Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5220 r III IIII IIIIII III VIII I III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II I III I� Doc I0 : 012742990010 Tvoe : REL Recorded : 03/06/2009 at 11 : 31 : 59 AM Fee Amt : $60 . 00 Paae 1 of 10 Mashlnoton Countv . AR Bette Stamps Clrcult Clerk F11e2009-00006645 ORDINANCE NO. 5220 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 06-2170, VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 16 EAST AND EAST OF GOFF FARM ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 53 .03 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R-A, Residential-Agricultural to R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2 : That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development plan, development standards, statement of commitments and the conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council; further, that the conditions of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville. Section 3 : That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 17`h day of February, 2009. APPROV D: ATTEST = ; FAYETTEVILLE ; ? By: By: /1 9s'• RKAtis .•J b LIONELD J AN, Mayor SO URA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurei'o;,yGT01A „�`O� uumov' EXHIBIT eeAe' RPZD06-217 VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE Close Up view SUBJECT PROPERTY Ta\ � 0 tj o ❑ o cl a i �a Q° ynntl Overview aeaxv aslecl — FLOODWAY SW YEM — IWYEM --- UNIT OF STUDY BesNiia ProFle O Fayetteville f"_1 0 e CeY w tmG Fodonnt 2004 wWH Ito O.eney p trot 0 225 Oso 900 1.750 1.800 Feet EXHIBIT `B" R-PZD 06-2170 A PART OF SECTION 24, AND A PART OF SECTION 25 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25 AND RUNNING THENCE N 87001116" W 987.33 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 03003'00" E 600.87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD CENTERLINE S 87001 ' 16" E 52.27 FEET; THENCE S 56°35'20" E 339.81 FEET; THENCE S 81 °27'33" E 631 .08 FEET; THENCE S33°49'31 " E 271 .57 FEET; N 88015'23 " E 161 .27 FEET; THENCE S 42' 11 '39" E 488.91 FEET; THENCE S 04°36'52" E 928. 17 FEET; THENCE S 15°59'30" W 713.53 FEET; THENCE S 70037'32" W 185 .48 FEET; THENCE S 32°39'52" W 467.30 FEET; THENCE S 46059'22" W 162.84 FEET; THENCE S 16°02'22" W 109.30 FEET; THENCE S02°33'46" W 105 .25 FEET; THENCE S 38°49'44" E 79.65 FEET; THENCE S 16° 12'04"E 74.82 FEET; THENCE N 86055'06" W 339.76 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID ROAD CENTERLINE N 49°07'24" W 36.69 FEET; THENCE N 60° 12'41 " W 100.88 FEET; THENCE N 77°29'04" W 137. 15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S 86055'06" E 456.61 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 ; THENCE N 02033'46" E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25, 407.00 FEET; THENCE N 87026' 15" W 213 .99 FEET; THENCE N 02°33'46" E 1276.27 FEET; THENCE S 73050'46" W 819.41 FEET TO A POINT IN THE COUNTY ROAD; THENCE NO2033'46" E 42.23 FEET; THENCE N 73050'46" E 1045.35 FEET; THENCE NO2°33'46" E 843 .38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING AN AREA OF 53 .03 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AND EASEMENTS AND OR RIGHT OF WAYS OF RECORD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 1 of 7 Conditions of Approval Adopted by the City Council: Streets and Right-of-Wav 1 . Determination of street improvements. Based on the condition of the immediate surrounding street system, the status of the intersection of Huntsville Road and Stonebridge Road and the impact of the amount of traffic generated by 45,000 square feet of non-residential space and 350 dwelling units from this project, the following street improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer: a. Prior to final plat of Phase I, the applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the Stonebridge Road and Huntsville Road intersection to City standards. Should the AHTD not approve the traffic signal installation, the applicant shall contribute an assessment in the amount of $ 125,000 for the full cost of the signal prior to recording a final plat for Phase 1. b. Prior to final plat of Phase 1, the applicant shall construct a 3-lane street section for Dead Horse Mountain Road along the project frontage, including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage, a 5 ' sidewalk and street lights at each intersection and with a maximum spacing of 300' . c. Prior to final plat of Phase III, the applicant shall overlay and widen Dead Horse Road from the north property line to the south property line (including the road frontage between), to a minimum width of 24' of pavement with shoulders, pursuant to City engineering criteria. This results in a total of 143 lots constructed before improvements are made to Dead Horse Mountain Road. d. The applicant shall contribute an assessment for the replacement of the Dead Horse Mountain Road bridge on a lot by lot basis, based on the most recent bridge cost estimate and the percentage of traffic to cross the bridge. The current estimated total for the entire development is $216,000.00. Fees for Phase I, due prior to recording of a final plat, equal $55,525 for 91 single family lots. Staff recommends that once the bridge is fully constructed (anticipated in 2009-2010) no further fees shall be contributed by this development. To clarify staff's recommendation, based on the phasing plan presented, it is likely this development will not contribute any fees to the bridge replacement, based on current replacement schedules. e. Prior to final plat of Phase 1, if the Falling Waters entry road has not been constructed to provide access to this property, the developer of the Villas shall be responsible for securing all agreements, dedication of public right-of-way, and coordination to construct the public street entrance as approved with Falling Waters PZD to provide the necessary second point of ingress/egress. 2. Determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards: a. The applicant requests a variance to allow a 20' curb return radius (CRR) at all interior street intersections and alleys when City Code requires a 30' CRR for minor streets (UDC Section I71 .02(C)). Engineering staff has reviewed this request and is in favor of the CRR variance request,finding that adverse impacts to traffic and pedestrian safety would not occur. The City Council found in favor ofstafl s recommendation. b. The applicant requests variances to allow different street cross sections than required by the current Master Street Plan standard (UDC Section 166.06 (k)(10)(a) and 166.08(C)(14)). The applicant proposes the following: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 2 of 7 1. (Street Sections 1 , 2, 3, 6 and 7) Request to provide 7' of greenspace between the back of curb and sidewalk where 6' is required. Staff does not support this request, finding that the additional I ' of greenspace does not significantly increase aesthetics, pedestrian safety, or area for tree growth, to a degree at which the City 's street standards that were adopted in an effort to standardize street sections should be altered. The City Council found in favor of staff's recommendation. ii. (Street Section 3 and 6) Request to allow an urban streetscape design with an 8' sidewalk on one side and a standard 5 ' sidewalk on the other side. Staffsupports the requested variance based on the location adjacent to a dense multi family development and single-family residences, respectively, with the condition that the greenspace along the single family section be reduced from 7 feet to 6 feet (see above) to provide for both sides of the street cross-section in compliance with its respective cross-section. The City Council found in favor of staff's recommendation. iii. (Street Section 7) Request to allow alternative street section (two-ten foot travel lanes with on-street parking on both sides of street). Staffsupports the requested variance,finding that the proposed street section provides additional parking for the multi family units and clubhouse along this section of street. The street section combines aspects of several approved street sections, including standard travel lane, parking and sidewalk widths. As noted in the above variance request (i), staff is recommending that the greenspace be reduced to 6 '. The City Council found in favor ofstaffs recommendation. iv. (Street Section 5) Request to allow street cross section not permitted (one-lane blvd). Staffsupports the construction of a median in Street Section 5. The Fire Department has reviewed and approved the street design with the designatedfrre pull-off lanes, which is consistent with a cross-section staff proposed to the Planning Commission during review ofthe Master Street Plan amendments, but removed at the request ofthe Fire Department. Staffrecommends in favor ofthe request, finding that the public welfare will not be negatively affected by the requested road section. The City Council found in favor of staff's recommendation. v. (Street Section 1 ) Request to construct a 5' sidewalk on only one side of the street, south of the southern roundabout. Based on Page 15 of the plats, it appears that construction of a 5 ' sidewalk on both sides of the street is feasible and provides sufficient room for utility easements. Although, a variance to allow the sidewalks adjacent to the back of curb appear to be necessary. Staff recommends in favor of a variance to allow sidewalk construction adjacent to the street as shown on the plats, but does not recommend in favor of allowing sidewalk construction on only one side of the street. The City Council found in favor of staff's recommendation. 3 . Determination of zoning criteria: building area. In all of the residential planning areas, the applicant is proposing a high intensity of building area (the area on a lot occupied by buildings), CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 3 of 7 much more intense than is permitted within any other residential districts within the City. These range, as proposed, from 65-95%, which leaves very little unoccupied greenspace. Staff recommends these buildable area maximum levels be reduced, finding the proposal to be inconsistent for the proposed development pattern, as follows: a. Page 4. PA- 1 , Reduce maximum building area from 65% to 50%. b. Page 5. PA-2, Reduce maximum building area from 70% to 60%. c. Page 6. PA-3, Reduce maximum building area from 85% to 75%. d. Page 7. PA-4, Reduce maximum building area from 95% to 75%. The City Council found in favor ofstaff s recommendation 4. Determination of a waiver to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) on lots with less than 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Staff does not recommend in favor of this request, finding that the minimum lot size requirements were discussed at length with input provided from the public, Planning Commission and City Council, and at this time there are no reasons to deviate from the minimum adopted standards. As discussed at the Planning Commission and City Council, this ordinance requirement can not be waived. 5 . Determination of Planning Area 6. As previously proposed, PA-6 was designed to provide limited commercial services; however, since the previous review by the Planning Commission, this area has been removed and is proposed to remain as Residential Agricultural zoning district, but with an R-PZD designation. Stafffinds that if the project is approved, the ability to provide commercial services for area residents is appropriate and should be incorporated into the project. These services, once developed, could lead to decreased vehicle trips on the surrounding street system and provide employment opportunities for area residents. Staff recommends that the limited commercial uses be incorporated into Planning Area 6 as previously reviewed. The City Council found in favor ofstaff's recommendation. 6. All private drives and alleys and any sidewalks outside the right-of-way shall be included in a shared access easement. This access easement shall be included on the easement plat and/or final plat prior to recordation. 7. Right-of-way dedication. 42.5 ' from centerline along Dead Horse Mountain Road shall be dedicated with Phase 1 of the project; variable right-of-way dedication along the internal streets as depicted on the site plan by easement and/or final plat; private alleys and streets shall be located within an access easement, owned and maintained by the property owner's association, and dedicated by easement and/or final plat, as applicable. 8. A minimum of 20' clear of any structure (fence, building, wall, etc.) shall be provided along all alleys utilizing residential trash service to provided adequate room for a trash truck and arm to pick up residential trash carts. 9. Signs indicating future street extension shall be installed at all street stub-outs prior to recording a final plat for the subject phase. 10. Construction of nonresidential facilities. The developer shall guarantee to the City completion of nonresidential facilities (Club House) in the amount no less than 150% of the estimate cost of said facilities, pursuant to the Unified Development Code PZD requirements. Said guarantee shall be provided to the City prior to final plat approval of Phase 1. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 4 of 7 General 11 . The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 12. A final plat shall be required to subdivide the property, with Phase I of the project. A preliminary and final plat approval is required prior to development of any additional single family portions of this project. A large scale development is required for any nonresidential and/or multi-family development. Development shall be subject to the regulations in place at the time of review and approval, including grading, drainage, tree preservation, landscaping, residential design standards, etc., unless varied herein. 13. Buildings shall be constructed to be consistent with the concepts depicted in the building elevations in the PZD booklet. All buildings shall be designed and constructed to front onto public rights-of-way. All non-residential buildings or mixed use buildings shall adhere to Commercial Design Standards. All multi-family buildings shall adhere to Urban Residential Design Standards. 14. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with those standards outlined within the project booklet for each Planning Area. 15. The owner of the adjacent land, which contains several of the detention facilities, may be required to sign the final plat for each phase of the development. Additionally documentation may be requested by staff to ensure full compliance with all applicable regulations, for Phase 1 and future phases that direct stormwater to the off-site retention ponds. 16. The storm sewer discharge point at Lots 65 and 66 shall be evaluated at the time of construction submittal. Off-site drainage improvements may be required. 17. Any nonresidential uses in Planning Area 5 shall be contained within the club house building and not constructed as stand alone businesses. Phasine 18. This project is required to obtain all construction and building permits and complete construction of each phase in accordance with the phasing table listed below. A one-year extension may be approved by the Planning Commission for each phase, subject to the criteria in UDC Chapter 166 for extensions. Phase No. All Permits obtained (years) from CC approval Timeframe for Construction (years) Phase 1 : 2-year to obtain all required permits 3-years from issuance of permit to complete phase* Phase 2: 3-year to obtain all required permits 4-years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 3: 4-year to obtain all required permits 5-years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 4: 5-year to obtain all required permits 6-years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 5: 6-year to obtain all required permits 7-years from issuance of permit to complete phase * Single family lots are required to obtain final plat approval by the completion dates; all single family homes are not required to be actually constructed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 5 of 7 Parks/Trails: 19. The applicant shall contribute money in-lieu for Phase I and provide a deed for the two-acre park prior to filing the final plat for Phase I. All other fees shall be due prior to final plat approval for single-family lots and prior to building permit issuance for other units. 20. Grading for St. Paul Trail within the abandoned railroad corridor shall be completed by the developer to accommodate the 12' trail, including all drainage structures situated to allow for construction. This land shall be dedicated as a public access easement with Phase III (or sooner) of the development. 21 . A future trail corridor is also planned through lot 196 adjacent to the golf course. This will allow St. Paul trail to extend through the golf course to meet Eagle Park. The trail will be on-street through the development. The entirety of lot 196 shall be within a public access easement, dedicated at the time of final plat of phase I. Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan Conditions 22. Mitigation will be required on the site. The applicant shall mitigate for the removal of 35,283 SF of tree canopy in Phase I with on-site mitigation to consist of a minimum of(122) 2-inch caliper trees. If all trees cannot be planted on-site, the balance shall be contributed into the Tree Fund, as determined by the Urban Forester. Mitigation trees cannot be located within utility easements or street ROW. Please submit a tree mitigation form for approval. 23. All mitigation trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. These trees cannot be located within any utility easement or street ROW. A 3-year bond, letter of credit, or check in the amount of$30,500 shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All mitigation trees shall be located on a site owned by the applicant. 24. Each lot not reviewed for development approval at this time will be evaluated at the time of development. A minimum canopy cover of at least 25% will be required for the PZD zoning. Additionally, all applicable landscape requirements shall be met at the time of future development for each lot. 25. Before construction plan approval, the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect with the state of Arkansas. 26. Under Landscape Regulations Chapter 177, street trees must be bonded for a 3 year period. This bond is for the maintenance of the trees. This amount must be deposited with the City before issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 27. Street trees are required to be planted every 30', except for single-family lots where one tree is required per lot. 28. Prior to signing the final plat, a written description of the method(s) and time frame the project will utilize to track development of each single-family lot to ensure the required trees are planted and their longevity of health assured, shall be submitted. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 6 of 7 Plat and Booklet Revisions 29. The following revisions shall be completed prior to staff forwarding this item : a. Page 2. All phases of the development that will be constructed as large scale development should have two time frames; one to obtain construction permits and one to receive final inspection approval. If a phase contains both types of construction, then there should be a time frame to obtain permits, a time frame to obtain final plat approval and a time frame to obtain final inspection approval. Change each phasing statement to read as follows: i. Phase IV: All permits necessary to complete construction shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District. Final inspection shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the PZD. ii. Phase V: All permits necessary to complete construction shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District. Final inspection shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the PZD. Standard Conditions of Approval 30. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 31 . Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the surrounding structures, with access not visible from the street. Elevations shall be submitted to Planning staff for review and approval prior to building permit. 32. All mechanical and utility equipment located on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof-mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening into the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting buildings. Mechanical and utility equipment over 30 inches in height shall meet building setbacks. Smaller ground-mounted equipment may be screened with tall grasses or shrubs. Add this note to the site plan and all construction documents. 33. 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. 34. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 35 . Impact fees for police, fire, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance. 36. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City' s lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and cut-sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 7 of 7 Staff prior to building permit. Only single-family and two-family structures are exempt from the lighting ordinance. Street lights, townhouses, condominiums, live/work units are subject to compliance with the lighting ordinance. 37. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. b. Final plat for this project that shall include all easements and the tree preservation area. C. Project Disk with all final revisions d. 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. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 03/06/2009 11 :31 :59 AM and recorded in Real E e File Number 2009-000 81.5 Bette Sll tamps - Circ i le by ord Sao RECEIVED OCT 012008 06 x i l CITY OF FAYETTEVILLELCErDESIGN CITY CLERKS OFFICENTRE FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I PLANNING I CIYIT ENSINURINC September 30, 2008 Jeremy Pate Director of Current Planning City of Fayetteville 125 West ;Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: Villas at Stonebridge - Appeal of Planning Commission denial Mr. Pate: On behalf of our client, we wish to appeal the September 22, 2008 City of Fayetteville Planning Commissions decision to deny R-PZD 06-2170. We request that this item be place on the December 02, 2008 City Council meeting. Respectfully, Todd Jacobs Director of Design Appian Centre for Design 217 East Dickson Street, Suite 104 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Office: 479-442-1444 iCPi+��- O►� Ywtd as ll'i City Council Meeting of December 02, 2008 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations � p From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planningg Date: November 13, 2008 Subject: Appeal for The Villas at Stonebridge Residential Planned Zoning District (R-PZD 06-2170) RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommends denial of an ordinance to create a Residential Planned Zoning District for The Villas at Stonebridge (R-PZD 06-2170) as proposed in its current form. Staff finds the rezoning and land use proposal is inconsistent with the adopted goals and policies of City Plan 2025, due to the density, land use incompatibilities and relatively isolated development proposal in an area that is under-served by infrastructure to a level that is acceptable for neighborhoods at such a density. If this ordinance is approved, the action would establish a unique zoning district for a multiple-use project with a maximum of 350 dwelling units (166 single family and 184 multi- family) and approximately 45,000 square feet of nonresidential space (live-work and clubhouse) on a 53 .03-acre tract. The density proposed over the site is 6.60 units per acre. The Planning Commission voted to deny the application; the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council in the time period required by ordinance. BACKGROUND The subject property contains approximately 53 acres located east of Dead Horse Mountain Road approximately 1/3 mile south of Goff Farm Road, and adjacent to Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course. Additional land on the golf course (approximately 4 acres) is being utilized for stormwater retention, but is not included in the PZD proposal. The site was annexed into the City of Fayetteville in April 2005, is primarily zoned R-A, and is currently undeveloped rural land. Zoning of the property was not pursued at the time of annexation. Property directly to the west and south is partially within the County, and consists of rural residential land owned by four separate property owners. Property to the east and north is under common ownership, and is utilized for the Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course, which was developed prior to its annexation into the City. While the golf course offers "greenspace" to users that golf, it is not considered public open space to be used for all citizens and multiple forms of recreation. To the far south, the property adjoins Falling Waters PZD, a 255-lot single family residential subdivision on 137 acres (density of 1 .8 units per acre) approved in 2005, which incorporates tree preservation and hillside development best management practices. The request is for rezoning, land use and partial development approval for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District. Should the PZD be approved as proposed, it would result in immediate development approval of a preliminary plat with 91 City Council Meeting of December 02, 2008 Agenda Item Number single-family lots and several large lots for future development review. The remaining residential lots and multi -family buildings would require preliminary plat or large scale development approval in the future. On September 22, 2008, the Planning Commission voted 3-4-0 on a motion to approve this request with Commissioners Cabe, Bryant, Anthes and Myres voting 'No', Commissioners Lack, Winston and Kennedy voting `Yes', and Commissioners Trumbo and Graves absent. The motion to approve failed and the applicant has appealed this decision to the City Council. The main concerns with the project are centered on the location of the R-PZD at the edge of the City limits, without close access to improved roads or transporation corridors, the lack of support services to serve the residents of the development, and an overall lack of compatibility with surrounding rural properties. This project is designed to be a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) including a variety of housing types and land uses positioned on small blocks with meaningful open spaces. While the development plan contains many design aspects interior to the project that are supported by the City's adopted City Plan 2025, the location of the development in context with the lack of urban services in this area and the impact this will have on the surrounding area is largely ignored. The project is at the edge of the City limits on property that is surrounded by large lot, agricultural land, some of which is still within the County. In addition, the site is not situated in a location such that infrastructure and connectivity could be sufficiently improved to manage the. increase in daily vehicle trips generated by this development. Due to the lack of common support services currently available to residents in this area, it is likely that the residents will continue to be auto -dependent, thereby placing a greater burden on the surrounding unimproved streets and intersections. The closest commercial center, at Crossover and Mission, is approximately 4 miles to the north. The development proposed, even with a well -designed interior plan, thereby contributes to suburban sprawl, which is inconsistent with adopted city policy. Typical characteristics of sprawl that are evident in this project include: • A "leap frog" development pattern, in which a more dense development occurs beyond other underdeveloped tracts closer in to the city, thereby creating burdens on the infrastructure in those gaps; • Development that fails to locate in areas where existing public facilities are located, "beyond the edge of services and employment" and locating in an area that is poorly connected to other land uses in the immediate area. Development that is being proposed is not concurrent with needed infrastructure improvements, as City policy dictates; rather, we are seeing the project and anticipating for potential future relief; • A primarily single -use project, residential, requires all residents to travel to work, obtain basic necessities and staples. • The development pattern, which includes multiple -story, multi -family structures in direct adjacency to rural land uses, provides largely incompatible land uses and development patterns with the surrounding large, rural lots and agricultural lands. Staff finds this rezoning proposal to be inconsistent with the City's adopted goals and policies, and the policy decision to rezone the area may lead to future issues in the area. Currently, staff finds the project is proposed too soon for this particular area and promotes a development pattern more like the density of downtown Fayetteville, without the schools, City Council Meeting of December 02, 2008 Agenda Item Number commercial and community services and infrastructure to support it. In the larger picture, both the Planning Commission and applicant raised the policy question of how the City wants to develop, recognizing in this project good things relative to the plan design, but negative things relative to where a project this dense is located at the edge of the city. BUDGETIMPACT None. