go through there because of runoff, topography, hydrology, and geology. The expansion of the university and the area around the neighborhood is pressuring on all sides. We should consider this amendment. It is a long-term plan." "Council Member Turk gave a brief description of her proposed amendment of removing the Sang Avenue connection from the Master Street Plan. She spoke about it becoming a cut through area for U of A students, traffic, speeding, and slope concerns. She spoke about the history of the neighborhood." "Council Member Turk moved to amend the resolution by removing the Sang Avenue connection from the Master Street Plan. Council Member Kinion seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-4. Council Members Gutierrez, Kinion, Turk, and Smith voting yes. Mayor Jordan voting yes. Council Members Marsh, Petty, Scroggin, and Bunch voting no." Please honor this decision. Do not approve the developer -requested Sang Ave connection from Markham Rd to Halsell Rd. Do not let one developer's request have priority over the will of the residents in the area. Residents in neighborhoods have been disregarded too often. It is time to listen to the people of Fayetteville. I realize the developer may have befriended many of you over the past few years. Please do not show favoritism. Please listen to the residents. Thank you for reading my letter and considering my points. Sincerely, Lisa Orton 1663 Halsell Rd 410-674-8440 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 51 of 57 Full Name Address Ward Phone Email Meeting Body Agenda Item/Subject Position Comments: Ethel Simpson Ward 4 479-442-2925 esimason(@uark.edu City Council and Planning Commission extension of Sang Avenue Opposed I am re -sending a letter to the Commission some time last year, but I have added a couple of paragraphs at the end; if you have read the earlier version, please read this all the way through. I might as well recycle my comments, in the hope that they become more effective through repetition. John Williams, architect and University Heights resident, who died in 2008, once recalled to me that he (and probably others) had successfully resisted an attempt from the city to extend Sang Avenue . He argued on the grounds 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 drew a straight line connecting 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. The topography 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? In addition to this historical and technical argument, I want to advance another. The City's web site describes some zoning principles that are applied to advance its planning goals. There is a Zoning principle called Neighborhood Preservation, to address problems that can hurt the quality of life in a neighborhood. Another ordinance provides for Special Base Zoning Districts that Preserve and protect identifiable natural resources from urban encroachment. I believe that designating Sang Avenue as a through street routing it through the Markham Hill neighborhood directly contradicts those two principles. The quality of life of our quiet, tree -studded neighborhood would be permanently altered for the worse by the increase of traffic that the planners envision Certainly the traffic and ensuing noise, trash, illegal parking and other factors, mentioned under Neighborhood Preservation, would destroy rather than preserve the historically quiet and natural beauty we cherish. It isn't necessary to further disrupt the quiet residential district along Sang. We already have connectivity between the two thoroughfares. Now that Razorback Road is widened and improved, it ALREADY provides connectivity to Wedington via two wide, paved streets. Wedington is a wide, relatively flat highway all the way east to Garland, another wide north -south roadway. If there is greater density out west of the Interstate, how does that justify messing up an undense neighborhood for the convenience of those neighborhoods? Great sums will be spent to improve the overpass at Wedington and 1-49. How does that justify slicing the land to the south by another throughway? There are frontage roads on each side of the highway. Why shouldn't that be the preferred route for through traffic? Finally, and predictably, I imagine, I remind you of your dedication to the Walkable City, which comes up frequently in discussions of rezoning, e.g. a gas station west of the Interstate. It is entirely inconsistent with that concept to build a street through one of the more suitably walkable districts of this part of Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 52 of 57 town. Area residents walk for health and recreation, just as bicyclists do, as well as to get to work at the University. What are you asking them to give up in order to satisfy the never-ending requests of Specialized Real Estate for variants from the settled street plan? They knew from the outset the lay of the land —steeply hilly north of Markham, narrow south of Markham and then steeply hilly again en route to MLK. The possibility of a walk to whatever commercial properties SIRE plans for the top of Markham Hill would certainly be diminished by automobile traffic. Please declare once and for all that Sang will not be cut through Markham Hill. From: Candace Hoggatt <clhoggatt@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 8:31 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@favetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Candace Hoggatt <clhoggatt@cox.net> Subject: Against Developer SREG asking for Sang Ave connection. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor, Planning Commission, and City Council, I am opposed to connecting Sang Ave from Markham Rd to Halsell Rd, i.e., connecting the Sang Ave segment on top of Markham Hill to the Sang Ave segment running from Halsell Rd to Wedington. It was specifically removed from the Master Street Plan for 2040 on January 7, 2020 for valid reasons and it seems the developers can't accept the will of the residents and the vote and plan to continue to push their agenda over the will of the existing people in the neighborhood they claim to be enriching. The last thing we need is a another high density crossover in a residential neighborhood. It will kill our property values and destroy the walkable neighborhoods we enjoy now. It's busy enough now with Sang /Cleveland. I'm sure a study of speeding tickets on Cleveland alone will show adding a major road will cause major disruption. One death from a hit and run on Cleveland is too many. Why alllow the chance to put more cars in this neighborhood? I would like to remind you of the decision the City Council made on Jan 7, 2020 to remove both connections of Sang Ave from the Master Street Plan for 2040. That is: between Sang Ave at the Halsell Rd turn and Sang Ave near the top of Markham Hill, and between Sang Ave on top of the Markham Hill in the Haskell Heights area to Sang Ave running by Ramay Junior High near Martin Luther King Blvd. Both connections were specifically discussed at the City Council meeting and both were specifically removed from the Master Street Plan for 2040. The title of the agenda item was 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. One of the items in the revised Master Street Plan dealt with adding the Sang Ave connections so that up to 6000 vehicles per day could drive from Wedington to Martin Luther King Blvd and vise versa, through low density neighborhoods and over steep terrain and forested Markham Hill. There was discussion about the Sang Ave connection and each connection was specifically discussed and each connection was specifically removed from the Master Street Plan for 2040 for valid reasons. Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 53 of 57 Please honor this decision. Do not approve the developer -requested Sang Ave connection from Markham Rd to Halsell Rd. Do not let one developer's request have priority over the will of the other residents in the area. Thank you for reading my letter and considering my points. Candace Hoggatt Sent from my iPhone From: Susan Gardner <gardner.susuz@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:24 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Ken Gardner <Gardner.ken@att.net>; Teresa Turk <teresa_turk@hotmail.com> Subject: Oppose Sang Ave connect request AGAIN by SIRE I am back yet again to state that I do not want the proposed Sang Avenue connection because of the SAME reasons we expressed in 2018, 2019 and now 2021. We were promised the last go around just a year ago that previous promises by the City Council should and would be honored. These comments were made by several City Council Members that still serve on the Council. And yet here again is SIRE trying to include it in another variance on their PZD. There should be a limit on the number of times they can file the exact same variance, cloaked with other items to avoid neighborhood comment. I do not think the traffic coming from existing new construction has been evaluated properly yet and streets like Cleveland already are a problem during peak driving times because it is used as a cut thru to and from ILIA. The new townhomes on Cleveland will be adding traffic to an already overwhelmed intersection and that is no where NEAR the cars we will be talking about with both SRE and the Marinoni property approve despite neighborhood concerns. Since the neighborhood is being considered for Historic Status I hope that we don't destroy things prematurely only to realize too late what we should have protected. You cannot go back. Could you please share this letter with City Council, the Mayor, Planning, subdivision Committee and Transportation and any other committees this item must go through. It is exhausting being a constituent and have to be watching the for the same sort of issues over and over from the same developer. Thank you, Susan Caple Gardner 909 North Hall Avenue Ward 4 Planning Commission February 8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 54 of 57 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 55 of 57 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 56 of 57 LSD-2020-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Addition Current Land Use lid M AM - All Single -Family Residential ; - � I I EVANGELINE LN ---ir Single -Family MARKHAM,RD = Residential Undeveloped ; Subject PropertyMMMM �� — — N•i 5P , PRATTD ;S - I N- Water Single -Family Residential - HOT Z DR Tower �..._.: - II; _ II. 0 L Undeveloped Q 1111111 Trail (Proposed) Planning Area - - -; Fayetteville City Limits Feet 0 145 290 580 870 1 inch = 400 feet 1,160 FEMA Flood Hazard Data 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Planning Corilmission COWF6,R12JI8, 2021 Agenda Item 8 LSD 20-000015 Pratt Place Inn & Barn Page 57 of 57 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0101 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: 9. File Type: Agenda Item ADM-2021-000027: Submitted by the Long Range Committee of the Planning Commission for an item to amend the UDC. The request is for the discussion of a revision to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to allow for In -home Daycares, Child Care, and Nursery Schools as a by -right use in additional zoning districts. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 163.05 - Child Care; Nursery School (A) Child Care; Nursery Schools. Child Care and Nursery School facilities shall be allowed by -right where Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities is a permitted use or where the following conditions are met: (1) Minimum Lot Area. Contain a minimum lot area of 250 square feet per child. (2) Minimum Outdoor Play Space. Provide a minimum outdoor play space of 80 square feet per child, calculated on the basis of the number of children occupying the outdoor play space at one time. (3) Number of Children. In an RSF zone, a child care facility is permitted for no more than four (4) children, or the number of children approved by the state's licensing board, whichever is fewer. (4) Parking. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the exclusive use of child drop-off and pick-up. (B) Where Use Unit 4 is not a permitted use and the above conditions cannot be met, a Child Care and Nursery School Facility shall be allowed by conditional use permit approval from the Planning Commission. Child Care and Nursery School Facilities allowed by conditional use shall be subject to the findings required under §163.02(C)(3) and the following: (1) Minimum Lot Area. Contain a minimum lot area of 250 square feet per child. (2) Minimum Outdoor Play Space. Provide a minimum outdoor play space of 80 square feet per child, calculated on the basis of the number of children occupying the outdoor play space at one time. (3) Number of Children. In an RSF zone, a child care facility may be approved as a conditional use of no more than ten (10) children, or the number of children approved by the state's licensing board, whichever is fewer. (C) Outdoor Play Space shall be fenced and secured. (Code 1965, App. A., Art. 7 (7); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 2604, 2-19-80; Code 1991, §160.082; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4489, 6-3-03) City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0098 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission File Type: Agenda Item LSP-2020-000026: Lot Split (121 & 123 N. WASHINGTON AVE./BRICENO, 485): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 121 & 123 N. WASHINGTON AVE. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.19 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 parcels with approximately 0.11, and 0.08 acres. Planner: Jessie Masters City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0087 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: File Type: Agenda Item LSP-2020-000054: Lot Split -Property Line Adjustment (293 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD./COODY, 526): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 293 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is to split and adjust the properties into 4 parcels with approximately 2.47, 2.22, 0.99, and 0.99 acres. Planner: Jonathan Curth City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 e (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0099 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission File Type: Agenda Item LSP-2020-000045: Lot Split (NW OF N. OLD MISSOURI RD. & E. JOYCE BLVD./TRAILS OF PARADISE VALLEY APTS., 176): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NW OF N. OLD MISSOURI RD. & E. JOYCE BLVD. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE & CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 12.43 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 parcels with approximately 10.00, and 2.43 acres. Planner: Jessie Masters City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0085 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission File Type: Agenda Item SIP-2020-000001: Site Improvement Plan (3267 N. TRUCKERS DR./GRAND RETIREMENT, 7-PLEX, 208): Submitted by RICK MOONEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. for property located at 3267 N. TRUCKERS DR. The property is zoned RMF-12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 12 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 20.53 acres. The request is for a 7-unit townhome complex with associated parking. Planner: Jonathan Curth City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0086 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission File Type: Agenda Item SIP-2020-000010: Site Improvement Plan (N.E. OF 245 W. VAN ASCHE LOOP/OSBORNE, 172): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located N.E. OF 245 W. VAN ASCHE LOOP. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.95 acres. The request is for a 7,800-square foot office building with associated parking. Planner: Jonathan Curth City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0095 Agenda Date: 2/8/2021 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: Planninq Commission Agenda Number: File Type: Agenda Item FPL 2020-000002: Final Plat (SW OF E. CALGARY ST. & S. DEAD HORSE MTN. RD./RIVERWALK PH. III, 363): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located SW OF E. CALGARY ST. & S. DEAD HORSE MTN. RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 24.70 acres. The request is for the final plat of 57 single family lots. Planner: Ryan Umberaer City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 21512021