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING . DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 06-2170, VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 16 EAST AND EAST OF GOFF FARM ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 53.03 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R -A, Residential -Agricultural to R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development plan, development standards, statement of commitments and the conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council; further, that the conditions of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville. Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this By: DAN COODY, Mayor day of , 2008. ATTEST: By: SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer EXHIBIT "A" RPZD06-217 VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE Close Up View tf;-1 f �I RA 1e 111 I� • VI II , I +,lf�+• e +Y1 A •NO g`" • SUBJECT PROPERTY' ; ; ' `yy ♦' !�y j111••• i q ' ♦ L• KV v r 'S. / TL ti < a�. i �• as a4 * f +n. f} Y ii, ;> P �3 S S.la. ... - o, n — P qi v.. ry t i.. P t♦ a 1p Mme- ♦1 ♦ r ... PP ww h V 1 —, Jr t15F�t ' 1 . a ft;. 5 1 y a YV A ^Ia • . • -. •1,•v•AY L l• i # j. 9 I R8f-' I #-.. - . -.. r a •I S.i + .fit I rf M• 1 I Overview Legend ??, ovwlayoislnw — FLOODWAY '---- 500 YEAR 100 YEAR --__J LIMIT OF STUDY ...eLnef¼o1ie yetteville a otv Doeslro w.00B.Fodpdnt x004 PI wo-IGrloo Ovular Disuicl 1.800 Feet EXHIBIT "B" R-PZD 06-2170 A PART OF SECTION 24, AND A PART OF SECTION 25 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25 AND RUNNING THENCE N 87°01'16" W 987.33 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 03°03'00" E 600.87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD CENTERLINE S 87°01'16" E 52.27 FEET; THENCE S 56°35'20" E 339.81 FEET; THENCE S 81 °27'33" E 631.08 FEET; THENCE S33°49'31" E 271.57 FEET; N 88°15'23" E 161.27 FEET; THENCE S 42°11'39" E 488.91 FEET; THENCE S 04°36'52" E 928.17 FEET; THENCE S 15°59'30" W 713.53 FEET; THENCE S 70°37'32"W 185.48 FEET; THENCE S 32°39'52" W 467.30 FEET; THENCE S 46°59'22" W 162.84 FEET; THENCE S 16°02'22" W 109.30 FEET: THENCE S02°3346" W 105.25 FEET: THENCE S 38°49'44" E 79.65 FEET; THENCE S 16°12'04"E 74.82 FEET; THENCE N 86°55'06" W 339.76 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID ROAD CENTERLINE N 49°07'24" W 36.69 FEET; THENCE N 60°12'41" W 100.88 FEET; THENCE N 77°29'04" W 137.15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S 86°5506" E 456.61 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 02°33'46" E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25, 407.00 FEET; THENCE N 87°26'15" W 213.99 FEET; THENCE N 02°33'46" E 1276.27 FEET; THENCE S 73°50'46" W 819.41 FEET TO A POINT IN THE COUNTY ROAD; THENCE N02°33'46" E 42.23 FEET; THENCE N 73°50'46" E 1045.35 FEET; THENCE N02°33'46" E 843.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING AN AREA OF 53.03 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AND EASEMENTS AND OR RIGHT OF WAYS OF RECORD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page! of 7 The Planning Commission and staff recommend the following conditions of approval associated with R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge). Conditions of Approval Adopted by the City Council: Streets and Right -of -Way Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Based on the condition of the immediate surrounding street system, the status of the intersection of Huntsville Road and Stonebridge Road and the impact of the amount of traffic generated by 45,000 square feet of non- residential space and 350 dwelling units from this project, staff recommends the following street improvements as being proportional to the development: a. Prior to final plat of Phase I, the applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the Stonebridge Road and Huntsville Road intersection to City standards. Should the AHTD not approve the traffic signal installation, staff recommends the applicant contribute an assessment in the amount of $125,000 for the full cost of the signal prior to recording a final plat for Phase I. b. Prior to final plat of Phase I, the applicant shall construct a 3 -lane street section for Dead Horse Mountain Road along the project frontage, including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage, a 5' sidewalk and street lights at each intersection and with a maximum spacing of 300'.• c. Prior to final plat of Phase III, the applicant shall overlay and widen Dead Horse Road, from the north property line to the south property line (including the road frontage between), to a minimum width of 24' of pavement with shoulders, pursuant to City engineering criteria. This results in a total of 1"43 lots constructed before improvements are made to Dead Horse Mountain Road. d. The applicant shall contribute an assessment for the replacement of the Dead Horse Mountain Road bridge on a lot by lot basis, based on the most recent bridge cost estimate and the percentage of traffic to cross the bridge. The current estimated total for the entire development is $216,000.00. Fees for Phase I, due prior to recording. of a final plat, equal $55,525 for 91 single family lots. Staff recommends that once the bridge is fully constructed (anticipated in 2009-2010) no further fees shall be contributed by this development. To clarify staff's recommendation, based on the phasing plan presented, it is likely this development will not contribute anyfees to the bridge replacement, based on current replacement schedules. e. Prior to final plat of Phase I, if the Falling Waters entry road has not been constructed to provide access to this property, the developer of the Villas shall be responsible for securing all agreements, dedication of public right-of-way, and coordination to construct the public street entrance as approved with Falling Waters PZD to provide the necessary second point of ingress/egress. 2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards: a. The applicant requests a waiver to allow a 20' curb return radius (CRR) at all interior street intersections and alleys when City Code requires a 30' CRR for minor streets (UDC Section 171.02(C)). Engineering staff has reviewed this request and is in favor of the CRR waiver requests, finding that adverse impacts to traffic and pedestrian safety would not occur. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 2 of 7 b. The applicant requests a waiver to allow different street cross sections than required by the current Master Street Plan standard (UDC Section 166.06 (k)(10)(a) and 166.08(C)(14)). The applicant proposes the following: (Street Sections 1,2,3,6 and 7) Request to provide 7' of greenspace between the back of curb and sidewalk where 6' is required. Staff does not support this request, finding that the additional 1' of greenspace does not significantly increase aesthetics, pedestrian safety, or area for tree growth, to a degree at which the City's street standards that were adopted in an effort to standardize street sections should be altered. ii. (Street Section 3 and 6) Request to allow an urban streetscape design with an 8' sidewalk on one side and a standard 5' sidewalk on the other side. Staffsupports the requested waiver based on the location adjacent to a dense multi family development and single-family residences, respectively, with the condition that the greenspace along the single family section be reduced from 7feet to 6 feet (see above) to provide for both sides of the street cross-section in compliance with its respective cross-section. iii. (Street Section 7) Request to allow alternative street section (two -ten foot travel lanes with on -street parking on both sides of street). Staffsupports the requested waiver, finding that the proposed street section provides additional parking for the multi family units and clubhouse along this section of street. The street section combines aspects ofseveral approved street sections, includingstandard travel lane, parking and sidewalk widths. As noted in the above variance request (i), staff is recommending that the greenspace be reduced to 6'. iv. (Street Section 5) Request to allow street cross section not permitted (one -lane blvd). Staffsupports the construction ofa median in Street Section S. The Fire Department has reviewed and approved the street design with the designatedfire pull -off lanes, which is consistent with a cross-section staff proposed to the Planning Commission during review ofthe Master Street Plan amendments, but removed at the request ofthe Fire Department. Staffrecommends in favor ofthe request, finding that the public welfare will not be negatively affected by the requested road section. v. (Street Section 1) Request to construct a 5' sidewalk on only one side of the street, south of the southern roundabout. Based on Page 15 of the plats, it appears that construction of a 5' sidewalk on both sides of the street is feasible and provides sufficient room for utility easements. Although, a waiver to allow the sidewalks adjacent to the back of curb appear to be necessary. Staff recommends in favor ofa waiver to allow sidewalk construction adjacent to the street as shown on the plats, but does not recommend in favor of allowing sidewalk construction on only one side of the street. 3. Planning Commission determination of zoning criteria: building area. In all of the residential planning areas, the applicant is proposing a high intensity of building area (the area on a lot occupied by buildings), much more intense than is permitted within any other residential districts CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 3 of 7 within the City. These range, as proposed, from 65-95%, which leaves very little unoccupied greenspace. Staff recommends these buildable area maximum levels be reduced, finding the proposal to be inconsistent for the proposed development pattern, as follows: a. Page 4. PA -1, Reduce maximum building area from 65%to 50%. b. Page 5. PA -2, Reduce maximum building area from 70% to 60%. c. Page 6. PA -3, Reduce maximum building area from 85% to 75%. d. Page 7. PA -4, Reduce maximum building area from 95%to 75%. 4. Planning Commission determination of a waiver to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) on lots with less than 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Staff does not recommend in favor of this request, finding that the minimum lot size requirements were discussed at length with input provided from the public, Planning Commission and City Council, and at this time there are no reasons to deviate from the minimum adopted standards. Planning Commission determination of Planning Area 6. As previously proposed, PA -6 was designed to provide limited commercial services; however, since the previous review by the Planning Commission, this area has been removed and is proposed to remain as Residential Agricultural zoning district, but with an R-PZD designation. Staff finds that if the project is approved, the ability to provide commercial services for area residents is appropriate and should be incorporated into the project. These services, once developed, could lead to decreased vehicle trips on the surrounding street system and provide employment opportunities for area residents. Staff recommends that the limited commercial uses be incorporated into Planning Area 6 as previously reviewed. 6. All private drives and alleys and any sidewalks outside the right-of-way shall be included in a shared access easement. This access easement shal I be included on the easement plat and/or final plat prior to recordation. 7. Right-of-way dedication. 42.5' from centerline along Dead Horse Mountain Road shall be dedicated with Phase I of the project; variable right-of-way dedication along the internal streets as depicted on the site plan by easement and/or final plat; private alleys and streets shall be located within an access easement, owned and maintained by the property owner's association, and dedicated by easement and/or final plat, as applicable. 8. A minimum of 20' clear of any structure (fence, building, wall, etc.) shall be provided along all alleys utilizing residential trash service to provided adequate room for a trash truck and arm to pick up residential trash carts. 9. Signs indicating future street extension shall be installed at all street stub -outs prior to recording a final plat for the subject phase. 10. Construction of nonresidential facilities. The developer shall guarantee to the City completion of nonresidential facilities (Club House) in the amount no less than 150% of the estimate cost of said facilities, pursuant to the Unified Development Code PZD requirements. Said guarantee shall be provided to the City prior to final plat approval of Phase I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 4 of 7 General 11. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 12. A final plat shall be required to subdivide the property, with Phase I of the project. A preliminary and final plat approval is required prior to development of any additional single family portions of this project. A large scale development is required for any nonresidential and/or multi -family development. Development shall be subject to the regulations in place at the time of review and approval, including grading, drainage, tree preservation, landscaping, residential design standards, etc., unless varied herein. 13. Buildings shall be constructed to be consistent with the concepts depicted in the building elevations in the PZD booklet. All buildings shall be designed and constructed to front onto public rights -of -way: All non-residential buildings or mixed use buildings shall adhere to Commercial Design Standards. All multi -family buildings shall adhere to Urban Residential Design Standards. 14. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with those standards outlined within the project booklet for each Planning Area. 15. The owner of the adjacent land, which contains several of the detention facilities, may be required to sign the final plat for each phase of the development. Additionally documentation may be requested by staff to ensure full compliance with all applicable regulations, for Phase I and future phases that direct stormwater to the off -site retention ponds. 16. The storm sewer discharge point at Lots 65 and 66 shall be evaluated at the time of construction submittal. Off -site drainage improvements may be required. 17. Any nonresidential uses in Planning Area 5 shall be contained within the club house building and not constructed as stand alone businesses. Phasing 18. This project is required to obtain all construction and building permits and complete construction of each phase in accordance with the phasing table listed below. A one-year extension may be approved by the Planning Commission for each phase, subject to the criteria in UDC Chapter 166 for extensions. Phase No. All Permits obtained (years) from CC approval Timeframe for Construction (years Phase 1: 2 -year to obtain all required permits 3 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase* Phase 2: 3 -year to obtain all required permits 4 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 3: 4 -year to obtain all required permits 5 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 4: 5 -year to obtain all required permits 6 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 5: 6 -year to obtain all required permits 7 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase * Single family lots are required to obtain final plat approval by the completion dates; all single family homes are not required to be actually constructed CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 5 of 7 Parks/Trails: 19. The applicant shall contribute money in -lieu for Phase I and provide a deed for the two -acre park prior to filing the final plat for Phase 1. All other fees shall be due prior to final plat approval for single-family lots and prior to building permit issuance for other units. 20. Grading for St. Paul Trail within the abandoned railroad corridor shall be completed by the developer to accommodate the 12' trail, including all drainage structures situated to allow for construction. This land shall be dedicated as a public access easement with Phase III (or sooner) of the development. 21. A future trail corridor is also planned through lot 196 adjacentto the golf course. This will allow St. Paul trail to extend through the golf course to meet Eagle Park. The trail will be on -street through the development. The entirety of lot 196 shall be within a public access easement, dedicated at the time of final plat of phase I. Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan Conditions 22. Mitigation will be required on the site. The applicant shall mitigate for the removal of 35,283 SF of tree canopy in Phase I with on -site mitigation to consist of a minimum of (122) 2 -inch caliper trees. If all trees cannot be planted on -site, the balance shall be contributed into the Tree Fund, as determined by the Urban Forester. Mitigation trees cannot be located within utility easements or.. street ROW. Please submit a tree mitigation form for approval. 23. All mitigation trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. These trees cannot be located within any utility easement or street ROW. A 3 -year bond, letter of credit, or check in the amount of $30,500 shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All mitigation trees shall be located on a site owned by the applicant. 24. Each lot not reviewed for development approval at this time will be evaluated at the time of development. A minimum canopy cover of at least 25% will be required for the PZD zoning. Additionally, all applicable landscape requirements shall be met at the time of future development for each lot. 25. Before construction plan approval, the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect with the state of Arkansas. 26. Under Landscape Regulations Chapter 177, street trees must be bonded for a 3 year period. This bond is for the maintenance of the trees. This amount must be deposited with the City before issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 27. Street trees are required to be planted every 30', except for single-family lots where one tree is required per lot. 28. Prior to signing the final plat, a written description of the method(s) and time frame the project will utilize to track development of each single-family lot to ensure the required trees are planted and their longevity of health assured, shall be submitted. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 6 of 7 Plat and Booklet Revisions 29. The following revisions shall be completed prior to staff forwarding this item: a. Page 2. All phases of the development that will be constructed as large scale development should have two time frames; one to obtain construction permits and one to receive final inspection approval. If a phase contains both types of construction, then there should be a time frame to obtain permits, a time frame to obtain final plat approval and a time frame to obtain final inspection approval. Change each phasing statement to read as follows: I. Phase IV: All permits necessary to complete construction shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District. Final inspection shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the PZD. ii. Phase V: All permits necessary to complete construction shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District. Final inspection shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the PZD. Standard Conditions of Approval 30. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments. -provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 31. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the surrounding structures, with access not visible from the street. Elevations shall be submitted to Planning staff for review and approval prior to building permit. 32. All mechanical and utility equipment located on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof -mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening into the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting buildings. Mechanical and utility equipment over 30 inches in height shall meet building setbacks. Smaller ground -mounted equipment may be screened with tall grasses or shrubs. Add this note to the site plan and all construction documents. 33. 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. 34. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 35. Impact fees for police, fire, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance. 36. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and cut -sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 06-2170 Page 7 of 7 Staff prior to building permit. Only single-family and two-family structures are exempt from the lighting ordinance. Street lights, townhouses, condominiums, live/work units are subject to compliance with the lighting ordinance. 37. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. b. Final plat for this project that shall include all easements and the tree preservation area. c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. 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. LANU8CAPE ANCUIPECPU September 30, 2008 Jeremy Pate Director of Current Planning City of Fayetteville 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: Villas at Stonebridge - Appeal of Planning Commission denial Mr. Pate: On behalf of our client, we wish to appeal the September 22, 2008 City of Fayetteville Planning Commissions decision to deny R-PZD 06-2170. We request that this item be place on the December 02, 2008 City Council meeting. Respectfully, Todd Jacobs Director of Design Appian Centre for Design 217 East Dickson Street, Suite 104 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Office: 479-442-1444 a e eveLie y AAKANSA S THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Planning Commission Meeting September 22; 2008 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer. THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: September- 12, 2009 Updated October 3, 2008 (DENIED) 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 R-PZD 06-2170: Planned Zoning District (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646): Submitted by APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN for property located S OF HWY. 16E AND E OF GOFF FARM ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 53.03 acres. The request is for zoning, land use and preliminary plat approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with a maximum of 350 dwelling units and 45,000 s.f. of non- residential space all with associated parking. Phase I development approval consists of 91 single family lots. Planner: Jesse Fulcher BACKGROUND: Property Description and History: The subject property consists of approximately 53.03 acres located east of Dead Horse Mountain Road, and adjacent to Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course. Additional land on the golf course (approximately 4 acres) is being utilized for stormwater retention, but is not included in the PZD proposal. The site was annexed into the City of Fayetteville in April 2005, is primarily zoned R -A, and is currently undeveloped rural land. Zoning of the property was not pursued at the time of annexation. Property directly to the west and south. is partially within the County, and consists of rural residential land owned by four separate property owners. Property to the east and north is under common ownership, and is utilized for the Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course, which was developed prior to its annexation into the City. To the far south, the property adjoins Falling Waters PZD, a 255 -lot single family residential subdivision on 137 acres (density of 1.8 units per acre) approved in 2005, which incorporates tree preservation and hillside development best management practices. The surrounding zoning and land uses are listed in Table 1. Table I Surrounding Land Use/Zonin Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Residential/Agricultural/Golf course R -A South Residential/Agricultural R-PZD - Falling Waters East Golf course R -A West Residential/Agricultural R -A, County Proposal and Project Description: The request is for rezoning and partial development approval for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with a maximum of 350 K: IReportsl20081PC Reporls)18-September 22IR-P7D 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revisedfor City CouncILdoc attached and detached dwellings as well as 45,000 square feet of non-residential/commercial space. The proposed density overall is approximately 6.60 dwelling units per acre (see each Planning Area in table below). Should the PZD be approved as proposed, it would result in immediate development approval of a preliminary plat with 91 single-family lots and several large lots for future development review. The remaining residential lots and multi -family buildings would require preliminary plat or large scale development approval in the future. Changes to Master Development Plan: Since the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2008, several changes have been made to the plans. These changes include: 1) reducing the number of single-family units from 175 to 166; 2) increasing the number of multi -family units from 179 to 384; 3) relocating the townhouse units from the western property to the interior of the development, resulting in the west property line being developed with single-family units; 4) removing the commercial uses from Planning Area 6; and 5) increasing the side setbacks between detached units from 0' to 4'. Master Development Plan: The proposed uses planned for the site are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Villas at Stonebridge PZD 06-2170 Land Use Summary PLANNING DENSITY DWELL NON- RESIDENTIAL NON- To OF USE AREA (UNITS! -ING INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES SITE ACRE) UNITS (SQ.FT./ACRE) SQUARE FEET Single -Family PA-1/PA-2 6.47 166 N/A N/A 25.64 48.35% Multi -Family PA -3 11.20 70 2,400 15,000 6.25 11.79% Multi -Family PA -4 16.54 114 2,177 15,000 6.89 12.99% Club House PA -5 N/A N/A 8,108 15,000 1.85 3.49% Greenspace PA -6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.94 16.86% R -A PA -7 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 6.52% TOTAL 6.60 350 848 45,000 53.03 100% Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB): The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed this project on September 8, 2008 and made a recommendation of accepting a combination of parkland and money in -lieu of land. A deed for a 2 -acre park and the remaining fees are required prior to signing the final plat. Solid Waste Service: The multi -family, mixed use and non-residential portions of this development will require dumpsters and/or compactors. Locations shall be reviewed at the time of large scale development. Detached, single-family residences will be serviced by standard residential trash pick- up. Phasing: Six phases are planned for Villas at Stonebridge over the next several years, as listed below. Development approval with the first phase includes the primary street connecting to Dead K:IReporis120081PC Reports118-September 221?-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Slonebridge) Revised for City CounciLdoc Horse Mountain Road in two locations, the two off -site detention ponds and 91 single family lots, along with several larger lots that will require future development review and approval. The zoning action, however, gives all zoning entitlement rights with this PZD request. All permits required for development within these phases are required to be obtained and constructed within the specified timeframe. Extensions for each phase as permitted by Chapter 166.20 and subject to Planning Commission approval are available. Phase No. Timeframe for Permits (years) from CC approval Timeframe for Construction (years) Phase 1: 1 -year to obtain all required permits 3 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase* Phase 2: 2 -year to obtain all required permits 4 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 3: 4 -year to obtain all required permits 5 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 4: 5 -year to obtain all required permits 6 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 5: 6 -year to obtain all required permits 7 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase * Single family lots are required to obtain final plat approval by the completion dates; all single family homes are not required to be actually constructed. Water & Sewer: Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site. There are both water and sewer improvements being made as part of the. Southeast Fayetteville Regional Water and Sewer Improvements project that will bring an additional capacity under the White River to provide adequate service in this area. This extension was a private agreement, between developers, to serve anticipated demands for future development in the area, and was neither participated in nor required by the City. Water and sewer lines shall be extended to serve the development, if it is approved. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Dead Horse Mountain Road, a Minor Arterial street. Right-of-way Dedication: 42.5' from centerline along Dead Horse Mountain Road is required; variable right-of-way dedication for the internal streets as depicted on the site plan; private drives would be within an access easement owned and maintained by the property owner's association. Access and Connectivity: Access to this site is limited to Dead Horse Mountain Road, a road annexed into the City from the County in 2005. Dead Horse Mountain Road is currently an unimproved, primarily chip and seal, 2 -lane road that intersects Black Oak Road to the south (also an unimproved 2 -lane road) and Huntsville Road to the north. Two points of access into the site are required to meet Fire Codes; these are provided at the north end of the site with a direct connection to Dead Horse Mountain Rd and provided at the south end through an approved street that is planned to be constructed as part of the Falling Waters R-PZD. The applicant has indicated a meeting has taken place with the property owner to the south, and the developer of the Villas will construct this street, with a private cost share agreement between the two parties to follow in the future. The development has a number of well-connected interior streets and alleys, utilizing a variety of street cross -sections to calm traffic and encourage pedestrian comfort and activity throughout the development. There are three (3) proposed stub -outs to undeveloped property to the west and the availability of adjacent right-of-way to connect into along the southwest portion of the site; however, the applicant has not proposed any stub -outs to the north or east due to the location of the golf course. Street Improvements: This project lies within two established off -site street improvement areas established in 2005 that the Planning Commission utilizes when reviewing projects and their associated impact. The two areas are the Dead Horse Mountain Road Bridge Assessment Area and the Stonebridge Road/Huntsville Road Traffic Signal Assessment Area. Both of these improvements K:IReports110081PC Reports1l8-September 1118-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revised for City Council doc have been deemed critical in the area to support growth at any density. These assessments areas originated out of Planning Commission and City Council discussion of projected development when the subject property and the Hall property were annexed in 2005. The proposed addition from Villas at Stonebridge of approximately 45,000 SF of non-residential space and 350 dwelling units will have a significant impact on surrounding infrastructure, all of which is substandard. Dead Horse Mountain Road is the only street access to the property, and 100% of the traffic from the development will have to travel upon it. Black Oak Road to the south (also an unimproved 2 -lane county road) and Huntsville Road to the north are the two roads to which Dead Horse Mountain Road lead. Dead Horse Mountain Road Bridge, which is located between the subject property and Huntsville Road, is slated to be reconstructed in its current location as it is in poor condition. Based on the applicant's submitted traffic study from 2006, which accounted for 326 residential units and no commercial space, approximately 2,500 vehicles trips per day are projected. An updated traffic study was requested for the new project proposal, but was not provided. Based on the original traffic study and the traffic engineer's supplemental letter dated April 2, 2008, the study confirms that the traffic signal at Huntsville Road and Dead Horse Mountain Road will be warranted with the development of only 14 more residential units based on the applicant's submittal information. The traffic engineer recommends that a traffic signal be installed coincident with the development of the first phase of this development. Based on the projected impact of the subject development, staff has consistently recommended the following improvements, should this rezoning be approved: Construction of or a full assessment for a traffic signal at Stonebridge and Huntsville Roads in the amount of $125,000 prior to filing of a final plat for phase I of the development; • Construct a 3 -lane street section for Dead Horse Mountain Road along the project frontage as proposed by the applicant, including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage, a 5' sidewalk and street lights at each intersection and with a maximum spacing of 300'; • Overlay and widen Dead Horse Road from the north property line to the south property line, to include 24' of pavement with appropriate shoulders; Proportionate share of an assessment for the replacement of the bridge, based on the same calculation utilized with previous development in the area. Staff is recommending these particular fees be paid on a lot by lot basis, based on the most recent bridge cost estimate and the percentage of traffic to cross the bridge, and the fact that the development itself does not attribute to the immediate replacement of the bridge as recommended in the traffic study. The current estimated total for this development, based on the applicant's previous proposals and traffic breakdown, is $216,000.00. Phase I of the development proposes 91 dwelling units, which would require an assessment in the amount of $55,525.00 ($216,000/354(91)). Staff recommends that once the bridge is fully constructed, no further fees shall be contributed. The applicant does not agree with staffs recommendation for street improvements. On four separate occasions, proposals have been submitted to staff for review, all based on the same general net traffic generation from the 2006 traffic study. The first through third submittals assumed 40% of all traffic from the development would travel south on Dead Horse Mountain Road, while 60% would travel north, towards Huntsville. The applicant proposed a contribution of $22,500.00 for the traffic signal assessment and $216,000.00 for the bridge assessment, for a total of $238,500.00, based on a detailed break-out of the percent of traffic anticipated to utilize these areas. These same numbers were presented for review in October 2006, November 2006 and December 2007. A proposal provided in K. IReports120081PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revised for City Council.doc March 2008, proposed a contribution of $75,000.00 for the traffic signal assessment and $100,000.00 towards improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road, with no funds proposed towards the replacement of the bridge. The most recent proposal is to pay $75,000 towards the future traffic signal, $100,000 for Dead Horse Mountain Road improvements and $216,000.00 towards replacement of the bridge (see Page 15 of the project booklet). As staff has noted in condition of approval #1, based on the phasing plan presented, it is likely this development will not contribute any fees to the bridge replacement, based on current replacement schedules. No rationale or traffic generation numbers have been provided by the applicant, however, to substantiate the proposed contributions. The applicants have stated in their application that the full burden of a traffic signal should not be borne by one development, given the substantial growth in the general vicinity of the signal. Rather, they are proposing a contribution for a portion of the traffic signal cost. The applicants have proposed a contribution for street improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road due to the fact that the recommended overlay and widening could be removed with future street improvements provided by further development along Dead Horse Mountain Road. The applicants state the $100,000 could be used in combination with other funds for the full improvement of this street. Staff's concerns, however, lie with the traffic generated by this development, which will lead to a level of service "F" at the Stonebridge/Huntsville Road intersection, and with only one road to travel to and from the development, Dead Horse Mountain Road, this sub -standard road will take the full burden of traffic from this development. Staff finds improvements are warranted as recommended. Public Comment/Review Process: The subject proposal was originally submitted to the City Planning Department on July 06, 2006 with comments provided to the applicant at the Technical Plat Review meeting on July 19, 2006. The applicant requested that the item be tabled on July 18, 2006. The project was again submitted on November 02, 2006 with comments provided to the applicant at the Technical Plat Review meeting on November 15, 2006. Staff recommended that the request be reviewed again at the Technical Plat meeting, due to the fact the submittal plans did not meet the PZD requirements. The plans were not submitted again for review until December 20, 2007 with comments provided to the applicant at the Technical Plat Review meeting on January 2, 2008. Staff again recommended that the request be reviewed at the Technical Plat meeting based on the comments received. Revisions were submitted on January 17, 2008 with comments provided to the applicant at the Technical Plat Review meeting on January 30, 2008. Revisions were submitted on March 26, 2008 for the April 03, 2008 Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff has noted issues of concern regarding the compatibility, concurrency of infrastructure and the rezoning of this site as proposed at each meeting. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the project on April 03, 2008 and forwarded the request to the full Planning Commission with no recommendation. The primary points of discussion during the meeting were the location and density of the development, and staff's recommended street improvements. The Subdivision Committee asked staff to evaluate a manner in which the costs for street improvements could be phased throughout the development of the project, but in general, found in favor of staffs recommended street improvements. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on April 28, 2008 and after discussing the location and density of the project, the applicant requested that the item be tabled. Revisions were submitted on July 21, 2008 for the July 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting; however, the project was tabled by the applicant with no discussion occurring at the meeting. K: Weporis120081PC Reports 11S -September 22tR-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Slonebridge) Revised for City CounciLdoc Several notification forms that were mailed to the surrounding property owners have been returned to the Planning Office, with one response citing concerns with traffic congestion; street infrastructure and urban sprawl. An adjacent property owner stated at the Subdivision Committee meeting that he was concerned with the amount of development in the area and the lack of infrastructure. Additionally, he was concerned with the existing condition of Dead Horse Mountain Bridge. A citizen stated at the Planning Commission meeting that the project was not in keeping with the goals of City Plan 2025 and that the project was urban sprawl. Tree Preservation: Existing Canopy 57 acres: 5.24% (includes off -site disturbed areas) Existing Canopy 53 acres: 4.26% Preserved Canopy: 2.84% Required Canopy: 4.26% - Mitigation required. *All large lots not approved for development with this PZD shall be required to submit tree preservation plans for review and approval at the time of development, with a minimum 25% canopy. City Plan 2025: This project is designed to be a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) including a variety of housing types and land uses positioned on small blocks with meaningful open spaces. While the development proposes many design aspects interior to the project that are supported by the City's adopted Future Land Use Plan, the location of the development is at the edge •of the City limits on property that is surrounded by large lot, agricultural land, some of which is still within the County. Due to the lack of support services currently available to residents in this area, even potentially after development of the live/work units, it is likely that the residents will continue to be auto -dependent, thereby placing a greater burden on the surrounding unimproved streets. The closest commercial center, at Crossover and Mission, is approximately 4 miles to the north. The development pattern, thus, encourages suburban sprawl, in that it is "a spreading of urban development into areas adjoining the edge of a city.. .over rural land." Ultimately, this development pattern has consistently been supported by staff in areas closer to the basic goods and services, schools, improved streets and other components of a neighborhood that support the City Council's adopted policies. City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Designation: Residential Neighborhood Area: These areas encourage traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity nonresidential uses. Staff is concerned that this development, while attempting to meet this goal, is being located in an area that severely lacks infrastructure and services at a sufficient level to serve the future residents. The project proposed is at a density that is more consistent with that of downtown Fayetteville, with infrastructure consistent with large -lot rural areas. There are no nearby services that can serve the planned neighborhood, thus requiring a greater number of residents to drive on area roads for common, daily needs. Furthermore, staff finds the development pattern, which includes multiple -story, multi -family structures, to be completely incompatible with the surrounding large, rural lots and agricultural lands. While the general concept of the development and design is favorable, it would be supported by staff'in a relative proximity to City services and adequate infrastructure. A primary guiding policy of Residential Neighborhood Areas is to "Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative transportation modes, community amenities, schools, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods and services." Staff finds this rezoning proposal to be inconsistent with this adopted goal, and the policy decision to rezone the area may lead to future issues. Currently, staff finds the project is proposed too soon for this particular area and promotes a development pattern more like the density of downtown K:IReporls120081PC Reportst l8 -September 221R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revised for City Councildoc Fayetteville, without the schools, commercial and community services and infrastructure to support it. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge, based on the above stated concerns and the findings within this report. Should the Planning Commission or City Council disagree with the findings herein and determine the rezoning request is appropriate, compatible and meets the City's approval criteria for Planned Zoning Districts, the Future Land Use Plan, and the required findings for a rezoning request, staff recommends the following conditions be incorporated: Conditions of Approval: Streets and Right -of -Way 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Based on the condition of the immediate surrounding street system, the status of the intersection of Huntsville Road and Stonebridge Road and the impact of the amount of traffic generated by 45,000 square feet of non-residential space and 350 dwelling units from this project, staff recommends the following street improvements as being proportional to the development: a. Prior to final plat of Phase I, the applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the Stonebridge Road and Huntsville Road intersection to City standards. Should the AHTD not approve the traffic signal installation, staff recommends the applicant contribute an assessment- in the amount of $125,000 for the full cost of the signal - prior to recording a final plat for Phase I. b. Prior to final plat of Phase I, the applicant shall construct a 3 -lane street section for Dead Horse Mountain Road along the project frontage, including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage, a 5' sidewalk and street lights at each intersection and with a maximum spacing of 300'. c. Prior to final plat of Phase III, the applicant shall overlay and widen Dead Horse Road from the north property line to the south property line (including the road frontage .between), to a minimum width of 24' of pavement with shoulders, pursuant to City engineering criteria. This results in a total of 143 lots constructed before improvements are made to Dead Horse Mountain Road. d. The applicant shall contribute an assessment for the replacement of the Dead Horse Mountain Road bridge on a lot by lot basis, based on the most recent bridge cost estimate and the percentage of traffic to cross the bridge. The current estimated total for the entire development is $216,000.00. Fees for Phase I, due prior to recording of a final plat, equal $55,525 for 91 single family lots. Staff recommends that once the bridge is fully constructed (anticipated in 2009-2010) no further fees shall be contributed by this development. To clar(fy staff's recommendation, based on the phasing plan presented, it is likely this development will not contribute any fees to the bridge replacement, based on current replacement schedules. e. Prior to final plat of Phase I, if the Falling Waters entry road has not been constructed to provide access to this property, the developer of the Villas shall be responsible for securing all agreements, dedication of public right-of-way, and coordination to construct the public street entrance as approved with Falling Waters PZD to provide the necessary second point of ingress/egress. K:IRepor1s120081PC Reports 118-Septemher 221R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Slonebridge) Revised for City Council doc 2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards: a. The applicant requests a waiver to allow a 20' curb return radius (CRR) at all interior street intersections and alleys when City Code requires a 30' CRR for minor streets (UDC Section 171.02(C)). Engineering staff has reviewed this request and is in favor of the CRR waiver requests, finding that adverse impacts to traffic and pedestrian safety would not occur. b. The applicant requests a waiver to allow different street cross sections than required by the current Master Street Plan standard (UDC Section 166.06 (k)(10)(a) and 166.08(C)(14)). The applicant proposes the following: L (Street Sections 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7) Request to provide 7' of greenspace between the back of curb and sidewalk where 6' is required. Staff does not support this request, finding that the additional 1' of greenspace does not significantly increase aesthetics, pedestrian safety, or area for tree growth, to a degree at which the City's street standards that were adopted in an effort to standardize street sections should be altered. ii. (Street Section 3 and 6) Request to allow an urban streetscape design with an 8' sidewalk on one side and a standard 5' sidewalk on the other side. Staff supports the requested waiver based on the location adjacent to a dense multi family development and single-family residences, respectively, with the condition that the greenspace along the single family section be reduced from 7 feet to 6feet (see above) to provide for both sides of the street cross-section in compliance with its respective cross-section. iii. (Street Section 7) Request to allow alternative street section (two -ten foot travel lanes with on -street parking on both sides of street). Staff supports the requested waiver, finding that the proposed street section provides additional parking for the multi family units and clubhouse along this section of street. The street section combines aspects of several approved street sections, including standard travel lane, parking and sidewalk widths. As noted in the above variance request (i), staff is recommending that the greenspace be reduced to 6'. iv. (Street Section 5) Request to allow street cross section not permitted (one - lane blvd). Staff supports the construction of a median in Street Section 5. The Fire Department has reviewed and approved the street design with the designated fire pull -off lanes, which is consistent with a cross-section staff proposed to the Planning Commission during review of the Master Street Plan amendments, but removed at the request of the Fire Department. Staff recommends in favor of the request, finding that the public welfare will not be negatively affected by the requested road section. (Street Section 1) Request to construct a 5' sidewalk on only one side of the street, south of the southern roundabout. Based on Page 15 of the plats, it appears that construction of a 5' sidewalk on both sides of the street is K: IReports12008tPC Reports118-September 22tR-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revised for City Council doc feasible and provides sufficient room for utility easements. Although, a waiver to allow the sidewalks adjacent to the back of curb appear to be necessary. Staff recommends in favor of a waiver to allow sidewalk construction adjacent to the street as shown on the plats, but does not recommend in favor of allowing sidewalk construction on only one side of the street. 3. Planning Commission determination of zoning criteria: building area. In all of the residential planning areas, the applicant is proposing a high intensity of building area (the area on a lot occupied by buildings), much more intense than is permitted within any other residential districts within the City. These range, as proposed, from 65-95a/o, which leaves very little unoccupied greenspace. Staff recommends these buildable area maximum levels be reduced, finding the proposal to be inconsistent for the proposed development pattern, as follows: a. Page 4. PA -1, Reduce maximum building area from 65% to 50%. b. Page 5. PA -2, Reduce maximum building area from 70% to 60%. c. Page 6. PA -3, Reduce maximum building area from 85% to 75%. d. Page 7. PA -4, Reduce maximum building area from 95% to 75%. 4. Planning Commission determination of a waiver to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) on lots with less than 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Staff does not recommend in favor of this request; finding that the minimum lot size requirements were discussed at length with input provided from the public, Planning Commission and City Council, and at this time there are no reasons to deviate from the minimum adopted standards. 5.. Planning Commission determination of Planning Area 6. As previously proposed, PA -6 was designed to provide limited commercial services; however, since the previous review by the Planning Commission, this area has been removed and is proposed to remain as Residential Agricultural zoning district, but with an R-PZD designation. Stafffinds that ([the project is approved, the ability to provide commercial services for area residents is appropriate and should be incorporated into the project. These services, once developed, could lead to decreased vehicle trips on the surrounding street system and provide employment opportunities for area residents. Staff recommends that the limited commercial uses be incorporated into Planning Area 6 as previously reviewed. 6. All private drives and alleys and any sidewalks outside the right-of-way shall be included in a shared access easement. This access easement shall be included on the easement plat and/or final plat prior to recordation. Right-of-way dedication. 42.5' from centerline along Dead Horse Mountain Road shall be dedicated with Phase I of the project; variable right-of-way dedication along the internal streets as depicted on the site plan by easement and/or final plat; private alleys and streets shall be located within an access easement, owned and maintained by the property owner's association, and dedicated by easement and/or final plat, as applicable. 8. A minimum of 20' clear of any structure (fence, building, wall, etc.) shall be provided along all alleys utilizing residential trash service to provided adequate room for a trash truck and arm to pick up residential trash carts. K:IReports120081PC Reportst l8 -September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revised for City Council doc 9. Signs indicating future street extension shall be installed at all street stub -outs prior to recording a final plat for the subject phase. 10. Construction of nonresidential facilities. The developer shall guarantee to the City completion of nonresidential facilities (Club House) in the amount no less than 150% of the estimate cost of said facilities, pursuant to the Unified Development Code PZD requirements. Said guarantee shall be provided to the City prior to final plat approval of Phase I. General 11. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 12. A final plat shall be required to. subdivide the property, with Phase I of the project. A preliminary and final plat approval is required prior to development of any additional single family portions of this project. A large scale development is required for any nonresidential and/or multi -family development. Development shall be subject to the regulations in place at the time of review and approval, including grading, drainage, tree preservation, landscaping, residential design standards, etc., unless varied herein. 13. Buildings shall be constructed to be consistent with the concepts depicted in the building elevations in the PZD booklet. All buildings shall be designed and constructed to front onto public rights -of -way. All non-residential buildings or mixed use buildings shall adhere to Commercial Design Standards. All multi -family buildings shall adhere to Urban Residential Design Standards. 14. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with those standards outlined within the project booklet for each Planning Area. 15. The owner of the adjacent land, which contains several of the detention facilities, may be required to sign the final plat for each phase of the development. Additionally documentation may be requested by staff to ensure full compliance with all applicable regulations, for Phase I and future phases that direct stormwater to the off -site retention ponds. 16. The storm sewer discharge point at Lots 65 and 66 shall be evaluated at the time of construction submittal. Off -site drainage improvements may be required. 17. Any nonresidential uses in Planning Area 5 shall be contained within the club house building and not constructed as stand alone businesses. Phasing 1.8. This project is required to obtain all construction and building permits and complete construction of each phase in accordance with the phasing table listed below. A one-year K: 1Reports120081PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Slonebridge) Revised for City Council doc extension may be approved by the Planning Commission for each phase, subject to the criteria in UDC Chapter 166 for extensions. Phase No. Al! Permits obtained (years) from CC approval Timeframe for Construction (years Phase 1: 1 -year to obtain all required permits 3 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase* Phase 2: 2 -year to obtain all required permits 4 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 3: 4 -year to obtain all required permits 5 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 4: 5 -year to obtain all required permits 6 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase Phase 5: 6 -year to obtain all required permits 7 -years from issuance of permit to complete phase * Single family lots are required to obtain final plat approval by the completion dates; all single family homes are not required to be actually constructed Parks/Trails: 19. The applicant shall contribute money in -lieu for Phase I and provide a deed for the two -acre park prior to filing the final plat for Phase I. All other fees shall be due prior to final plat approval for single-family lots and prior to building permit issuance for other units. 20. Grading for St. Paul Trail within the abandoned railroad corridor shall be completed by the developer to accommodate the 12' trail, including all drainage structures situated to allow for construction. This land shall be dedicated as a public access easement with Phase III (or sooner) of the development. 21. A future trail corridor is also planned through lot 196 adjacent to the golf course. This will allow St. Paul trail to extend through the golf course to meet Eagle Park. The trail will be on - street through the development. The entirety of lot 196 shall be within a public access easement, dedicated at the time of final plat of phase I. Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan Conditions 22. Mitigation will be required on the site. The applicant shall mitigate for the removal of 35,283 SF of tree canopy in Phase I with on -site mitigation to consist of a minimum of (122) 2 -inch caliper trees. If all trees cannot be planted on -site, the balance shall be contributed into the Tree Fund, as determined by the Urban Forester. Mitigation trees cannot be located within utility easements or street ROW. Please submit a tree mitigation form for approval. 23. All mitigation trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. These trees cannot be located within any utility easement or street ROW. A 3 -year bond, letter of credit, or check in the amount of $30,500 shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All mitigation trees shall be located on a site owned by the applicant. 24. Each lot not reviewed for development approval at this time will be evaluated at the time of development. A minimum canopy cover of at least 25% will be required for the PZD zoning. Additionally, all applicable landscape requirements shall be met at the time of future development for each lot. K:1Reports12008IPC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revisedfor City Council doc 25. Before construction plan approval, the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect with the state of Arkansas. 26. Under Landscape Regulations Chapter 177, street trees must be bonded for a 3 year period. This bond is for the maintenance of the trees. This amount must be deposited with the City before issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 27. Street trees are required to be planted every 30', except for single-family lots where one tree is required per lot. 28. Prior to signing the final plat, a written description of the method(s) and time frame the project will utilize to track development of each single-family lot to ensure the required trees are planted and their longevity of health assured, shall be submitted. Plat and Booklet Revisions 29. The following revisions shall be completed prior to staff forwarding this item: a. Page 2. —All phases of the development that will be constructed as large scale • development should have two time frames; one to obtain construction permits and one to receive final inspection approval. If a phase contains both types of construction, then there should be a time frame to obtain permits, a time frame to obtain final plat approval and a time frame to obtain final inspection approval. Change each phasing statement to read as follows: i. Phase IV: All permits necessary to complete construction shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District. Final inspection shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the PZD. ii. Phase V: All permits necessary to complete construction shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District. Final inspection shall be obtained within "x" years from the date of City Council approval of the PZD. Standard Conditions of Approval 30. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 31. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the surrounding structures, with access not visible from the street. Elevations shall be submitted to Planning staff for review and approval prior to building permit. 32. All mechanical and utility equipment located on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof -mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening into the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting buildings. Mechanical and utility equipment over 30 inches in height shall meet building setbacks. Smaller ground -mounted equipment may be screened with tall grasses or shrubs. Add this note to the site plan and all construction documents. K: 1Reports120081PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Slonebridge) Revised for City Council.doc 33. 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. 34. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 35. Impact fees for police, fire, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance. 36. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and cut -sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning Staff prior to building permit. Only single-family and two-family structures are exempt from the lighting ordinance. Street lights, townhouses, condominiums, live/work units are subject to compliance with the lighting ordinance. 37. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. b. Final plat for this project that shall include all easements and the tree preservation area. c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site -and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Commission Action: 0 Forwarded to City Council d Denied ❑ Tabled Motion: Lack Second: Kennedy Vote: 3-4-0 (motion to approve failed) Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Comments: The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature Date K:IReports120081PC Reporlsll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Revised for City CounciLdoc l , Findings associated with R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD). (E) Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned Zoning Districts The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the review of a planned zoning district application based on the proposed master development plan: (1) Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the UDC and the City Plan 2025; FINDING: Staff finds the application is largely inconsistent with the Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District criteria established by the City Council, and particularly with the goals and policies adopted with the Future Land Use Plan, City Plan 2025. Goal 1 of City Plan 2025 is to "...make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities." This site is a greenfield development, and is surrounded by similar undeveloped rural residential or golf course property. The density and development pattern proposed would certainly be supported in an area more suitably located, with adequate infrastructure, services, schools, jobs and other basic goods and necessities that create a viable neighborhood. In contrast, staff finds this site to be lacking these basic goods and services necessary to provide a contributing neighborhood density and intensity. Goal 2 states "we will discourage suburban sprawl." Suburban (or urban) sprawl has been defined as "a spreading of urban development into areas adjoining the edge of a city... over rural land." Staff finds the proposal asks for a rezoning of the property, currently zoned for rural residential and agricultural use, to facilitate a development pattern that is not appropriate for this time and in this place. While phasing of the development will help, as infrastructure improvements are made in the area, the City is reviewing the appropriateness of the development today, and entitling the property owner to certain zoning rights. Staff finds the proposal is inconsistent with this goal, and instead provides a "leap -frog" type of development pattern that adds density at the rural fringe of the City limits. Goal 3 states "We will make traditional town form the standard." Internal to the project, staff finds the applicant has achieved a high level of compact development, providing denser housing, meaningful open spaces and small blocks; a complete development pattern, providing varied housing, a mixture of uses; and a connected development pattern, with street -oriented buildings, interconnected streets and greenspaces. However, the development does little to reference or transition to the surrounding rural residential property, and proposes 3 -story condominium buildings adjacent to these properties. Very little transition is achieved in the project, and connectivity is relatively low, with only one road to access the site. Goal 4 states "we will grow a livable transportation network." Internal streets, again, have provided more walkable, pedestrian and cyclist -friendly opportunities as part of the street function. However, all future residents, at the higher density proposed, will be forced to access K:1Reporlsp0081PC Reporis118-September 221R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc one road and travel approximately four miles to the nearest commercial center for basic goods and services. Goal 5 states "we will assemble an enduring green network." The proposal to continue the trail corridor will provide a neighborhood and regional benefit to the community. In addition, the applicant is proposing meaningful, useful open greenspaces within the neighborhood for use by residents. Goal 6 states "we will create attainable housing." While the project proposal does not specifically address this goal, staff finds that a mixture and variety of housing types and sizes typically create a wider variety of opportunity for the homebuyer, in differing price points. However, as noted in many studies, the proximity to a variety of transportation modes is often directly correlated to the affordability of housing, as transportation costs are a high percentage of a resident's overall cost of living. The project as proposed will require longer transportation times, by virtue of the fact that it is located in an isolated area, without proximity to goods and services to which one could easily walk or bike. .-The Future Land Use Map adopted as part of City Plan 2025. designates this site Residential Neighborhood Area. These areas are intended to be almost exclusively residential in nature, recognizing conventional subdivision development, but encouraging traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity non-residential uses and a strong sense of connectivity where appropriate. The Villas at Stonebridge provides a traditional urban design with a block and street layout that is complete, compact, walkable and cyclist -friendly internal to the project boundaries, as noted above. However, contrary to the guiding policies, the development is not sited with access to major improved roadways, alternative transportation modes, community amenities, schools, infrastructure, or retail and commercial goods and services. The location of the development is at the edge of the City limits on property that is surrounded by large lot, agricultural land some of which is still within the County. Due to the lack of support services currently available to residents in this area, it is likely that the residents will continue to be auto -dependent, thereby placing a greater burden on the surrounding unimproved streets. Ultimately, this development may be appropriate at a later date when there are adequate levels of infrastructure in place and additional services made available to area residents. In summary, staff finds the proposal does not meet the goals of the City's adopted Future Land Use Plan to a degree that is appropriate for a rezoning approval as proposed. (2) Whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory provisions; FINDING: The application has been reviewed and found to be compliant with applicable statutory provisions. (3) Whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services; K. 1Reports110081PC Reporisst l8 -September 221R-PZD 06-2/70 (Villas al Stonebridge).doc FINDING: The impact of the rezoning and subsequent development would require the provision of public facilities, at the cost of the developer, in order to function as acceptable levels. Without improvements to existing infrastructure, the proposal would certainly adversely affect public facilities and services. The Fayetteville Police Department has stated that the development could increase traffic danger and congestion without improvements to Huntsville Road. At this time, the applicant does not propose improvements to Huntsville Road. Staff has similar concerns and has recommended a full assessment for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Huntsville Road and Stonebridge Road. Additionally, staff is recommending the widening of Dead Horse Mountain Road from the north property line to the south property line of the development, in order to alleviate some of the traffic issues that will occur as a result of the development. In order for staff to find that the project would not adversely impact public facilities in the area, many more improvements than are recommended here would have to occur. However, staff does not find that this particular developer should bear the burden of all of those expenses; this is ultimately why staff has recommended denial of the application, finding that at this time, the project is not appropriate for the area. (4) Whether the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses; FINDING: The rezoning request, combined with the Master Development Plan, would allow a mix of housing typesand densities over the site. While staff is supportive of the traditional neighborhood development pattern requested by the applicant, staff can not state that these uses and densities are compatible with surrounding land uses to a degree that a rezoning application is justified. Development on surrounding properties in the future could provide a level of compatibility with the subject development. However, staff can not justify the requested development pattern based on an assumption of future land uses. (5) Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural environment; . FINDING: The 53 -acre property is a generally level, undeveloped pasture with minimum tree canopy. The intended land use, while incompatible with surrounding properties, could be suitable on the subject property at some time. However, higher priority needs to be placed on tree preservation with future phases than is currently indicated. The proposed preserved canopy areas are in conflict with the land uses and densities/intensities proposed with future development. (6) Whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing road network; FINDING: The proposed development, which will allow for the construction of approximately 45,000 SF of non-residential space and 350 dwelling units, will have a significant impact on surrounding infrastructure, all of which is substandard. With the incorporation of the recommended street improvements listed in the conditions of approval, staff finds that K:lReports120081PC Reportsll8-September 221R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc while the surrounding roads would likely still be congested and inconvenient, the proposed development would not create a traffic danger. Staff does find that due to the number of units proposed and the one access road on which 100% of the traffic must travel, a burden on the existing road network would be created. Without replacement of Dead Horse Mountain Bridge and installation of a traffic signal at Huntsville Road, traffic danger and congestion could be greatly increased. (7) Whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a unified plan; FINDING: The booklet and master development plans submitted provide for said unified development control. (8) Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. FINDING: No other zoning considerations are proposed to be violated. (B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines (1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to. further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications. FINDING: The proposed Villas at Stonebridge PZD provides for a different form of development than surrounding rural residential land uses. This development is a traditional town form of development that provides a variety of housing types and non- residential uses on a greenfield site near the fringes of the City. While this development pattern is consistent with many of the goals of Chapter 161, including flexibility in the distribution of land use, variety of housing types, and providing usable and suitably located open space and recreation areas, the development lacks any level of compatibility with the surrounding rural properties. In staffs opinion the positive features of the internal development pattern do not supersede the need to provide a project that is compatible and in scale with surrounding properties. K:IReporisL2008V'C ReportsL'8-September 221R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stone bridge) .doc (2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and landscaping shall be provided as set forth in §166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality (size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, beans and plant material to be used. FINDING: Screening between residential and nonresidential land uses shall be required pursuant to ordinance and shall be reviewed at the time of large scale development. (3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply: (a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of the projected future traffic volumes. (b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate relationship with one another. (c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different land uses. (d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system, providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development. (e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the planned zoning development and to adjacent areas. (f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code. FINDING: The vehicular circulation system is comprised of a system of public streets and alleys, and private drives as described in the booklet and plats. The single-family and multi -family structures will face onto streets, and are generally accessed off of internal alleys, providing a hierarchy of circulation that encourage an efficient flow of traffic. External street systems, in contrast, consist of a single access road, Dead Horse Mountain Road, that is substandard and in need of improvements. (4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172 Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the K:IReportsl20081 PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stone bridge) .doc respective use areas. FINDING: Multi -family buildings will face onto public streets, with surface parking in the rear of these buildings. Parking is provided on the public streets and along private drives, and garage parking is provided for the townhouses and single family residences. Parking proposed is in compliance with City code. (5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this chapter of this code. FINDING: This requirement has been met. (6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public sidewalks shall be constructed adjacent to all public streets. Sidewalks will also be provided around the park areas. (7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Street lights are to be provided adjacent to all public and private streets at a separation of no greater than 300 feet and at all intersections. (8) Water. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public water lines are being extended in accordance with city codes. (9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public sewer lines are being extended in accordance with city codes. (10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or private. (a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards of the City. (b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: (i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul- de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street. (ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public K. IRepor:s12008V'C Reportsll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below. (iii)All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer. (iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density served by a loop street shall be 80 units. (v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private street." (vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a neighborhood property. owners association (POA) and shall not be the responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the other parties to the covenants. (vii) The covenants shall provide that in. the event the private streets are not maintained as required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for such cost. The protective covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private streets for purposes of providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and any other of the municipal functions. The protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be amended and shall not terminate without approval of the City Council. (viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The following standard shall be used: Paving Width (No On -Street Parking) Dwelling Units One -Way Two -Way 1-20 14 22' 21+ 14' 24' K:IReports120081PC Reports)/8-September 221R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stone bridge) .doc ) *Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is intended. (ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private streets within a PZD. (x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street. (xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic. FINDING: A variety of waivers of the minimum street design standards are requested as the proposed street cross sections do not meet the current Master Street Plan standards. The proposed cross -sections are designed to calm traffic and encourage pedestrian comfort and activity throughout the site. See conditions of approval regarding staff's recommendations. (11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities. FINDING: All development on the site shall be phased according to the phasing plan and conditions herein. Nonresidential facilities are proposed to be constructed with Phase II of the development and therefore the developer shall guarantee to the City of Fayetteville completion of the nonresidential facilities in the amount no less than 150% of the estimated cost of said facilities. (12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The location of trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade levels. FINDING: A tree preservation plan has been submitted with Phase I, which includes Lots 1-91, and the Urban Forester is recommending approval with a requirement for on -site mitigation. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted at the time of development with each future phase. (13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in §166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for Commercial Structures. K:IReports120081PC ReportsV 8 -September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas ai Stonebridge).doc FINDING: Conceptual elevations have been submitted for all structures. Detailed building elevations and material sample boards will be reviewed at the time of large scale development to ensure compliance with urban residential design standards. (14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant restrictions. FINDING: The applicants have stated in their application that the houses located along the golf course shall be limited to one-story in height to protect views of the golf course. Staff does not find these are specifically scenic views to be protected for the public. (E) Revocation. (1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances: (a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed. (b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased development schedule as stated in the approved development plan. (C) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components. Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of each quarter, so that_the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued. (2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city K:1Reports120081PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted. (3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued issuance of building permits. (F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations. (1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads, parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building, lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally - owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a preliminary form. (2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are granted. (b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer. (c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years. (d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes and other public assessments. (e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; •the maintenance assessment levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property. The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changing needs. K: IReports120081PC Reportrll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc FINDING: The applicant shall comply with these requirements. Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning District (A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the. development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. (2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. (4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. (5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the area; (6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. (7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations.. (8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities. (9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. (10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. K: IReportst20081PC Reportsll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc FINDING: The proposed Villas at Stonebridge PZD is a traditional town form of development that provides a variety of housing types and live/work units. This development pattern is consistent with many of the goals of Chapter 161, including flexibility in the distribution of land use, providing a variety of housing types, and providing usable and suitably located open space and recreation areas. However, an average density of 6.6 units/acre, which includes multi -story multi -family buildings is not compatible with the surrounding rural residential properties, with the lack of goods and services, schools or other amenities typically associated with urban development form. Development of surrounding properties, which could provide a higher level of compatibility with the Villas at Stonebridge, may require several years or even decades to occur. Furthermore, core public services, including schools, jobs and commercial services are not readily available to this area. Ultimately, the residents of the development will continue to be auto -dependent due to the current isolated location of the property. (B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each rezoning parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label, along with the designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development plan and development standards. FINDING: The submitted development plats and Master Development Plan booklets, along with the conditions of approval found applicable and appropriate, are binding with the approval of the requested rezoning. Should the Planning Commission forward this item to the City Council, an ordinance will be drafted for consideration of rezoning this property in accordance with the submittal herein. (C) R — PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District. (1) Purpose and intent. The R-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use or clustered residential developments and to accommodate single -use residential developments that are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential rezone. The legislative purposes, intent, and application of this district include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for predominately residential areas, consistent with the city's City Plan 2025 and the orderly development of the city. (b) To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses and activities within a single development, or when considered with abutting parcels of land, can be planned on a total basis. K:1Reports12008IPC Reportsll8-September 221R-PZD 06-2120 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc (c) To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and excessive demands on planned and existing public facilities. (d) To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance natural beauty and other attributes. (e) To encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in connection with new residential development. FINDING: The proposed PZD provides a primarily residential use, with some space allowing live -work units. A typical rezoning request would not result in the development pattern as proposed. Staff finds that the relationship of different land uses and activities within the development do not consider abutting parcels of land, with the exception of views to the golf course. A harmonious relationship with surrounding properties does not exist, and will result in land use incompatibility, traffic congestion and inconvenience for existing and future residents. (2) Permitted Uses. All permitted uses identified within § 162 Use Units of the Unified Development Code shall be allowed as permissible uses, unless otherwise specified, subject to City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District request. (3) Conditional Uses. All conditional uses allowed within (Residential, Commercial, Industrial) zoning Districts established in the Unified Development Code shall be allowed with Planning Commission approval, unless otherwise specified, subject to the code governing Conditional Use requests. FINDING: Permitted and Conditional uses are outlined in both the Master Development Plan booklets and plats. (4) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross floor area within the development. FINDING: The residential uses on this property will be at least fifty-one percent of the gross floor area within the development. (F) Bulk and area regulations (1) Residential density. Residential densities shall be determined on the basis of the following considerations: (a) The densities of surrounding development; (b) the densities allowed under the current zoning; K:IReports120081PC Reportsll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Seonebridge).doc (c) the urban development goals and other policies of the city's General Plan; (d) the topography and character of the natural environment; and (e) the impact of a given density on the specific site and adjacent properties. FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to large undeveloped agricultural lands with sparsely located single-family homes. The property is primarily zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, which would permit one dwelling unit per two acres, resulting in a maximum of 26 dwelling units on 53 acres. The applicants are requesting 350 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space, a density of approximately 6.60 units per acre. While this is not a normally high density in much of the City, and in general the City's development goals and policies do support the development pattern proposed by the Villas at Stonebridge, the density and intensity of the development is not appropriate in the rural landscape that it is proposed. Staff has communicated to the applicant that this project would be very appropriate in those areas identified as Intended Growth Sectors on the CityPlan 2025 Sector Map, or in other Residential Neighborhood Areas that have an adequate level of services and infrastructure for development. (2) Lot area and setback requirements. Taking into consideration the unique aspects of each project, preliminary development plans for Planned Zoning Districts shall conform as closely as possible to the existing standards for lot area minimums and setback requirements under this chapter. FINDING: Lot area minimums and setbacks are varied on this project with structures oriented to the street and minimal front setbacks. This project provides for a variety of building footprints, with a mixed unit type and mixed density. Due to the unique nature of this traditional neighborhood development, it is not possible to conform to existing standards for lot area minimums and setback requirements. Staff has recommended some changes to building setbacks, which have been addressed by the applicant, to create zoning criteria that is more consistent with zoning districts within the City. (3) Building height. There shall be no maximum building height except as may be determined by the Planning Commission during the review of the preliminary development plan based on the uses within the development and the proximity of the development to existing or prospective development on adjacent properties. A lesser height may be established by the Planning Commission when it is deemed necessary to provide adequate light and air to adjacent property and to protect the visual quality of the community. FINDING: Building heights proposed for this project are typical of single-family development, although the proposed heights of the multi -family structures are not compatible with the rural surroundings. With this development the character of the surrounding area would change from undeveloped, rural agricultural to a dense city neighborhood. This change in land use may be appropriate in the future once K:1Reporis120081PC Reports) l8 -September 22tR-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc infrastructure and core services expand to the area. (4) Building area. The Planning Commission shall review specific proposed lot coverages which generally correspond to the guidelines for lot coverage in the respective residential, office, commercial or industrial district which most depicts said development scheme. FINDING: The lot coverage or building area for this project is relatively high, with some planning areas allowing up to 95% of the lot to be covered by structures. The high percentages are congruent with dense/intense development patterns commonly found in downtown developments, or infill projects near core City services. However, the proposed development pattern, on the edge, of the City limits, is likely not appropriate. Should the Commission and Council find the project does meet stated goals and policies, staff has recommended some changes to the maximum building area, to create zoning criteria that is more consistent with zoning districts within the City. *Required Findings for Rezoning Request. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF 1. 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: Please reference findings under compliance with Planned Zoning District ordinance and Future Land Use Plan. The development is designed as a traditional neighborhood development with meaningful and usable open space. However, even a planned development can be characterized as urban sprawl if 1) it is located on the fringe of an urbanized area; 2) "leap frogs" over large, undeveloped properties; 3) is auto -dependent due to isolation from core public services; 4) and is developed before necessary infrastructure.improvements are made. Ultimately, the development is currently inconsistent with land use planning principles and policies to a degree that would not support the rezoning. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The subject property is just within the limits of the City and is adjacent to large agricultural properties. Rezoning the property for 350 residential dwellings and 45,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space is not justifiable or needed at this time. The development will "leap frog" over many acres of undeveloped farmland and will exacerbate the traffic congestion in the area around Huntsville Road. Reconstruction of Dead Horse Mountain Bridge, improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road, widening Huntsville Road, and installation of a traffic signal at Stonebridge Road will all facilitate future development in the area, including agricultural lands miles south of Huntsville Road. Currently though, the K:IReports120081PC Reports118-September 221R-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge) doe development is too early based on existing infrastructure and inconsistent with the goals and policies adopted by the City Council for rezoning applications. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Staff finds this proposal will likely increase traffic congestion and inconvenience, without several improvements to surrounding infrastructure. The Fayetteville Police Department has commented that improvements to Huntsville Road are necessary due to current traffic conditions. Additionally, the traffic study conducted for the development states that a traffic signal is warranted with Phase I of the subject development. Overall, the area has a lack of infrastructure to serve such a dense development pattern. With the minimum of improvements recommended by staff, an appreciable increase in traffic danger would not likely occur. However, a great deal of additional improvements is needed in the area to provide adequate levels of service typical to projects with urban densities of this nature. 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: Staff finds that in evaluating this proposal, the population density would undoubtedly increase from that which currently exists to a great extent, and that the uses proposed would create additional demand on public services. The applicants have noted in the project booklet that water and sewer services are being constructed to serve the subject development, as well as future developments in the area. Therefore, an undesirable load on water and sewer services is not expected. Engineering: Public water is located adjacent to the site. There are water improvements being made as part of the Southeast Fayetteville Regional Water and Sewer Improvements project that will bring an additional source of water under the White River to provide adequate service in this area. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There are sewer improvements being made as part of the Southeast Fayetteville Regional Water and Sewer Improvements project that will bring an additional capacity under the White River to provide adequate service in this area. The site has access to Dead Horse Mountain Road. Dead Horse Mountain Road is currently an un-improved two-lane, chip and seal, paved roadway. Street improvements will be required with development. Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the development. K: IReportsl20081PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Sionebridge).doc Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this C-PZD will not substantially alter the population density, and will not create an appreciable or undesirable increase in the load on police services. This R-PZD will possibly create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion without improvements to the already overloaded Huntsville Road. Fire: This property will be covered by Ladder 3 located at 1050 S. Happy Hollow Rd. It is 2.2 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 5 minutes. The Fire Department anticipates 56 (36 EMS -20 Fire/other) calls for service once the development is completed and maximum build out has occurred. There are no measured hydrant flows in this area. 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; 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 K'IReports120081PC ReponsV 8 -September 2218-PZD 06-2170 (Villas at Stonebridge).doc TayeMl PC Meeting of September 22, 2008 KANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fayetteville, 4873470 Telephone: ((4le, 479)444-3470 TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Greg Howe, Urban Forester Date: September 16, 2008 ITEM #: R-PZD o8-2170: Residential PZD (Villas at Stonebridge, Phase I) Requirements Submitted: Initial Review with the Urban Forester Y Site Analysis Map Submitted Y Site Analysis Written Report Submitted N Complete Tree Preservation and Protection Plan Submitted Canopy Measurements: rILIK,tall IS0 B E. FINDINGS: The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. The overall site has approximately 4.26% canopy with the majority of species consisting of post oaks in good condition. An inventory of the site revealed that there are 85 trees. Fifty-two are significant trees as defined by the City of Fayetteville's Landscape Manual. The extent to which the -area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the tree or group of trees. Environmental degradation should not occur on this site as the amount of existing canopy is somewhat low and a large grouping of trees in the northwest corner will not be removed during the construction of Phase I. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located. • The greatest impact in tree cover reduction from the development of Phase I would be to the properties to the north and east. Some existing canopy will remain along the eastern side of the site.. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of development on existing trees. N/A Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design. .. I :• The size and/or shape of the lot does not reduce flexibility. - Additionally, one of the goals of a Planned Zoning District is maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease, injury or hazard. • The general health of trees on this site is good. Some of the significant trees that are proposed for removal in Phase I are in good condition. - The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the property. The removed canopy in Phase I is due to placement of roadway. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. • Some of the trees shown as removed along the east side of the property are located in a utility easement. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. The majority of the roads, proposed lots and utilities have been designed to avoid canopy. On the north side of the site, the proposed utility easement was relocated to the south of lots 5o through 62 to save more significant canopy. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives. N/A The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives. • Mitigation will be required on this site for Phase I. On -site mitigation will increase the canopy on the subject property, and is shown in detention and green space areas. The effect other chapters of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the development design. This is a Planned Zoning District project. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by state and federal regulations: N/A The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application, would have on the Applicant: • Staff is recommending approval of the submitted Tree Preservation •Plan with the following conditions. Conditions of Approval: •i. Please revise the canopy measurement table on the tree preservation plans to reflect the numbers shown on page one of this report. 2. Please label all streets on the tree preservation plans. 3. Please include a mitigation table and/or calculations on the tree preservation plan. 4. The applicant shall mitigate for the removal 0f35,283 SF of tree canopyin Phase I with on -site mitigation to consist of a minimum of (122) 2 -inch caliper trees. If all trees cannot be planted on -site, the balance shall be contributed into the Tree. Fund, as determined by the Urban Forester. Mitigation trees cannot be located within utility easements or street ROW. Please submit a tree mitigation form for approval. 5. All mitigation trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. These trees cannot be located within any utility easement or street ROW. A 3 -year bond, letter of credit, or check in the amount of $30,500 shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Each lot not reviewed at this time will be assesses at the time of development. A minimum canopy cover of at least 25% will be required. TayeMv1KANSAS PC Meeting of September 22, 2008 113 W. Mountain St. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS phoAR73471 Telephone: ( (479479) 444-3470 LANDSCAPE REVIEW FORM To: Appian Centre for Design From: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner Date: September i6, 2008 ITEM #: R-PZD 07-2170: Planned Zoning District (Villas at Stonebridge) Applicable Requirements: Plan Checklist: Y= submitted by applicant N=requested by City of Fayetteville NA= not applicable J%,aatrtiritr I :r-, ©© ., gels ,till flu,,a Ih . ..�. ©®• °. . -.- -'.; it:: a', i9•Aint� ' c :c3° . a e a3 d�o� T) Perimeter landscaping Side and rear property lines (5' landscaped) NA NA Shade trees as described in street tree planting standards, Parking lot adjacent to R.O. W.- continuous planting ofshrubs-at least 8 per tree- and ground cover -50% evergreen) . NA NA Greenspace adjacent to street R.O.W. (25' wide) NA NA Large street trees planted every 30' L.F. along R.O.W. NA NA 25% of total site area left in greenspace (8o% landscape) NA I NA Parking lots and outdoor storage screened with landscaping N .. Residential Subdivisions- i large species shade tree/ lot tree planted within R.O.W. fpossible N N Nonresidential Subdivision- i large species shade tree/3o L.F. tree plantedwithin 15-252 'reens ace N Y Urban Tee Wells -urban streetscape only-8foot sidewalk N Y '' Structural Soil -if urban wells are used, a note or detail of structural soil must be indicated on the landscape plan NA N• Timing of planting indicated on plans (subdivisions only) NA N Written description of the method for tracking plantings ' e N Y i deciduous or evergreen tree/ 3000 square feet N Y 4 large shrubs (3 gal) or small trees / 3000 square feet N Y 6 shrubs or grasses (i gal) / 3000 square feet N Y Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified N Y 50% of facility planted with grass or grass like plants Conditions of Approval: 1. Street trees are required every 30 feet, except for the single-family lots where one tree is required per lot. Additional street trees are required along the south side of Public Street 1. 2. Prior to signing the final plat, a written description of the method(s) and time frame the project will utilize to track development of each single-family lot to ensure the required trees are planted and their longevity of health assured. 3. Mitigation trees can not be planted within any type of utility easement and must be planted on a site owned by the applicant. 4. Any parking lot of 5 or more spaces must meet the landscape parking lot standards. Trees and screening shrubs should be added anywhere applicable. 5. Utilities visible from the right of way must be screened. At the time of C of O, additional plantings may be warranted per request of staff. 6. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscape is to be submitted to the Urban Forester for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for i5o % 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. ii. At the time of construction drawings the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 12. Under the Landscape Regulations Chapter 177, street trees must be bonded for a 3 year period. This bond is for the maintenance of the trees. This amount must be deposited with the City before signature of Final Plat. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS TO: Andrew Gamer, Planner FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner DATE: April 1, 2008 SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Planning Commission Comments ****************************************************************************** Meeting Date: April 3, 2008 Item: (Villas at Stonebridge, 645-646) Park District: SE Zoned: R -A Billing Name & Address: Nock Investments, LLC P.O. Box 8783 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Land Dedication Requirement Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = Multi Family @ .017 acre per unit = COMMENTS: Money in Lieu acres _175_@ $960 per unit = $168,000 acres 179@ $680 per unit = $121,720_ ■ PRAB recommended accepting 2 acres of parkland excluding the utility easements at the September 8a' 2008. • Please submit a deed for the park land to the City land agents for review. Once the deed is reviewed, file at the Washington County Courthouse and submit a copy of the filed deed to Park Staff. • Deed for parkland is due prior to signing final plat. • Please coordinate with Park Staff to install park boundary signs. R-PZD 07-2170 cNGINEERRIN(7 DI V I510n) Cor1#v1CvTS R-PZD 08-2170: Planned Zoning District (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located S OF HWY. 16E AND E OF GOFF FARM ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contaips approximately 53.03 acres. The request is for a Master Development Plan for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 322 dwelling units and 30,000 s.f of commercial space all with associated parking. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Public water is located adjacent to the site along Dead Horse Mountain Road. There are water improvements being made as part of the Southeast Fayetteville Regional Water and Sewer Improvements project that will bring an additional source of water from under the White River to provide adequate service to this area. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There are sewer improvements being made as part of the Southeast Fayetteville Regional Water and Sewer Improvements project that will bring additional capacity under the White River to provide adequate service to this area. The site has access to Dead Horse Mountain Road. Dead Horse Mountain Road is currently an un-improved two lane partially paved roadway. Street improvements will be evaluated with the proposed development. Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain. PZD 08-2904: Planned istrict (BRIDGE AZA, 569): Subtnitte by DAVE:, RGENSEN for prope y locate t THE SE CO ER OF WY 16E AND. ER ADOWS DRIVE. Ate propert is zoned R -4, SINGLE AMILY - 4`. TS/AQREii& obtains approximate 15.95 acres. The requ t is for 6.8 acr of self st age:5.23:ac es of. . single family residei4ial, 1.96 acres f Reside tial Office, and .96 acre of:C-i., _Plann r:.Dara Sanders ublic water is located adjacent to e site, here is an 8" w er mai along,River Me doves rive. i anitary sewer is 4vailable to the de. Th re is a 6" sewer ain al ng Huntsville Ro d. mprovements to the sewer syste may required depen ent up n the demand pla ed by the evelopment. Thi capacity of the xisti main may need o be s died at the lime o evelopment e site has access to Huntsville R Huntsville Road i cu ently an improved p lane pa d state highway. Street improvements will be evaluate ith the proposed development. Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain. Fayetteville Fire Department To:. Dara Sanders, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher Thru: Chief Tony Johnson Assistant Chief Bud Thompson From: Captain Dale Riggins Date: February 6, 2008 Re: February 6, 2008 Zoning Review R-PZD 08-2170: Planned Zoning District (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located S OF HWY. 16E AND E OF GOFF FARM ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 53.03 acres. The request is for a Master Development Plan for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 322 dwelling units and 30,000 s.f. of commercial space all with associated parking. This property will be covered by Ladder 3 located at 1050 S Happy Hollow Rd. It is 2.2 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 5 minutes. The Fire Department anticipates 56 (36 EMS -20 Fire/other) calls for service once the development is completed and maximum build out has occurred. The Fayetteville Fire Department does not feel this development will affect our calls for service or our response times. There is no measured hydrant flow in this area. iifig 91str1ct (BRIDGEDALE PLAZA, 569): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property HE,E CORNER, HWY 16. ' D RIVER M�AV)WS DRIVE,2TVe property is zoned FAMILY 4 LJ$IITS/2RE t1d contai app ximatel 9 acres. The request is of self Drag , 5.2 acres f sing) amity sident' , 1.9 acres of Residential 1.96 es of -1 ; Rd. It is it from th�/sation wit an nhicipated �sp9nte time/fl minutes. The it epartm nticipat 4 EMS 2 Fir /o er) calls or.service once,the development is com eted and m imum bujlflpdt has occur We do no figure calls fo service on Commercial developments, ough this of development typically dyes not affect our calls for service. Measured hydrant flow is 1560 gallon per minute in this area. Date 1/31/08 Jeremy Pate Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Pate, This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed R-PZD 08-2170: (Villas at Stonebridge, 645/646): Submitted by Appian Center for Design for property located S of HWY 16E and E of Goff Farm Road, would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on. . public services and create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion. The: .. property contains approximately 53.03 acres. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this R-PZD will not substantially alter the population density, and will not create an appreciable or undesirable increase in the load on police services. This R-PZD will possibly create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion without improvements to the already overloaded Huntsville Road. Huntsville Road appears to be the main point of access and egress to the planned area. Sincerely, Captain William Brown Fayetteville Police Department Faye eve le 1 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE To: Appian Center for Design From: Matt Mihalevich, Trails Coordinator Date: March 31, 2008 Subject: Subdivision Committee Review Comments ITEM #: R-PZD: 08-2170: Villas at Stonebridge TRAIL COMMENTS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3416 mmihalevich@ci.fayetteville.ar.us i. St. Paul trail is identified on the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trail Master Plan through this project. As shown on the plat, this 12' wide asphalt trail will be constructed by the City of Fayetteville within the abandoned railroad corridor. 2. Grading shall be completed by the developer to accommodate the 12' trail including all drainage structures situated to allow for the future trail. 3. At the east end of the trail where it meets public street ii, shift the trail so it aligns with the crosswalk on the north side of public street 5. The detention pond will need to be modified to accommodate the trail ending at this location. This was a request by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to make a better connection to the 1.8 acre park area. 4. A future trail corridor is also planned through lot 196. This will allow St. Paul trail to extend through the golf course to meet Eagle Park. The trail will be on - street through the development. From: Brian Pugh To: Fulcher, Jesse; Garner, Andrew; Sanders, Dara Date: 3/31/08 2:28PM Subject: Subdivision committee 4-3-08 SD 08-2903 (Shoppes at Wedington) Please contact Solid Waste about enclosure locatio f enclosure will not allow for straight collection on southern/most impster. Cannot sign c esign. SD 08-2933 (SpringwoodsBehaviora Health) Please contact Soli Waste about ericlosur tans had correct size of 30' x 12. Ne plans show 1'' x 20. Can of service this size and itkthis size remains. L D 08-2854 (Emeritus Assisted Living Please show enclosure w th 15clear o ening on Pits. R -P' D (Hill Placey6umpster enclosure m st b 15' x 12'. Locatio previo ly approved. Austi Rowser p out possibility of adding ci recycling drop off to pla Curb in off R-PZD (Villas at Stonebridge) Please contact Solid Waste to discuss trash collection. Single family to receive residential. carts. Townhomes and multifamily must be collected with commercial dumpster. service along with commercial businesses. No dumpster enclosures identified on plans. Cannot sign off until enclosures identified. Brian Pugh Waste Reduction Coordinator Fayetteville Solid Waste and Recycling 479-718-7685 479-444-3478 Fax PLANNING URBAN DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE �A I CIVIL ENGINEERING APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN April 7, 2008 City of Fayetteville Jeremy Pate 125 West Mountain 'Fayetteville AR 72701 RE: Villas at Stonebridge Comment Response 4-7-08 Dear Mr. Pate: Streets and Right of Way Planning Division Comment 2— Street section waiver ii.) It is the belief of Appian that variety within a design standard is positive. We are willing to go to the effort of adapting our street sections per development through the Planned Zoned District entitlement process, which was created to allow greater flexibility, to make them adaptable and allow a little more green space for each tree. We know that the Planning and Engineering Departments worked hard and created a very good set of street sections, but no one can hope to create street sections for every situation. This extra foot of green space will add 17% additional green area which is substantial when considering the water infiltration. Furthermore, an extra foot of green space does not create an undesirable, negative, or hazardous condition. iii.) After meeting with the Fayetteville Fire Department, they have approved this street section and found that it does not negatively affect their ability to respond. . Plat and Booklet revisions 30) a. Please clarify "a". Provide a street section detail for Public Street 1. There are several street sections provided for Public Street I d. Streets are named and shown to be either public or private but numbered with no regard to public or private. We feel it would confuse issues during construction and remaining planning process to have several public and private streets with the same number. g. Construction lot numbers have been given to separate lots for future platting. Booklet revisions i — m. Appian took the buildable area for each lot from lot line to setback to setback and found that percentages were higher than requested. We lowered the building area percentages from this number, but for us to lower the building area to city- • requested numbers the area between setbacks would essentially make negligible the setbacks and zero lot lines we are establishing. p. The are several comers of fences and outbuildings that would set slightly into a 10 feet building setback. The primary building and the mass portion of the clubhouse planning area is kept at leas ten feet back. x. The mixed -use portion of this site is proposed to be built seven years from now and will go through a large scale approval prior to construction document submittal. The street section shown will most likely be modified in the future to have on -street parking. The buildings and parking lots shown are merely a representation of the concept for this mixed -use portion of the site. w. Appian will coordinate this at the time of large scale development. bb. The mixed -use buildings along Dead Horse Mtn. Rd. will most likely be three stories. Estimating 14' for the first floor and 12' and 12' for the next two floors that makes 38'. We need to allow for the buildings to be built as planned. kk. Appian would like to allow flexibility for the developers and builders. If the city feels there are specific lots that should have larger setbacks perhaps we could consider it. Your consideration is appreciated. Respectfully, Evan Niehues Appian Centre For Design 442-1441 lstewart@appiancentrefordesign.com 217 East Dickson Street Suite 104 1 Fayettevitte, Arkansas 72701 1 479.442.1444 Fax 479.442.1450 PLANNING URBAN DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN January 17, 2008 Jeremy Pate Director of Current Planning City of Fayetteville 113W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Villas at Stonebridge update waiver request letter CC: Matt Casey P.E. Assistant City Engineer Mr. Pate, Appian Centre for Design is writing to request waivers granting permission to: 1. To design curb return radii (CRR) of 20' on all streets and 15'at alley intersections 2. Increase greenspace between the sidewalk and the curb 3. To construct a sidewalk on one side of the street due to physical property constraints Please consider the following as grounds for granting the waivers: The request is to allow a 20' curb return radius (CRR) at all street intersections and 15' (CRR) at alley intersections. Large CRR 01 25' or 30' allows traffic to take turns quickly and without stopping, raising the design speed of streets to levels that are uncomfortable and unsafe to pedestrians. A 20' CRR will create a safer pedestrian environment that promotes walkability and pedestrian safety. No above ground obstructions, such as fire hydrants, street lights, trees or traffic signs will be permitted with in fifteen feet (15') of a street intersection. 2. This request is for a waiver granting permission to allow additional greenspace between the curb and the sidewalk. Seven feet of greenspace creates a better opportunity for proper tree growth and increases the desired aesthetic quality along public streets within the Villas at Stonebridge and distancing the pedestrian from the street. 3. This is a request to build a sidewalk on one side of the street south of the southern roundabout. Due to physical property line constraints and utility companies' request for easements allows only enough room for a sidewalk on one side of the street. With the amount of pedestrian activity expected along the southern exit from the Villas, ACD feels one sidewalk would be adequate for the walking traffic volume at any given time. With this connection nestled tightly between two properties, one R -A, reducing the impact zone on this hillside by just five feet would create a more logical and environmentally sensitive exit. Thank you f y ur ���}}}+++jjj���e inconsideringthis matter. I look forward to hearing from you. If you have any Fdo not hesitate to contact me. Todd lacob3-' Director of Design(/ Appian Centre for Design 217 East Dickson Street, Suite 104 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Office: 479-442-1444 Fax: 479-442-1450 Traffic Study Villas at Stonebridge prepared for: Critical Path Design • LANDSCAPE ARGRRECmRE• SURVEYING 1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC w7 • CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ( P.O. BOX 21638 (501) 225-0500 L1TPLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72221 Dead Horse Mountain Road Fayetteville, Arkansas +++ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ERNEST J. _RU/RS Project No.: P-1224 November 9, 2006 �) l The location of the proposed development is in Fayette- ville, Arkansas and is located on the east side of Dead Horse Mountain Road, approximately 1.1 miles south of Highway 16 (Huntsville Road). The proposed develop- ment site location and vicinity are shown on Figures 1 and 2, which follow. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 3 l Access to the site, as shown on the site plat, is from Dead Horse Mountain Road at Drive A. The subdivision plat calls for the construction of a va- riety of residential uses. The preliminary subdivision plat shows the proposed lots and the approximate lo- cation of the proposed internal street network. Dead Horse Mountain Road is a two-lane asphalt roadway consisting of two 11 -foot lanes constructed with drainage ditches. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour and there are no sidewalks. In the vicinity of the site, Dead Horse Mountain Road is classified on the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan as a Minor Ar- terial, but there are no immediate plans or funding for roadway improvements. Highway 16, also Huntsville Road, is a two-lane as- phalt highway consisting of two 11 -foot lanes con- structed with approximate 6 -foot shoulders and drain- age ditches. The speed limit is 45 miles per hour in the vicinity of the study area and there are no side- walks. Future roadway improvements to Highway 16 in the vicinity of the study area by the City of Fayette- ville have been proposed but have not yet been ap- proved. Roadway improvements proposed by the City are expected to be constructed in two stages of improvements which are described as follows: o Stage I Improvements- Highway widened to a four -lane roadway with additional left -turn lanes at major intersections from Happy Hollow Road to Stone Bridge Road. Included in Stage 1 are im- provements to the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road to construct an eastbound and a westbound left -turn lane on Highway 16 and a northbound and a southbound left -turn lane on Stone Bridge Road plus the possible installation of traffic signal at this intersection. The City has PflRS k ASSOCIATES Page 4 •:N -f. .� 3t• Ogg r' 4r N mot - '.I'4Y . .e. r �Ci _w� h ♦3�. F t FFC i t i w�Iy+.uSc wit urw�tc � - - _ 'a rte • • Hourly, 24 -hour traffic counts were made at the follow- • S • ing locations in the vicinity of the site by this consultant as a part of this study: Ai` •, fa, Y .., f.-nr •E1+: ,• �( Iggs,�. P • r•n �" f fRM,/��� •' 4 r • • •{•^D • .. .F Yi�?i,'ihaeS RK-10V ? i3c -_' •r1svk` } ��YR�, 24 IIouR`' ^•F Wj!'1• n' rTWOW/�Y,+ VOLUME ' ,Y•w• ,� cy, • .. ,, ,xq•y�,. pigiTABLE�&t °� tfCHIjRT' Highway 16 Approaches to Stone Bridge/Dead Horse Mt. Rd. 14,772 Table 1/Chart 1 Dead Horse Mountain Road, Just South of Hwy 16 1,293 Table 2/Chart 2 Dead Horse Mountain Road, Just South of Stone Farm Road 938 Table 3/Chart 3 Hourly traffic count data for these locations are summa- rized on the following Tables and Charts 1, 2 and 3. Existing AM and PM peak hours vehicle turning move- ment count data was gathered by this consultant in the vicinity of the site for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road / Dead Horse Mountain Road. The AM and PM peak hour vehicle turning movement counts made as part of this study are shown on the fol- lowing peak hour turning movements Charts 4 and 5 and are presented in more detail in the Appendix of this report. AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts and the 24 -hour counts made as a part of this study are shown on Figure 3, "Existing Traffic Volumes." PETERS & ASSOCIATES D1CNRt . WV. Page 6 The Trip Generation, an Informational Report (7th Edi- tion), 2004, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Software (Version 5 by Microtrans), were utilized in calculating the magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed residential land uses of this development. These are reliable sources for this information and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. Using the selected trip generation rates, calculations were made as a part of this study to provide a reliable estimate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be associated with the development as proposed. Applying the appro- priate trip -generation rates to the land uses proposed for development makes these calculations. Results of these calculations are summarized on Table 4, "Trip -Generation Summary," following. These data have not been adjusted for "pass -by" trips (i.e. that portion of the site destined traffic that could come from the existing adjacent street traffic stream) due to the land -uses and location of the site. The majority of the vehicle trips to and from the site are not expected to be in the existing traffic volumes. �PATERS & ASSOCIATES n g"""am' INC. . Page 10 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Results and Level of Service Analysis Existing Traffic Conditions Capacity and level of service analysis was performed for existing traffic conditions (existing traffic volumes, lane ge- ometry and traffic control) for the adjacent street AM and PM peak hours for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road / Dead Horse Mountain Road. As indicated in Table 5, "Level of Service Summary — Existing Traffic Conditions," for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road / Dead Horse Mountain Road all of the existing vehicle movements for existing traffic condi- tions presently operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours except for the northbound vehicle movements on Stone Bridge Road (Horse Mountain Road) at Highway 16 with "Stop" sign con- trol during the AM peak hour (LOS "E") and PM peak hour (LOS "F"). Traffic volumes used for this analysis are shown on Figure 3, "Existing Traffic Volumes." INTERSECTION ' -� PEAK HR PEAK HOUR - LEVEL OF SERVICE PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 14 PETERS di ASSOCIATES ,MmINC Results and Level of Service Analysis Projected Traffic Conditions Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for the pro- jected traffic conditions with the full -build of the resi- dential development (includes Phases 1 thru 6) for the following intersections: o Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road (Dead Horse Mountain Road) o Dead Horse Mountain Road and Drive A. This analysis was performed for AM and PM peak hours projected traffic. Traffic volumes used for this analysis are shown on Figure 8, "Site -Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Volumes — AM and PM Peak Hours." The operating conditions projected to exist at these intersections are summarized in Table 6, "Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions." As indicated in Table 6, "Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions - Phase 1," all of the vehi- cle movements at the two intersections analyzed are projected .to operate at an acceptable LOS "C" or bet- ter during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following: o The northbound vehicle movements on Stone Bridge Road at Highway 16 (LOS "F") with "Stop" sign control for the AM and PM peak hours. This vehicle movements is expected to improve to an acceptable LOS "C" with traffic signal control plus the addition of an eastbound right -turn lane on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road. o The southbound vehicle movements on Stone Bridge Road at Highway 16 (LOS "E") with "Stop" sign control for the PM peak hour. This vehicle movements is expected to improve to an accept- able LOS "C" with traffic signal control plus the ad - Page 15 dition of an eastbound right -turn lane on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road. Projected traffic conditions, analysis was conducted with the following roadway conditions assumed: • With and without traffic signal control at the intersec- tion of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road. • Highway 16 widened at Stone Bridge Road to accom- modate the addition of an eastbound right -turn lane. • Drive A constructed as a two-lane roadway consisting of an inbound lane and an outbound lane. There is expected to be reserve capacity and better LOS results once the future City -proposed roadway improve- ments to include Highway 16 widened to a four -lane road- way with additional left -turn lanes at Stone Bridge Road. Those improvements also include the construction of an eastbound and a westbound left -turn lane on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road and a northbound and a southbound left -turn lane on Stone Bridge at Highway 16. PETERS & ASSOCIATES DCZN IS. ac In evaluating the need for a traffic signal, certain estab- lished warrants must be examined by a comprehensive investigation of traffic conditions and physical characteris- tics of the location. The decision to install a traffic signal at a particular location must be evaluated quantitatively relative to these warrants. Satisfaction of conditions for only one of the warrants, as specified, is required for sig- nalization. These warrants, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), are described in detail in the appendix of this report. They are summa- rized as follows: ♦ Warrant One: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Two: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Three: Peak Hour ♦ Warrant Four: Pedestrian Volume ♦ Warrant Five: School Crossing ♦ Warrant Six: Coordinated Signal System ♦ Warrant Seven: Crash Experience ♦ Warrant Eight: Roadway Network Traffic signal warrants analysis was made for existing and for projected traffic conditions (includes Phases 1 through 6 development of Villas at Stonebridge) for the intersec- tion of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road. Signal Warrants Results It was found that traffic signal warrants are not currently met for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road with existing traffic volumes. Volumes are currently not sufficient at this intersection to satisfy any warrants. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for the inter- section of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road is summa- rized in Table 7, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results - High- way 16 and Stone Bridge Road - Existing Conditions." PFTEIIS & ASSOCIATES ICINEI. INC. Page t7 It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road at full build -out of this development as pro- posed (includes Phases 1 through 6 development of Vil- las at Stonebridge). Volumes are projected to be suffi- cient at this intersection to satisfy Warrants I B, 2 and 3. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for the inter- section of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road for this condition is summarized in Table 8, "Traffic Signal War- rants Results - Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road - Projected Conditions - Full Build -Out. ° It was further found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road once traffic associated with Phase 1 of the Villas at Stonebridge development as proposed is included. Sig- nal warrants continue to be met as subsequent develop- ment occurs. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 18 • • Findings of this study are summarized as follows: " • a' • • Analysis for existing traffic conditions (existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traffic control) were con- ducted for the adjacent street AM and PM peak hours. For the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road / Dead Horse Mountain Road all of the existing vehicle movements for existing traffic conditions pres- ently operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and. PM peak hours except for the northbound vehicle movements on Stone Bridge Road (Horse Mountain Road) at Highway 16 with "Stop" sign control during the AM peak hour (LOS "E") and PM peak hour (LOS "F"). PETERS & ASSOCIATES v1OefflUS. INC • Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for the pro- jected traffic conditions with the full -build of the residen- tial development (includes Phases I thru 6) for the adja- cent street AM and PM peak hours. All of the vehicle movements at the two intersections analyzed are pro- jected to operate at an acceptable LOS "C" or better during the AM and. PM peak hours except for the follow- ing: o The northbound vehicle movements on Stone Bridge Road at Highway 16 (LOS "F") with "Stop" sign control for the AM and PM peak hours. This vehicle movements is expected to improve to an acceptable LOS "C" with traffic signal control plus the addition of an eastbound right -turn lane on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road. o The southbound vehicle movements on Stone Bridge Road at Highway 16 (LOS "E") with "Stop" sign control for the PM peak hour. This vehicle movements is expected to improve to an acceptable LOS "C" with traffic signal control plus the addition of an eastbound right -turn lane on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road. Page 20 y • Projected traffic conditions, analysis was conducted with the following roadway conditions assumed: o With traffic signal control at the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road. o Highway 16 widened at Stone Bridge Road to accommodate the addition of an east- bound right -turn lane. o Drive A constructed as a two-lane roadway consisting of an inbound lane and an out- bound lane. • There is expected to be reserve capacity and better LOS results once the future City -proposed roadway improvements to include Highway 16 widened to a four -lane roadway with additional left -turn lanes at Stone Bridge Road. Those improvements also in- clude the construction of an eastbound and a west- bound left -turn lane on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road and a northbound and a southbound left -turn lane on Stone Bridge at Highway 16. • It was found that traffic signal warrants are not cur- rently met for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road with existing traffic volumes. • It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road at full build -out of this develop- ment as proposed (includes Phases 1 through 6 de- velopment of Villas at Stonebridge). It was further . found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road once traffic associated with Phase 1 of the Villas at Stonebridge development as proposed is included. Signal warrants continue to be met as sub- sequent development occurs. PETERS &NASSOCIATES IIII Page 21 • The subdivision internal street network proposed to serve this site will serve the ingress and egress needs of the site well if constructed as two-lane roadway sec- tions.. • The sight distance was examined and found to be satis- factory for traffic entering and exiting the site via the in- tersection of Drive A and Dead Horse Mountain Road. Recommendations of this study are summarized as follows: • It is recommended that an interim design span -wire mounted traffic signal be constructed at the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road coincident with the development of Phase 1. Traffic signal control at this intersection is appropriate. The opportunity of cost sharing with other beneficiaries should be explored. This traffic signal could serve traffic control needs until Highway 16 improvements are completed. • It is recommended that a minimum 120 -foot (plus taper) eastbound right -turn lane be constructed on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road in order to ease the potential queuing of eastbound traffic. This should be con- structed at which time the recommended traffic signal is constructed. This should be considered an interim im- provement to serve until Highway 16 improvements are completed. • Intersection improvements (eastbound right -turn lane on Highway 16 at Stone Bridge Road and traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road) must conform to design standards of the City of Fayetteville and AHTD and will require approval by both the City and AHTD. • It is recommended that the new streets be constructed as a part of this development to conform to the City of Fayetteville design standards which will also require approval by the City of Fayetteville. PETERS A: ASSOCIATES cuclnams, me Page 22 m m E�m > m N j C --0< Oa)t. zvE w CO O0) - W LL J F —O (9> z H U) X W C LJ.1 0 Q Z o < A m a ¢ N N W z O M M Oo _ ° b `O 4 v � 49 x 80 N 396-o 2 Q 7 o-1031 ,J., aa0 ~ w 4 d 32 Q cn w S7 EMMIWao. a. q ,o g o } r = Q d 4 a > Q W MIn o ra bv 1 i 438 997-c. 2 <D +241 17 ¢ aO i d 6 ' 7627 7145, F d U O rn d U R f/1 LC W z W Qo P4 z W n W _ 7W ■ OF - K¢ as In ^ N � 28' 4 161 396.0 2 Q 0 c-103 aam 4 d32 N m < In ro ao n N.- 7 9 Q60 997 0 Q i-241 Q 17 b a d 6 o. q ,0 I, o 0n uD 3Wd' i LZ)Q tt00 L O Y Q LL a a I -_o C z Q z uCDQ �w w 50 LLJ o N m Q LJ I- Z Y D Q O O (n J J > <(/)114 w Q F } go '< J Li J � W 0 - en U O Cl) Myy 18F�.1 aK d z 41" In- < cn u a W w -- z aoRw W zN x o�- �a . �� �.r� dC] PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. April 2, 2008 Mr. Todd Jacobs Appian Centre for Design 217 E. Dickson St. Suite 104 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: P1224 ADDENDUM to Traffic Study (Dated November 9, 2006) Villas at Stonebridge Fayetteville, Arkansas Dear Jacobs As requested, Peters and Associates Engineers, Inc. has prepared this Addendum to our traffic study report dated November 9, 2006. This Addendum addresses traffic signal warrants analysis for projected traffic conditions with the construction of Phase 1 only (Phase 1 includes 91 single-family residential lots) for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The development of Phase I is now different than that which was included in the traffic study dated November 9, 2006. Traffic signal warrants analysis was conducted for projected traffic volumes that include site -generated traffic associated with the Phase I development of the site plus existing traffic volumes for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road. It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for this intersection coincident with the development of Phase I of the site. Volumes are projected to be sufficient to satisfy Warrant 3. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road are summarized on Table A, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results — Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road - Projected Traffic Conditions — Phase 1 Development Only." 5507 RANCH DRIVE - SUITE 205 UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72223 (501) 868-3999 FAX: (501) 868-9710 Mr. Todd Jacobs April 2, 2008 Page 2 FINAL RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Projected Conditions Phase 1 Hour warrant was met: Major St.: Hwy 16 (Huntsville Rd.) Minor St.: Stone Bridge Road VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peak 350 525 280 420 105 52 84 41 SUM MAX. HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 16 1AB 2 3 7:00 1331 99 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8:00 993 89 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9:00 728- 50 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10:00 758 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11:00 821 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 992 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 13:00 934 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 823 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15:00 961 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 16:00 1348 66 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 17:00 1571 55 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 18:00 999 46 0 0 0 01 0 0 19:00 618 50 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 20:00 538 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 448 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 3 2 This Intersection SATISFIES the warrants for signalization as outlined to the "M.U.T.C.O." Table A — Traffic Signal Warrants Results — Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road Projected Traffic Conditions — Phase I Development Only Findings and recommendations of this Addendum are summarized as follows: o It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road coincident with the proposed Phase I development of the Villas at Stonebridge site. o It is recommended (as stated in the traffic study report dated November 9, 2006) that a fully - actuated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road coincident with proposed Phase I development of the Villas at Stonebridge site. o Traffic signal warrants are very close to being met with existing traffic volumes at the intersection of Highway 16 and Stone Bridge Road. It is estimated that additional traffic associated with approximately 14 single-family homes will be sufficient, in combination with existing traffic volumes to satisfy traffic signal warrants at the study intersection. 4 o Findings and recommendations in the traffic study dated November 9, 2006 are still appropriate for this development. Mr. Todd Jacobs April 2, 2008 Page 3 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Ernest J. Peters, P.E. President. PLANNING URBAN DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN March 25, 2008 City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE: Villas at Stonebridge - Traffic Signal and Street Improvements on Dead Horse Mountain Road The following is a proposal to the City of Fayetteville for a traffic signal at the intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Arkansas State Hwy 16, and improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road. In the absence of an assessment of the surrounding areas, current and future developments should be treated equally and fairly, such that, current and future development projects each pay a reasonable share for improvements. A reasonable share should take into consideration the increased traffic generation from developments in the vicinity that impact Arkansas State Hwy 16. Intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Arkansas State Hwy 16 Traffic Light: Villas at Stonebridge project proposes to pay $75,000 towards the cost of constructing a new traffic signal to be located at the aforementioned intersection. Given this area's substantial growth over the past ten years and predicted future growth, we argue that the full burden of a traffic signal should not be borne according to the most current project presented to the City of Fayetteville for development approval. Instead, the Villas at Stonebridge project should contribute a portion of the total cost. We are requesting that the associated money be paid proportionally per phases of the Villas at Stonebridge project. Dead Horse Mountain Road Street Improvements: The Villas at Stonebridge project proposes to give $100,000 to the City of Fayetteville for the improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road. The City has requested that an overlay be constructed on Dead Horse Mountain Road. However, any constructed overlay will be replaced when the adjacent properties are developed. In addition, growth along Dead Horse Mountain Road is expected because of the recent addition of water and sewer, So, while we do acknowledge that the Villas at Stonebridge will have an impact on Dead Horse Mountain Road, we would rather see the proposed $100,000 go towards something that will benefit the City long-term then a temporary overlay that will be removed in the coming years. Therefore, we are requesting that the associated money be paid proportionally per phase of the Villas at Stonebridge project. Sincerely, Todd Jacobs Appian Centre for Design, Inc. Director of Design 2.17 East Dickson Street Ste. 104 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: 442-1444 Fax: 442-1450 PLANNING URBAN DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN December 19, 2007 Mr. Ron Petri and Mr. Jeremy Pate City of Fayetteville 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE: Villas @ Stonebridge Traffic Signal and Bridge Assessment The following is the Appian Centre for Design's proposal to the City of Fayetteville for traffic signal and bridge assessments associated with the Villas at Stonebridge. The Appian Centre for Design proposes that the Villas at Stonebridge project be assessed for a percentage of the construction costs proportional to the traffic generated from this development to construct a new traffic signal to be located at the intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Arkansas State Hwy 16 as well as a new bridge along Dead Horse Mountain Road over the West Fork of the White River. The following is a rational nexus calculation for this assessment: Projected Traffic for Full Build Out = 2,514 vpd • Assume 40% will go south on Dead Horse Mountain Road = 1006 vpd • Assume 60% will go north on Dead Horse Mountain Road = 1508 vpd TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT Probable Costs of Traffic Signal Plus Intersection Improvements = $225,000 Projected traffic from Full Build -Out of Phase 1 using Signal = 1508 vpd Minor Arterial traffic capacity = 14,800 vpd % traffic from Phase 1 = 10% Villas at Stonebridge Phase 1 Signal Assessment Costs = $22,500 BRIDGE ASSESSMENT City of Fayetteville's Construction Costs Estimate for Bridge = $2,160,000 Projected traffic from Full Build -Out using Bridge = 1508 vpd Minor Arterial traffic capacity = 14,800 vpd % traffic from Phase 1 = 10% Villas at Stonebridge Bridge Assessment Costs = $216,000 This development is planned to take approximately 3 to 8 years for full buildout. As the phases will occur over time, we are requesting that the collection of the associated assessment be paid per construction phase. The following payment schedule is being requested: 169 Single Family Dwellings at a rate of $820.00 = $138,580 153 Multifamily Townhomes at a rate of $653.25 = $99,947 Villas at Stonebridge Total Assessment = $238,527 (Request collection per construction phase at time of building permits) Sincerely, Todd Jacobs Director of Design Appian Centre for Design 217 East Dickson Street, Suite Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Office: 479-442-1444 Fax: 479-442-1450 Mobile: 479-466-1717 104 appian centre for design land planning environmental engineering November 2, 2006 Mr. Ron Petri and Mr. Jeremy Pate City of Fayetteville 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE: Villas @ Stonebridge Traffic Signal and Bridge Assessment The following is the Appian Centre for Design's proposal to the City of Fayetteville for traffic signal and bridge assessments associated with the Villas at Stonebridge. The Appian Centre for Design proposes that the Villas at Stonebridge project be assessed for a percentage of the construction costs proportional to the traffic generated from this development to construct a new traffic signal to be located at the intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Arkansas State Hwy 16 as well as a new bridge along Dead Horse Mountain Road over the West Fork of the White River. The following is a rational nexus calculation for this assessment: Projected Traffic for Full Build Out = 2,514 vpd • Assume 40% will go south on Dead Horse Mountain Road = 1006 vpd • Assume 60% will go north on Dead Horse Mountain Road = 1508 vpd TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT Probable Costs of Traffic Signal Plus Intersection Improvements = $225,000 Projected traffic from Full Build -Out of Phase 1 using Signal = 1508 vpd Minor Arterial traffic capacity = 14,800 vpd % traffic from Phase 1 = 10% Villas at Stonebridge Phase 1 Signal Assessment Costs = $22,500 BRIDGE ASSESSMENT City of Fayetteville's Construction Costs Estimate for Bridge = $2.160,000 Projected traffic from Full Build -Out using Bridge = 1508 vpd Minor Arterial traffic capacity = 14,800 vpd % traffic from Phase 1 = 10% Villas at Stonebridge Bridge Assessment Costs = $216,000 The improvements planned for the area are expected to take approximately 3 to 6 years. As the improvements will occur over time, we are requesting that the collection of the associated assessment fees be staggered to better account for the true time of impact rather than at the time of final plat. The following payment schedule is being requested: 169 Single Family Dwellings at a rate of $820.00 153 Multifamily Townhomes at a rate of $653.25 Villas at Stonebridge Total Assessment (requested collection at time of building permits) Sincerely, 7o1df,- Todd Jacobs Project Manager Appian Centre for Design 479.466.8115 = $138,580 = $99,947 = $238,527 NOV02 2 2006 DRAFT COPY October 2, 2006 Mr. Matt Casey, P.E. City of Fayetteville - Engineering Division 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 i ca- %c - ,, SSvt W4, 1b14-Aumcsj\v& t (r,,C t, o,�L Cf e, %,. fakbr, RE: Villas @ Stonebridge Traffic Signal and Bridge Assessment The following is Critical Path's proposal to the City of Fayetteville for traffic signal assessments associated with the first phase of Villas @ Stonebridge Critical Path proposes that the Villas @ Stonebridge project be assessed for a percentage of the construction costs proportional to the traffic generated from phase 1 of this development to construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Arkansas State Hwy 16 and a new bridge over the West Fork of the White River. The following is a rational nexus calculation for this assessment: Projected Traffic for Full Build Out = 2,514 vpd • Assume 40% will go south on Dead Horse Mountain Road = 1006 vpd • Assume 60% will go north on Dead Horse Mountain Road = 1508 vpd TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT Probable Const. Costs Traffic Signal Plus Intersection Improvements = $225,000 Projected traffic from Full Build -Out of development using Bridge = 1508 vpd Minor Arterial traffic capacity = 14,800 vpd % traffic from development = 10% Villas @ Stonebridge for Full Build out Percentage of Costs = $22,500 City's Construction Costs Estimate for Bridge = $2,160,000 Projected traffic from Full Build -Out of development using Bridge = 1508- vpd Minor Arterial traffic capacity = 14,800 vpd % traffic from development = 10% Villas @ Stonebridge for Full Build Out Percentage of Costs = 16,000 Sincerely, Todd Jacobs Critical Path Design Phone — 466-8115 Villas at Stonebridge Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2008 Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 4 of 26 Unfinished Business: R-PZD 06-2170: (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646): Submitted by APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN for property located S OF HWY. 16E AND E OF GOFF FARM ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 53.03 acres. The request is for zoning, land use and preliminary plat approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with a maximum of 350 dwelling units and 45,000 s.f. of non-residential space. Phase I development approval consists of 91 single family lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the project, including changes from the last review: 354 to 350 dwelling units, removal of commercial uses up front, etc. He discussed the findings in the taff report, concerns with density and incompatible land use patterns, lack of adequate infrastructure to serve this development, etc. Staff recommends denial, based on findings within the staff report. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval, conditions have been included. Commissioner Lack reminded the applicant that there are a few members missing tonight and it takes five votes to forward a PZD request. Todd Jacobs, applicant, described changes, including moving townhouses to interior.of project, so single-family is adjacent to exterior, removing the mixed use area for the time being, making the park public. We looked at the Villas as a TND development vs. a conventional subdivision. This is f an opportunity to provide a neighborhood that is designed, sustainable, and has a sense.of place. We tried to create a neighborhood that is different, making great public places. Jacobs discussed bus service in the area, in the long term future. After the last discussion, we looked at comments and tried to look at the best use on this property. He discussed sprawl and the lack of usable/developable area in this area. Is it appropriate to gobble up this land with conventional subdivisions? We don't think so. Services will follow rooftops. We are trying to set up a standard for other developers to follow, in using/developing another flat area out here. This is an 8 -year phased project, giving this area of town the opportunity to grow. With planning, this allows the services and infrastructure to grow with the development of the project. There are five phases over seven years. Jacobs discussed St. Paul Park and trailhead. A park wouldn't exist in a conventional neighborhood. We do have to do a higher density to make the TND work. We hope to have support and look forward to Planning Commission comments. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated he would like to hear some dialogue from the applicant about why the commercial was removed. Jacobs stated that he looked at the phasing over 8 years, and didn't believe it was the most key element to support the project. We did try to include live -work component within the residential, to provide that opportunity. We will leave that area zoned R -A for now, and flush it out better at a later Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 5 of 26 date. Commissioner Lack stated that he thinks the services are part of what is shaky about the location of the project. To remove the commitment of providing the services may hurt the idea of the project. Commissioner Anthes asked if PA -7 (R -A zoning) was the area originally planned for commercial. If so, is that sufficient acreage for a commercial node? Jacobs stated he has looked at some conceptual design, and there is room for light office/retail. Commissioner Anthes asked if the applicant was aware of staffs recommendation on condition #5, wherein staff recommends that the limited commercial uses be incorporated as previously reviewed if this goes forward. Jacobs stated that he believes that's a catch -22, where staff doesn't support it, but then does. He discussed the concern with number of rooftops and use being proposed. Commissioner Anthes disagreed, stating she doesn't feel staff is double -speaking, or saying two different things. Staff has made its determination and a recommendation that is not in favor of this project at this time, but with the knowledge that Planning Commission and- City Council may disagree. If these bodies do disagree, staff has provided recommended conditions of approval.. Jacobs stated that if the Planning Commission feels it appropriate to put it back, that we :willbe' more than happy to putit in, where we thought it was best to take it out at the time from our last meetings and meetings with the staff. Commissioner Winston read from the project booklet about services and amenitiesbeing provided along Dead Horse Mountain Rd. This must be a mis-print? He stated he did like commercial services in the first plan, reducing vehicle trips by providing small services, etc. Winston referred to the buildable area in this area of the city. Jacobs stated he had looked at buildable area south of Hwy 16, and discussed surrounding development and properties. Commissioner Winston stated that the first four goals of City Plan 2025 were not really being addressed. This area's services seem rather limited, and this is kind of far out there. Jacobs stated that 6-8 dwelling units/acre would support bus service — they are not looking at providing this project with that service. Commissioner Anthes asked if the bridge improvements were funded. Pate stated that the project is currently under design, to the best of his knowledge. We don't know the construction schedule; initially was planned to begin at the end of this year/beginning of next Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 6 of26 year. Commissioner Anthes wondered if staff would support RSF-4 at this location. Pate stated that staff may or may not support RSF-4; development patterns and previous future land use plans certainly supported those types of policy decisions. That's not been tested too much under CityPlan 2025. The RSF-4 development pattern isn't necessarily consistent with those goals and identified policies within the current plan. Whether officials agree if it's a rational means of developing the city... the challenge here in looking at a standard RSF-4 zoning and a PZD, you still have the same rezoning findings, the same CityPlan 2025 goals and objectives. Without giving a recommendation, it could be difficult to support. South of this, the Falling Waters subdivision is probably more of a conventional subdivision approved through a PZD process. However, it did establish much tighter, stricter development standards, Tree Preservation requirements, hilltop/hillside requirements when there weren't any in existence. So, for instance, in this land with a traditional neighborhood development form, it's not really preserving any land on the property. Instead, it's anticipating everyone else outside the boundaries is going to do that for this project without trying to address it within the boundaries. That's a concern in these developments on the outskirts of the city. There are still a lot of property that could potentially be developed'between here and the center of the city. Commissioner Anthes asked what infrastructure would need to be in place for staff to recommend approval. Pate stated ;that one of .the primary goals of the Residential Neighborhood: Area is to -site new residential neighborhoods adjacent to infrastructure, roadways, alternative transportation and other business services that would support the density that is whatever is being proposed. Based on the density, we have a rational nexus approach — this many units, this much infrastructure — on a • development -by -right project. I don't believe staff could recommend the improvements necessary at • this point in time and still be within that rational nexus. It would be.above.and beyond what this project could legally be imposed upon to do. I think the bridge improvements are necessary. I think Goff Farm Rd. and Dead Horse Mountain Road are both substandard streets that need to be improved. There are questions about the intersection at Stonebridge and Hwy 16. Slowly, improvements do occur. One of the other goals with City Plan 2025 is to have concurrent infrastructure with development. That's the challenge here, because development is getting ahead of the infrastructure, which is unfortunately a typical scenario in fast-growing communities. The idea of impact fees would potentially help that, but obviously we don't have that in place now. So, it's a difficult question to answer specifically without looking at everything to get to this site. It's not adjacent to a major roadway network. It's three miles away from major infrastructure. Potentially, if improvements were made to Hwy 16 to get to Goff Farm Rd, or Stonebridge, that would certainly help. Commissioner Anthes stated that in one of staffs findings it reads that, "staff does not find that the developer should bear the burden of all these expenses," yet those expenses are necessary to make the project viable in staff's recommendation. That's why staff has ultimately recommended denial. I Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 7 of 26 think that's a huge statement in the findings that says we want our findings and assessments to meet the rational nexus calculations, but to make them work for this plan, it's going to blow the project budget completely beyond what would be required if this development was happening in an already populated area. What are the possibilities for east -west connections other than Hwy 16? Pate stated that fortunately, our Master Street Plan really looked at that with a lot more detail than we ever have before when we passed that last year. It's not evident necessarily on the maps that we have in front of us, but just south of this project at Falling Waters we actually proposed a residential collector street sort of along the base of the hill far enough up in the floodplain so we wouldn't require major bridges to get east and west, but down far enough on the hill so it's not going over all the hills. That's an east -west connection. There are several more south stub -outs we could potentially tie into. That's one that appears now in our Master Street Plan that will certainly help if those properties are ever developed. The golf course being at its southern boundary here, it skirts around that. I think that will help in this area if Falling Waters is ever constructed and can make those connections. Commissioner Anthes asked how many houses were planned for the Falling -Waters PZD at the time it was approved. Pate stated he believes it was 255. Commissioner Anthes asked how many rooftops were in the area. . Pate stated.he did not know. Commissioner Anthes was curious if this development would be doubling the amount of development in the area. Pate -stated that at one point staff did an analysis on how many approved subdivisions that were either under construction or had development rights vested, and it was roughly 600 lots that had approval. This was in 2006 or 2007. We didn't count existing rooftops. Commissioner Anthes asked if when staff made the recommendation about how,much this project would burden the already insufficient infrastructure in the area, were they also taking into account the development rights already vested in the area? If the market turned around and those projects came online right away, would that make this problem worse? Pate stated that we don't know which projects are going to happen for certain. We don't know what improvements may be accomplished. We don't know if any of the assessments required will be paid because we don't know if those projects are going to happen. So, bridge assessments really haven't come into consideration because in 2005, 2006 those projects stopped construction. The majority of improvements we've seen with subdivisions in this area have been along Goff Farm Road. Goff Farm Road is almost entirely improved along all of those areas, except for a few places. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 8 of 26 Commissioner Anthes discussed her concerns with the burden of the project on infrastructure, along with the concern that it could be blanket RSF-4 zoning. Commissioner Winston stated that if a developer were to put a commercial node nearer to here, at Dead Horse Mountain and Hwy 16, where the project would benefit from that, we probably wouldn't be discussing how the project is so isolated. We can't look at this project in terms of what's not there that nobody has proposed, but I think it would make a real difference, since we're talking about how this project is so far away from services, and how there is a lack of services between Elkins and downtown Fayetteville. This would be my recommendation to the applicant that there are other opportunities out there. Commissioner Lack asked staff to confirm that there existed just such a commercial node already approved at this location, at the corner of Stonebridge and Hwy 16. Pate confirmed that this was correct. • Commissioner Lack stated that there was a fairly substantial commercial development with rights approved at that comer currently. I will assume that the reason it's not there is because the numbers haven't gotten there to drive the investment of the commercial yet. Should commercial wait on the houses? One aspect of this project that is characteristically different than other places I would see this far from the center of the city is the golf course. There is a tremendous amount of development around the golf course already and also proposed. There's no way that I can see that the areas around the golf course won't develop fully and be a node of the City of Fayetteville. The street infrastructure is definitely something we have to respond to. The golf course definitely playsa role in that decision for me. I would support the commercial, even if it were just a zoning or the potential for lot sell-off at the entrance to the development at Dead Horse Mountain Rd., as opposed tto just leaving it R -A. I am leaning toward the idea of appreciating the better environment ofthe mixed -use and mixed - density environment enough to be in favor of it. Commissioner Kennedy stated he tends to agree with Commissioner Lack regarding the golf course. This makes it more accessible to those who can't afford an estate lot. I don't think placing the commercial out there and waiting for houses to pop up will happen. I am in support. Commissioner Lack asked to go through the conditions. Are commissioners in favor of staff's recommendation? If we do send this forward, we need to ensure it is planned appropriately. Commissioner Anthes stated that she believes the necessary improvements are going to be costly. Commissioner Winston stated that it is a lot of money, but he believes the improvements will help this area and be beneficial to current residents in the area. Commissioner Anthes stated that she understands that staff makes their recommendation based on the rational nexus calculation of what improvements this project should bear. What percentage of the total required improvements does this represent? If staff thinks there are improvements that Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 9 of26 would provide the correct amount infrastructure to be able to approve this project, how does that compare with what we're able to assess for this project? Commissioner Pate stated that it would be difficult to answer. One thing staff does is look at the access points for the project. These access points are separated by a great distance. The street in between is not improved, it is a chip -and -seal road. The increase in density and traffic will begin to deteriorate the road. We also looked at the improvements there. Specifically, the off -site improvements like traffic signals mentioned would help. Commissioner Lack asked about condition #2, PC determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards, including staffs recommendation, most of which supports the waiver. Anthes asked staff to clarify the recommendation regarding the landscape spacing waiver. Pate stated it was simply to provide a standard we had established. It's not a make -or -break issue, but continuing the established standard is something we recommend; there does not seem to be any - justification provided to vary from that standard. - ^ • - • . Lack asked about condition #3, zoning criteria. Myres stated she agreed with staffs recommendation on condition #3. Commissioner Lack asked Pate to comment on condition #3, regarding building area for lots. Pate stated that when staff looks at a PZD, one of the findings is to compare existing zoning with what's being proposed. What we will do is look at comparative zoning districts and try to establish a development pattern that is consistent and can be expected within the city and in these planning areas as well. Some of those range from 40-60%. We felt a lot of them were too high; the building area would encompass most of the lot, leaving that much less greenspace within the interior of the project. Granted, there is a golf course nearby but it is not owned by these property owners and may not even be accessed by these property owners. We're attempting to ensure that interior to the development plan there will be greenspace areas that will be active for the users. Commissioner Anthes stated she agreed with staffs recommendation on condition #4. Commissioner Lack discussed condition #5, regarding PA -6, commercial development. Commissioner Anthes stated she agreed with staffs recommendation. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval, in favor of conditions #1, 2 with the exception of B(i) in which I would support stall's recommendation in favor of denial of the waiver, modify condition #3 to modify the development Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 10 of 26 density, finding against the waiver for the ADU's in condition #4, and finding in favor of staff's recommendation for the determination on condition #5, and all other conditions. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Commissioner Myres stated that she does not support the project. I agree with many of the things discussed about the proposed density being preferable to RSF-2 or RSF-1, but I still don't think the infrastructure can support this amount of development and have to agree with staff that it is not the right time. Upon roll call the motion to forward the item to the City Council with a recommendation of approval was denied by a vote of 3-4-0, with Commissioners Bryant, Anthes, Myres and Cabe voting "no." i z Iii a 0 W 0 0 z W w 0 z z z 0 N U' 0 U' Q z W a LL W J Q M Z z 0 Z ZLU W Z 0 mu a Q o HOW w J m ❑ Q U � Z Z J ❑ o N4 � Q -J N� � Q J � i ct LU J J W W } LL I Iqh 68h' l � 46 y]B! 6 4k k 4� k h L S J3 ,,p b7 yy iN'! g aa- 000 Z W ryT W WWOWN MJWW NnW<JJJ WWWWWW�.Q� WWOOflZZZ 33 J yaee33 43ag3g3 o,W12 1HW$O°=O2_2ZO°a OZpZZ W2jW2a`����E�` zzz OU NV NNNVNNNVo55�S3 �rvn�(Ii Iii Ui iie p— c.-Nri•-du-e.-NC - N OIy N I N 1e • l N N IhD ft 1• •••M /bi•f NM R. So_ K{ Ways d`.9 Ei $ 33 ii { i . E•B Eif -NeCNy IW iil l Iyy� dF{ 99 IflEaf§3$�}aRA��e88�CF�3i� 7p97 e37@7 3@e� ! R.�B �g a"sW1l6I C 28 g EEe p p E([pES�WW2�i��Sli�Se_ SE/�d ayF " � • Ee ],i0Py• %!! T[Ti 1.��TV Ajm� =ni tof yf •v F�Y� i 0 N _ O N moo= o N ^: � a = W< ZW LL O U]J V W UW V F W N s LLI U' N N 1 a I N 0 II II II II II II II II II II II' II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 11 II II II II II A .--N w. < 0.• � I ta&1 ( i1 r `) nr bf 5 M A i S 1SOS'aY a r/'r IWJ' r J/ S YUM E 0 N i N ;afipp ire .. -- Oil kp iv�P �FkP� G ° P Syp P' �vHF���9ar °j �°li4P•t0" e°'S �Sa :E��F �p5ePyp��pppp e4v9Gyy�SppI Ali 'lY;c20 QiCeP!°[k�aPIIh qYr °4'a6�d�4�ap���iNecgia 2� G a fi 9PcFi�f �'lk pe ! SrSf4� G2va€g6G pyk"1 4 a"gak��+ggkg ° G K y5ep I. • *1• 1'r r—. oo°o�o�2is O 1OD 0 Iii1EFI � W • � •II • U. I.8 g }7 1 z 0• % O ��iKMJ � a O j `r ! �■■i II a 1! Baal j�{ liiIl i■■■f'I jjY e■■■ ]f, A{I U �I■�Ir 0 I I pS I 4 a 1 �sq' �I �1� 9 .1—m .1 • � I '��8�„oi � I, bill a � apo l el 11881 f§ l aI I ' . m ' ICI �IIlloal Ia11$1�lli��ip$l11 #!£9 I all ® F SF 1 —','4 V I I • � a e I ® n11 I H H I I ®' FSF F FF{ �I IL I I _® — fi LIL ® II ml 4i I® m I 11 � i F F II 361 �•/ i` ;s I --; — — — II IL 1 -• I Il / , fl fi . — 1 r e° II'I; II. ,� 1,.1 , , { ---------_--•-_--_ _ a� - c aovd Ifi •III �. •O _: F AhI 1 Ifi I I 0. I®1®I®1®i 1©1 p101®d I ; A I I I I I h(\ © I I®I®I®l®1®1®,' Ifi I I `"c$ d_ -- = - -- m'. I 1 I I I I I t I , II I at) u--. ® 1_ _ -I I Ilr •I fi Cd O A®' 1 1©I®10101 IlOi j , ' ® I®I® • 1 \ I I 1 • , b4 I 1 fir'' a __---.---.j Y Ifi U I I, Fy %.•r+' J. / \ • 'I �I c� o cII •,o NS N p .. O it l' j r° i/ 0• ( .� r� N i // �' E L 'ii IF a'firij ;/ Iy e, i IT:..! i I If u • ep A �igl lit ! Ir��lpd��i i� �i 4 EI 1 i t i;dnhii d i ih €e{ 14 II i ln© ISi' III I L I, Ft hr I I III IA rI i irco C A A \4} ' a .A rA� E 3JVd A J 4 .1 . .1 Y -. Y macoo�00000�o�000000��0�oc sa�M=0O:o�o�ooao�o� 0 cco�ooEWWWWc0000WWWWWWWW Iaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaa WI[V 3 __ S VN iUQO iOiO,O ai i-------- Oi ®i W 0 t7 m 0 o m Z .4 W Z I_u f W ' f I 0 `0 0 w W 7 : o d_ pa? o Y . . m I. ipa -� u aS ■ any SPIJIiI -' !g,ix �- fRK" ar •• III - !I • • , - - ♦ , E FFFF III I, • Ni ru 6u �s•i 6jaa i I �'I 4 I In u fI FrW'' yow F j8 N � J< Z l N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _IN �IQ I I I 1 I! 1- ---4--- Co / N INn Hsur H m IIIItloUU€I€II q 7 Y \'t ®, t co___ _ a O- - - - I ' ® !• T' IIV I. fly '1 • -. W Q — - •_. _" c Cl R p N 2 i t' m "^° z F Ei 01< -. Ixp1! .'T: o C W .Sa f � J J i f °: u '. si w W G:Y; J J O ) iE: a ..Y i Ia. � Y ia ® O RZ Y i e ''iii1;i��9;�l1 fl! IB9a hli�bu.ih §;R liiHn lifi ILLUI.o 0� 1x' I. III) _____I__________ a' /41) m�oa00000coo�o�oo�oao�00000 sa�o���0000so�oao��a�a�a�oaa �fl�G�C7G�CG3G�C�9799�G9��C�7 lmg:iiiii:iiiiiiii:l�ill �aoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa N oN�ad��H�N������aaaaaN4Ha�a !�slty gib i iiiiiliii.ih u;ak II #h11 O y.Y Ou a6 v9 lili 1 dOVd E 3OVd 1 — 1 L -----J •Q' W a m l o a a o^ ,- Lo U Z4 W m W df L41 F m m I J 81 J❑ > : 4 ni AA S ,- _ • II. • 'gLJ , a�. O Y c Y g w 1 O — o • U. ',. y ® > g vx - •Rf� � \ i .� O > e ® p ari! ._._ q b? s I r T -- ,\ hM IC Cq \ y O A I a y� Y -- _ — — -- a \• \ \ Li.I M fi ..11. ® I I I®I®I®I®III®% ,\ I _\. I- on! I a ,� a s Q 'I IIII� - H••i Q 0 0 0 0 O y'I Ill'p:I II It LII 0 IC_ Qgm 0 X11 t�1'` � aili iil[ Q11(���p-.11111111 w w •1�•II.gtI�g111M11 /�� ,� •off 1 It nnnn n•�nnwr�gwwwwwn Y•�ww ,d�� I , I* s,isS.nLS1Sdid1s SSLb� d��.id ii� li.l II��rntI�IIII�UIIII/11111IIII n / {./♦ �J •...N.... ••••Nq.gN•w\ •yr I"Z'yyab4yV�VyV4V4°VyVyVdyyy ��15 .� Wd L']• w Ydo YY w']wL w • ,/fJ 7 �4Vyaa11aa��a�"��a�aaa� f1� VVV�V VVV u 4VV. Wr1V B �CCC�nCC .-. C CCoCrCCoC ,a f , (��:'4 3+aV�y°y„rv•, y��7y4y0 /ILP.� I LL LUL LL__. _ .L .••.L.Lc.Jw I✓f.aael..:Ih:A.:116.....11.nneiuC.li:A r •I III � /\ rrttvrri uutwjIII W d/\ / \ / N W;Q *di<� - pI En m$sw b eg a.l;' III { — -- i! I1111111Idleaa� �I{ a i¢o F.le` '•7I11I 1hU1h';; ` ! J b g ajl�J 1 'lllar�5;1' 1L Ia 3 . dK.YY m n I II��j�n1E€ E�i ,l � nil -� •,.,.__. 'Yb It I EIIIII.1N1 I,,.I $Il �1�,E-I,i„Il,E;111•r; ;a + I � �I,�l•il��?2�a31?-1lIpI:1 I�� � II b q • III I rkVi1! l JlI1Ea ! llaE th}a i �P911 .fl -II[ Al .Y°.41MAHN S. Z ' w Co 0 z O Q z en z z z N' Ii �i' iII I 1 Al !hff y iI s Ir' I a F �Al} ''�a ii • : S f� I�i RA 7 s y7 !p llll i- I Y J S ;Ay IjL1Tl ��}1142 i "'p1 I}(P��t 3 jjA WI1'1_.r .> EE ��f �lff3ji�ig y�yII ry,ii1 ,■,g.h!h 9tAla OL�!'.AIA�i • u 6 J • o 'yl ylil ' } } °7a 7I fl - j E� +' sR �� x a 1 jii FA�9 1 IA1ji 1 I 'z1*1i' .�r �5<., `g oaf c F19 i • d 6 d m 6 w a a z w w a i 0 U Y I Q z z z a I z 2 5 a- 0) 2 z O C z LA 0 K CC z z a N do Cl, N a 0 a tuAd•{4i is rT li Ag I AAAy `R '` �S , III fr fl E3 s iit 91}��p� 1 } E ggFF gg gg Y 1 • a a ui w C I Aic1CS `6 $ t i11�!�3+ 11'1iI16i °Y T •SSS iI - U 2�I I 5 a A �A� 11111 El 11ai tr tE1 w'iliiEf° oa i 'i giiiiiiit Aaaf a�__ §f§isaa • J 6 ui !R? � n �3 gi SPA L CD 6 z ,F 1111 p`' I N lyy b'L. dE 2 yLi . Ar 4 nAt fill 7 e ya'{ s a 1tilt Itj?I 7]' I! c7 Fa •1111}1 Jim '' Ate '. o J Aj i yy �, 1 5 SfA9 ins flil 4 ! l.11 1111 ` p• u ! 4 1A i _- J i F{ X97 + j .Lry} i Ptai �° i1.j1 A;P� ' fl s: y j$+f, *$<1 a e C. E 3 e 5 3 it''' } .RSR {<icj7 44 gia!a!,13 'li!'� 1Sd §A§�36 It li �I t I 4i 5 �I�Iip R��BBa � i11lIli��i i;JnI Eli tiIhd 99e �I•° II -J ! III' <N T T ' r ^ so � U IMF X1,. !I = 1111 111J11�;�/ ♦V — • • I a; I I I I I I UJ 00 W W a aom a Y wz a a r u in Q = - jrr a W w go> 1 "\ 1 'a N%WJ V., /� • r• • • I�Ii.—._. I nrJ I I I I I I • I' ._._ I .1 - • L�� //•/ �itll�li•s=i�r�iedd liddBd /• \.'. IiI#'��IldldoIh H���(�!ddb c } IIfl © I x.o . �.gavo / IIrl 4, 1st 41 X11 „ CIn ae I I } y T Is I I - 1. I I I 1 _ . I I I I I I'-•�. I Z dJdd 1�!�1!lII�IMiE�Eoglq�ecpoie�r�� �iil�Illl���i pgpg96a �llidl��L1IIA��EEl� 'I•u[p?ag I h,di I#hIii 111 i L�JVd E2OVd _____ _________j z ;:TE .T, P4s$r, • moor 4r .) • W a a o n m rcrc ° Z ti p Q N m m Q = � 0 I[g W i� ❑ } J I- - 1w l & u• • 9. •'s ° o. - - � .—I iiIlslsss1l h Ils�shI DI ° ...._®o l.o 91111111 0811111: 1111111 Ui 1!111 III ■ aeossa its ca QAaa R .2*... R T "Veal's A _n".. Ii I + 1 l I I I •r -- • ---- -- ---I---- I E -- I I 1 I E Emma■ N, j • UI sW s ..j rY Z vg m z J• oo W F S 0 F Q •1. E.I f m w 7 0 •;a o lid o 0 • i J W • jaJ Q a 4 4 ' I Lii t 6 ' 1�piili i� a9�ai'°��Ap �i�t���llla�p�tEp�igl il�fill' I gi t IPi33i� t lr���l��; .h,h,i ! } o I t i .. * . I aaaoI irw.. • 111.o Ii 'i I II Ix� ''II II e•is 4 (( • t 99 • e5e l �n id C w9 i. }yY qo J�3 l l • I!T C" pl� p cp2 3 y11 e9° �[ I vl3t E g°, y aO= ?9 ! ! Ap� ee I led I eel !I pp1 €¢ ii, $ pp }eIle Ip� lejp I 9T 13 Ip p' p pI �� 'e II l el pB I, i pl p. e T e 3e , p fif 6.9 Ad 0 II .l. LI ..i li €[�lp . e. iI 1. n ♦ . . bI EU • I. ' A � �y�44wi'�n�Ar��Tt�`_I11Z O",�'� i.u�s-�•7yp•� �. ►k'i � 1 '.��1 110•. �\�'Iww�� _ VIII =.�j a' ' W+ -a..1 Rigi _ _a'i' , LII t! �c. ,�.weeew ,•n ;ow•r/1�1� ' •.. L'�I�..aw r;..,..,w�.. ���••� II III 1 /j�44' - - Y I 19 \ W Y - /Y o Y i � pqpq d<$� 4 e �JVd =Ilkri I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LUW �IN OO QIQ 1 c. ku ub 0/ f iii _— - i I �l b I I xl _ I z I\e r � I w \ i /0, "?R— '\--7 'bJ' .,S N' I loll at :IFr-3•� / / / / / / / / / / l I ' / / M W I9 I o 2d m rc d Z . Y ° W z I p F Q rc W I < O a = m i W O W 4 > a • _ F tY• - IzI - e I at p u O Il �i 'h ) 4�$ l i iilIl �����$�fl�$eII • i� p Ie �i a >57]$1 itl3$ts sps ..r.... e.� tpII r \\ /. \ )K /// \ Ill tW pp NI .w. TI f I I 'N_I —I--I- -I— lV I �Igai::f�4 9itlnH �•�e.r 11tl tlea •:�� a> {Gp 9 2 a e P e�e 1j g "pp 'id ' 9 •p Q e e� • p • ' P�g i a @� eg5� PE �E IP. j it ep"+p ��� ih �� Il q j�C !e 39 p z�� p Ele• p °•ilp�Es eP ';� pp ie p p• �� p y�aPeQ �p.�p�epe e t P•e ! e fl I p P C 1 111 s PE `� lP � `PEr�i4"$ �� l * i E 9� pp IL@e.acPE $IS fi lP.e•!�e � ��s Q ��^��$C�P,Pi�MPgEPSIas !1!! w kJ e 8 ED S + w i I'IIII; ii . � u • VII .a��.# I- - p•• —• — - t • - 1 _- - ____ - '-ece.b X7.1 :tee _�1 II I Inp ____ _____ uJM1.� •y�' I il;a�_'__ _>�--- _��+ �•, �/ am`/� II( ` �.•sz.te�•yS�vre5�`\t{,'� J -'` (�1 o f I mull I��c � �" � � • / �� JIIIIII I - IIIIIIIII • `, Ilsill;ll yyy - IIIIIIIIIII ' � ��� • r� O� � ��t '� IIIIIIIIIIII I, 7Y • - 11� '�J IIIIIIIIIIII. ••• j i. ��.�— •HIIIII _ •.� ��(jj, 4l 111111111111 � • a !' nllnnnn ' t• `, �• �•;0 �� � IIIIIIIIIII �..�'s / linnnu • , '�1.�'.�� � IIIIIIIII ��� •y�` - •.'IF 11111111 Yom`': Q Y, 111® _ I .e�q� [ 4/ I Gf/W! :1 11. \J 11 S •.. /�� .. ..y5 •�'lY-•' � rte; .. IIIliiiiunuiiuu111111111111liuiii11111111Mdfiiilllifli ` 'II, ► �I' 11111111111111111111+11, 111 !!!!!9!!'.!!!!!!!P!! ...... i ql i, illidnnniiil�liiii��ilii� l��iliilili�udliliuii 1111 f1 9111111111f111 8111" 1111111111" 11111;111111 111111111111 1 '- I• 1 III;ullt"tluonnnllll^•Elll;llU YnnnJ.Ylli^4l{IC{n�{li Ltl ll14! C1 �� F- �► � � � '1111 �M11111111111. . '�•ti�+ �� � itys# � ��� ��iio luiiuluunu ct�'>r� �� �, RlllR mural \\ � -,.�,` J♦ � SS.. S�4q tut {. Il�li 11111 111111/111 err,, �►��pEQ. mnmammnxuil ngnnmmm %y�_ ,•�� i!..!!!!!!"!PH' --------.1 I-1N-iltl iltilli1111W11/Y511Ni11#IIIIWIIii111 I i1 i •Ul iiiiiiiiiiiiliiiliiii IuiuuI 8 5i�y5 pYj 7t �� bit I8a! e4 �� li i� I t�� � aer� €4 i a °�p 9 �qaqi3 f! <og mzp a� it Y t ct �� T`Y'a'@ Ae �B .. -FIt'@t�lQE1SI-.,$la.pBg�aYlaa,ally@tk�. i >5e of Q 5 •�Iv����• e .5/ #yypee ## f ! . ['. a .o al .� 9@t .# 'i @ a c ycly aAd a d 4 l 1 'a '.: to m ! X �T l5 s h� rs l� lets 4@ # el�l!$E- �� i : o ep •p@ ! t a#!!�# 4 ea i'iec stfi r y� 99 i ; pY p Q o rl pear d ��! 9{ i$°� i!' 1���a,�=�l9Il 3 i Pleeaa � di i�Cl l �§l tl #1 t. e! ie I I ! �Yp IE Nil @a 7tByptByp p4 9 6ypya5p3�qq#!kd Q {9Eg3g �iyy(t�]17t i i 3 a: > .@f9p!$5�l ,G3tl :eBeitE 5,e..� . 5`a im II i ii f / / Al � —t- -- r;, Li i d 9G e 3Ovd O I. I fit` e/ iii 1{ \ r N rz LOUNW I I � — ...__ � volra arc �z.,a s �^ O �jiO i O j � �_ 11- I 1 �N N-N u -d- - A A IN ■a ltd_ _ si ■ ; r-.-; 1: --------J-- —� ,[C'[B6 M,el,l01BN P, a�p31 to b r. • te._I www� (/D Ia Ct 42 c 5 C\ a p _ N 1 I - 5 r' --- I N I 1 > p J n I Z+f :. Q _J 1eFL C t4 / a �� I = �.• nn 3[ a W W _ .. il J W —w I S U . US - - - _ Jz yB I \ I I � Ja ; e t \ p — --I \ t\ ` III O / /, ® \ S• I •1 C \` S� `/ O / \ r/ / III Q� ° Li eeIY Y �' O I m / O / �\� /r / iF MpggY7s 2F@�@e'��Y]$ I' 'g • 9° is ° t' i 'F li ; °y9gpgge Ski —. _ e� eeCC 3� 4 epee{c- i I I ❑� // /O \ I hp'lM IQF pd i°Q a 1P � kill Oat es;112t e�11l11 IS 3.1.._._. , ti /• J4IFIN@YIe.� Ir� N2'I��1 t / tl� 9e3 t!! c S A eF c F 3e h ee a= = +� s° 9 lei Nl°l$F= eslt gYF °N dN k# _� I O 4, Fop S eg N i t -- \ / Se(�g In �.'$ tg R!'��31� 99l I° '7Rp � ' ® I ti e: eMe a F.e. -1 ���ow — w —w —w —w —N I33MS ]LI.�p�'w /— �� W —w �N �N-W —w— 3 ICCJJ ' = S 1 • in 1 �I II t I ail Y rig I jI I+ i N 17 -- s I I ,, iiIY IFtIFF I 't I = 1 ii ® i _.—•� DII I I I 1 1 I' YY J I i : --►1 II I O �= I . 1 1 0 1 „ III l I III III II O II " x I I, I 1i 5 w-w-� w� v I f..N�1y�11�. O • -w W W I • ' r •�• W -W W �W �W t W I i I • _ _ 2 II III E I I pp I I I � I I' I y R � I = - Ij I . '-'-'I II O R I_ III li _ -- I I y � ��_ � 1 O 1 I IU _ _ } I Q • I O I= € {I Y !a 1 O II I I II O I I ' I -O NIii I; m II -i I ' II ti N I w wct- wIolI w w -w w wy W W W W w QI it O = i tj I —---- IIII r�,_i O i t0 € Irl R li I I. \. —• —_• 1"� = I o bA a • �rsw o�avrin 1 I ___ L_iaj[J 4 ; .- --1 1 I 1 I.—•— N b4 cit Q I Y I q f Y $ y �I O I� . I� �._•j'� C4-4 I _ N M_MTI1w.V�J M=rr♦M _M_M� —M Mew__ —M •TI ` MM M� M�•1vrW� Mme.54 ..... M�M� M —M —M r.�M—+n ti V •••~ a : Q IIIii J 7 a, _ I•_ . 1 II 'I r a •= y I' g `� tl I I m I _ . O 7� ; /f I tl _/ M4 Ii•ak= I I Q 4 i lU , B'N�LS7i�° s `11�� p. iihti.ih F i�pe epM i ' oeff 3, Ep eN j B B ni ti �i° t iO NN �ryIs I I° O I '�}� 0-�.:. DU TTY�Fb i IIj 1 S Sc i1ijI1j.I ! 'j 91 !s [ I i d i I IBB�B�°its '' I�I�'��'Ci s j{s6 1>s119� ■l�i�e ��� � 8 S C�PusYYY YYY a� I I.O O I ' V �u' o. • MO '{tswkF ti' •1�Vd C AOVd -J Uzi II r - i----f---- �• Vi=i a i $ i®i®!® I I I_ I 1 I IIT II IO®®®O'/.1 i I I I I ^"' I fire i i i ®IiI l®i( �_ I I �\ I I 4 ©:!it fl I-. —MGM—M i M I I / I fop 8 i IWa I 1 'I �y MGM—.— M �M—M • b >, � 't .9L6U M •90,99.99 6 W f °- •o2 n . I si c Z F• i l ofa Ee I- aft 1 1� oit• F 0 1 s :4 gUI 3 -, I t —n ' r I I J I1 7 V N . rr \ 1`. 191,14�I 1 y I I)IllilII 1 �IY iig C I'! �19 11 1BB1sa 11��111101If 11!31111 lii1,hl!HIT! 4 •° © 'fl'a •■ i � 'AAt ii II IbbbbbbbbbEil hi. hi. 4 4 I. 4- 111111111{j Ili111111iiivuPill m e o — 4. s w w YSI.. trt cTrrrF:9i !11 it .j$$c '.111 — r. /igp. I a 'tr I U .:.1 �, \ice ma^•nn __ --__�.�,, dl%�7iiLa�� �� 1L_t1yr►•I�Ip!'� a+ c's ar_..a�io>� rat i ti MA - I ,, t 1� 4�Q d yt ! g R is Iiil tnkIh IIIJI II IiI �oli�Iar�� •o O ■ I '$. b�.avpl lT 1 T II II hyQpp x W �g2g2` gg & pdpigy$•g �)q�3 4R n'e R4t1!Sc�gR ® b pr9ys�Sli debyi g�!₹6��ryGIbb! ;h L 8 �� biS ��itYyry3 9q __--------------------------.� I I IfI I I I I I I I I I I I 7/—' /: • H Ir /4 / / \ /7 \ / ii \ \./i / \ /7� / /ii / •y. // \. 7.7 hIiIiblihIiIiIH II l . l . i . . tl . i I. i . t/ I. . t Illllilllii I� ti1�I IIil�l�u�ii+� 1 i • 1[[ i l•[[ 1 • w i W 17 96 to Ee wz z inw 0 4' 5W I A e A 1 A^1.1 _ . q C S _Jiiul3e1.! 1 t�1� I1 1i l l 1 ei1111II� I Ii 1 i li illy IIHI I I, ^oI F11 .1 DUN 4 • •\ .�.1�:.�//I !i /I LEI! !/!/ .,� ♦ • 1 i .r,,. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee k So Ca k § .....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee| n• < ommr �k`k §§orn _ mO •,m� : 0: o: •\ -!!! z::: r= r c I > m O C 0 z e m z H @ ) ! �((((�(�((((�(�(((((((�(j���j - - - I. " Huh 'f wo a� oa°gs m vs5'�a �y+B'-•. a _w B GY u�0 Cl (�p �.n R OOn T ENTnN� mR 0N ny' 0� 5i ^,w S-3° 5'5•E. Rm 5co a w �.o acsg3 ca•E. p5•i B.�<..C o. _ $E� n aGo @= 5�°. G-3" r y'Er .y <ON a.�3 s°5'a<a--0ooa: `��a5•5�+° x mood '9 o ms a� 05II nyvg oy ^o fl °oon °�B6n - a5'-y°Sd m ac a'm� .. --G p p y.ym w n0Jr' mg'} �.`GG n=fsnw S' ng � ^- ,'°�ri;)).x..RO_. £. m Any o Ern n�rngw3 m cw $c5��nrs=0.5.Oy B. 3n �Sc S°.' a 2' TS° •T'°'�n- .o$��e0cwff'c'Za .F°�p'H $83Q �0$.5CmQQC3can����S 3e�`cit Aw OmC�B°c m, [3 MO9R II GC^ aEd$g,m^, §`AR°"y'� .6'' Zn m°hT `� C. O 3-nG E. 5. °< G 5 g o v �' < rGo o n s B '�.'cT ,0 9 R c. S• m 9 ,q. R.� �g a aE'•�+oy si Sao o —7 G aB .. CD �w $��E..� S• R•9$vq'9 E�g m6� M m 0 a 3o°�$°e��5'°'i� �g�•°nn a. Rn 'jpnQ N pp aG °, G0.8 Rg�.m. E ,N-., S1�E a 9 Er R.flHe mOg ,nom r 53'ng .Fr to n..yG oa»G. E. -'.3 .° E SS7.N a. .nG . ,m u,nie„j CD °y —n CM u911 n �{p� -n oa o R, nwnc FoB�Nn'a ON" n=<� N'dw°dmp Sw y�m�NG irr'S TN'S_nR rtR'�i 3'�3y-. `°ci 5•..^0° n<�5 mn OBe �w w Mme o $�R'ioa0 00 $v°$q �.-A.�,�n� F m�e6Tam �a Eude °S'o �E3°3�� •narao'g6vo<c 2v E.w; ��Gwj- rtwnn v�'5.moe Qn IEi' ..r enrsaocE aa`y 0o. �.� 3a $G+v°O� a S'm�tgmtqo rr,3 °moem °5>,c Er ��n �ywd�m^, °boy NO nv 5m'e °Ga'JQ F'i'..'9 G Gnc n0 '-C, , 3no_'gq ai �. Os.n. cmaCs<° nn a�5 n m5 S nG'� as hF' �°R�q� n•2 =Fo e�'°'�a nm wnn 7s -g "L 3$go xna'c$ omFRCo— Eady �Ee ,°n �gQ� mn�JsmyBpq o00G 'aRr�6A CD N, G�»W c mr°i,a<< `1'•Z <F�G19 ww''oa Rw 6'w°' oc-r'o 0Ed 6On$o°E. nm $" ti ≤ocaa 6'Tn �a a om•onpa r°o'n oE. Eq a6T+B•y S$°Ga-o n g �Ga.op °n° EoE, 0 -. �°5'•v.�.5v$ O H-i .ETSv a sa 0°sua a'3 w ��P''qm R. $Mo ao, Sw�ga °,moR m,�w�.B£a E. rsa"F°nm ggF NJ 6°°egooy Iso�T5�n v ° o '°Nn c^� `d.g,�85•gaR ri o°na$$�+6'6•$.En mp 5 °�w� 0$e'E n .N...°.°N ffzi .craa �F.�o no ��m'm ,3 am0» °, 5'_ a a' �d y ' niZ r'o� gR 00 rr + <' An °"1`�° o �w-n uo 532-r�''-8o m xg _v 3Q Smn B O—iiNg�NE a^CS35'vaN m B E_wgg g. snpF° dv°nc as nw �.ps Aa EnG'R Kc-C ≤.''�N. d < y mnn yoN ax'1"'0.1 nu -.o <Sa o eeg6 N °n ,.n o_ n —< O C A'^ MB ryu H n °n ;IN 0 G n O_ aa'& O om 5. �a°cR9' a g as g$3 on e0 mS mu o e arj a6 $ a -u .mrm B' ynaG� '�S vwm�v gS°' n'n69m °O f° `c rtam 0O E.a 'S�0 aSE.Sa -'Gn ,°. •°e S'a"°' 5m °°' R gN -(D a so' 0 0"oy E a• S 5'$N 3`ligg n_gr mFO $o o a -;so E on °' n 5 E. en w5's5_.$ •Fn �W o0B..°'i n',v n`»` gS5'�� R p5pT FE'yHm `,q3q vo'myym mo.y. 'flz—ct .O. $o ro 2 BbR 9.X $,oa? 'd $.6 B g n o �. 7i �+ < o l'g n a S' '— n e n ' 1 a -e n < = z_= �i m � _ ^�� RR SO N T r1 rt en o �° G N z /` ykON rr o C '� .. c C tl� � n n 3 Set L. y i fll•. • � N i 1 -{I l/I / .1r r T rI !._ i I _ / 1 I y E 01111H11'I ��� S ] ❑❑� �❑ i iii f 9 p S O S m o 0 it S C n } Mk jT Fsac ;d 1 ! it ,q oa 6 c w ;Iti a�5o g .� ♦ A � �, � thu �,n�o�,tl5.m ^ ^ J I ntl .! -- S- eQ o P III om ry� o � �� p. 5 ' 5 N 2r- 01/' rcni O Zr 0 O i -v,^, ar�'Oy zT 0. U + A g z ro E n O S g ova D a 5�n Az R' TS U 2 E.t py wino �T _.00 T d9oq a n = 5'2 17z r c a -, << OOZE z z_ T�Nw z C p ?i m p 0 m D E=Q V+rt w�0 aQpNa m E5 S fl.g -r 0 z ADO c cn Dccy g cn ti 5'a?00�. °� = 2.2.= 25 e. 2.m > '*fn O drt nn m mn9nD5mpm-�'�n.p $ n m 3m 50•Z^'�5= < 3 m.. o z N A < D 13 •e s a m CC = DCD H y On" 2 N T 6 rt 5'w m to �? m a c �'--• -I m i o [ pip e< E F mN O E () O',� � ONAO poo:A 5o2o 4A Ou ZZ. P N S'-] O:n �' Gn ppx= 2525 at5 �z as W^g 30p -�. NNNN RC: awn to - 5 c E ,P E ow on n E w 3 a ^ a < m o r m C c) z as am ow Z ow - ow-_ m n 3w D3 w F fi� y��anpo N a "3 �3 = n O m z m >w m p C m C C m m m 3 z r en r a i N ^_ m O Y/ nO a m O O. Y Q W pa".. Or W. ON ZL PP ;n z p, a R NN IJN Nry a3 ad C -' ,v ..o NJ Co 30 3� ar OF Oa x3 0'.0.0 r - ce gF.om3a� =5. a �' D w o c� R A = a" 3 CN1 fi z °. 'g< ; ' m e 8^ w (� a D F kfi.,�eaoO 8 u$ 41 c m c m5.E Kaaggg. Nrs aS Gn ^ ..o4� a fin, o' u5 a.gHRFIR y S £ F m po Vi a �`e< 4n �e nn mm••fi .. I oQ:EE. S• 4A ARE $am° e o c.� r�R•m 5'a� y 'o eFEw ae� n ae�So m II eo£5a a GQyv 3 3,e Z�y Snp<r 'n9 n .,,m 5. oa� 8 G �oe.a aF 3 'F rMw m V O TT v D CD m W 90 a z z Z GD D L z O I m T O m U G) T m o f7 �T 5'nC a •7�N'n y -iC r 3 r r Z FD O CCCC n DCCC $d w� TS n Zm na�m1 o n Z = Oy Sa ? °^' ^ m 9.°.°.°. 0 0?.?.5. m qq z ----z ^w p�ggmD�:AE.�yza3fly AtAOb� t O i z G s9 m o ° r C m m 0 C c 3tz_n m F 3 C 3 2 N r nO� n s 6 OO ON NO IJ O Sod'. SryTw E 'l�C� w E. -w m t �� aa2w Zr S.ya 8•< o o to o w pp, f 66SGC� no S G r c d m Pm 5•o g�^ g, F%egEp Z eq 0 25 e O° Z Za 5"gy m 'r O n =� z a c Cr ° z° 'r o ., n o„ 5. < (� 6 s D n 0-D m .R � y (a O n on T 0 Fw fig O oao≥ as r En, _no wW m D Oy S'i [�wCT'w - 5R z we o`p m o r'� aao ° E� z w',2 5.5 '0- N.) E n S a wwR "' S '�'G m mamas aC v°00 d[fJAB_ H a oE` fE. ne ^ j n ° d c ^ oa =am a ^01 � F rtw E.2 A. m on > C d w R y n n w ^ n _ n y E C OA a' <y p'3 p» n� v ��T❑da 9n .°.^ _ 0 n0 Qwpy5. _,o A G.c„a' p. ° or 6 ° _o Y ap e d aS pN N. 4 ann N.� P -, L.. z Ct D Cz O O C ^ , V/ m U) u =ulI l r_ .$1 .$ -- _•��A. I tw ;!. 71 m p C'1 FMS ;rr z aap c__Cl a -v aw 5 yak _mm o n z» -4 — —I ' ,^� n m ?P.?. . 0 0.?.2 m OOam z ..-.» C.. .. .: A S.$ao C o. S•00 �. ry n N `o a �C) O W O s` Fp ',.2 O fEt .J Ain O" R m 5 $.y p',��'_' = 3 msewn o7 oz X395 S ^m o6'Ps CeQ D m '0 �. ° g5.'� zi r. a°+E.aoa n n a z = c m ° e w C < o 5'O ao ft c ^y wzn mIn o °-'.o n flu) m _ o m 3 e° 5• `°a r 3 ^ S wy� S, E Mme 9 m a m e a o m . , oon V AOm J N N gS°' 6EF 600 ^IR loi 3.6 S ry T R t 4$ i as �n ° o. 0 ff m w 5 wo m g m S w e < a 95.w E5'o' ,_5 0--+� o 00 nao y N da" $^ y m p m y n x m m O 0 m m 2 z -4 o- N 00 n S nT ,no 0 ia TW N N 0 J z 0 0 z C I. } ._t'lIL - Q C • • : - v4i. • '7t. � I F a � i - y rCi��♦.• �.p • y 4 wH d N la �` As ?I m G n �aamD?OcO wo 00oaae w � roe ti z a ti O4 3a ? Ory G _pp. � z '- - z-- c: c: a D e C w ."9 N rEp ; N w N a - N> ; l7 D ]1 w — ,- m p G m s i z o A s woy'J C� z C H AITT v m m m m c a y r 3 „Fy < z r E. H r �n c Onn 5. SE2 N N N N 00 _ zz — rya Rrt R 1P O S y'n 22.2 o Da N pw oc a S RUE '•D a.�i a< 060. e Ig E -- d no F w 3 rB"'w ee'c " -�-D pp N eR'^^ra p 2D p �"O 5'r TE EL2 'i Z> w z J�Y(f r.z G o o.o G�'55 ° z 0.0p o .-.. y Emop m Gm eZ D Ofl EQwo dl D IC 4�oE� o a �n pp r� pya� ≤ C .ei 'O+� a Op.'a "' Jy r3pwvOi°y o 3 oioow m. 3rA≤ op+ 5'�e FOv� E m Qo o'ri a. v,Ct 3 w'?nc5.o � i wyw_oc 0 0 W0 00 ryr o as oCt CCt Nv Oct Oct C O ba coo NO u . Z m ll I cJJ C m 0 t ~t a n S- r x p n rr e W W x A�*+m zr zrzr„ z ox Ma a�9z D m L1 A en C) A Oy � -fin a.� 5. C. < z z c mM Oh z Zr L1 m U U U FP 2 0 v zz �w n n r x —i m a > qo �= j� 5x �= o o p d.5 Rio S D m cn C H a m gz a y a > v W N o = O 3 S p Qo „ N o (p /M V ° o w ° R S n �' a O rt n A E. a m N O) Ct O C H m C) m .M m p 2 g33 p� i� � Q m= � 0 g o 5'a0 R�0=.° � CCCCy_o>≥- p ??? ?.? ?.'. m o n o e3 9R E A ((1) p `i4fi3N uNNn>Npw�J „..-; aa°°ld� 'a D .L c u'i '^ �.��fNG - a'ao ^. p+ m y'J ..N \ Z O 2 m d O V m N A 3 2 m y ° .. Z N T o a aa m N C m a Q A° F fxnnrn u Din y ° a 0ToaE yrt�coE o '� '' ;i E m n 3'^>•� c m N `�i go��.�aR' pp ° a. c.:.° e 5 �. E, e °off ° 1 sway opSo m n m m ��2 �w 5n'o o C, _ m m 5 9 r !C x m o (i V y r ° V T 5m Z '< n— p 3nm > m ° c ,'oR m m S N n Z m n ° D n " ^' g. 7 0 T _i n 0 ti �^ > E �cp x `� �i p aR. `"ae7 ooyyE° — m z o N p m� y 6<�� < rt > px _ 35 m C n e35 E> Q c°'�E70 me5ya x Z EE ti O -° V p _ rt p Z O o.E a -ww C S5F y. Cl '�"�' C E$H �.°y. g. m 'i _ 7 ^g ° N m7 n H oI�Ea Z o -°=o 6 3 (n � a �i c^o-5c9 �a5PffH y °m m (1 -.off s gw ��°5° �� rt °py?$ 1 � F�Yo E^ �� op �6c� LaoL B�G. F�cF. R R R ., w `m m gn p 3 Win '°`5' 5 o 0m n S a a D m3 F ,�0 nn om • mo - -o nn �5. °o' �wo aE - - I - r J.. — L O 0 fl S g a fOr 54 Sp4 O v d 6 C� SY at c 3 3i lF i ij iwT g3 3 N a acct CC 3 9 fl a N ee ya}sue v c i 33}��" I 53.a 1_s e s 3 a.1, 1 a " 3 _#. _ I S T e if q un w _w rccccc CCL e aaa f1 $ 3 13 ,i 3Q ,acv jn 3gg•i11! 4Sw c S V• a $jY • 1 IIa. S .4gaJ a g y� 2! Em g i6S 9S i € 11 A v it y cc e t 6 3 3�1 IIf it g = } z $g3 �5 4 wco MET s x• z g " �� E, x a g aE as Ea Ei I. wi� 3e•"q fi€o ssiw6 33>3 aw.a d B �Caaa Y n •ij �Y l 9mn IFS e w m cc as cc y o2 S S � 1 y OY fl as p� Y S a0 EEO6 El 2. 4 y3i n as a� ge SEO a, at g paaa E"3 3Na �Ll Yip i ! Pi€� g� y c c $q $y}pyg I ma u- %• Q 2AN 0 • I 'i gg3 e a¢ f $� 9pg$� a 33 EE a �• !M FO •309 9 3 C>3 Q��•e E e• a aY as a � t i • �F 5 L+ yyip1 �32 c ccctC aaiii4 L Y x��• Y c 4S 3 ydd v' YAO I ➢ 9 oq PC ,y A a 3 Ye �e 5nE E a �Y w•- } 3 O u is YY 3m L •e •i l np 3Q a _ - I d w hZ E E�p i i i iny a a o u53 .p1vV w j-i Ipiap S i a (( $ i gg S G P�B a a�36 4 • Y sa8 $ a g $s g s a ai I }C- w� ii • ' - 9 L ₹ wcv S S Ji0 I g cog � e S Y 5 - Eair �e 8�afa i Sr ] N N lz ii a l cCCCC -- aaila i._ q ii 'd •' . N w•. �aeN a a .p9 gF Oi aga eys yy E 7 �5�433�iy ILI y] p�:��� ci �c Aca >1 U 4 �b 2 1 na�R. n 28 8 Om 3RKS rce'on°o 'flu z A rt n y.78 m 2 y 0 C.nR n m ^ n C..' =, Jr'' ^. O E .0 .0-I my Y0 Gi < 6J :11O a — •td nW>SiRy O 0W%O�6COy G 58 n yy ^C y ~~ T mn;6N On,5@ op cG�3. Nm p6 p°,8o^ yEm5d,3a as gds Crt % 8£y OEW� yE C1^y rr rS 5w.c oG.38m c^ y cy.°i F�^G.a°Om .ao Zr i ^SDfioo�° Qe' m °Oc�A0 O Fn <ma05a'0n �' �.89:v5 N 5w y ma^ F no n°'m rZ Anaq z 'mu WWz=—=e3 aac °5''O'aE0te. a(ap Q�W`< Eab° n N�5'm edam-�y mW o n34 �$�� LNG .n •1 fl ONo art Dtl 3 5 C' B�Sn �9R �rt ≤. ≤ a 8ek .°.Q fief T5' w n j 3 °e °5° z y E _ ENS. x^—.nm O — O • pC. °�maN^n o'. r 0 pH p T O y r So� (aC. ' Ecj �enr''ev'Rog5.=, oA ��'SB 5F En n A�n c 9e mpy Q•G E. n SymO'>^+, ^y+ AP.a < Ew °TsyayB o,a"'E '3o=. ≤ yE5'�4 E�.' ^� yaa £. m pe S mbS. �`bCCy<do yae 888. NaMg E-� 8005. E5 m Os a0 n ^eiyS aga ^ "3 np �,�°�'' o�y aE5 ' Ede.Ed. R n... y.8gg:Q n 3aday'a5' c`g ° e8- Bog ,a �n a'$��°�o`=T_^n ��� Eo an Gm� yo 0�'�g 'oE' El 1 S. n I D ,-p z o m n mm m n m o N O N z m D N r m v 0 F,, N 0 OO 01.0 N .O r r z 0 m m 1 ti m r r m C) t z m z C 0 z m m z ry D C 0 C c Cl) m z m C m ."0 II C r m •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• �N 91i.-1� UIO�A °.B[rzTy C T O mS' 'ym°o aA Ea era n ae�F Sn pp� o^ Z,I 5��n5otyi Om Om B;y ,m0 �9any9 3._ r y^ S B• 9 3nnn n.aQ w°°n'Ta�9 aO nCd. 03,5'� zmt Da$ waEw ^,Z�ndcm ^w^anA_��, $i 0 r" mr� s0 �i°Eryo a o" Z-0 m �,�m rv3. E, `°9 mg CPO > Omrp 0m ,nda c. p a 5 _ k�ea D a y_ ao o _:.sm -R $�-`a. 5. ro gm m MI flu, oaa d o -n- 5�n ^ C aE5m m `nO E a O y O K F-..m.J 6 O 0 R R o ry z i ngJ _ Z D own Z o m -� .. -1 F GE• 3 C o� 2� '�'g g• NOO S. yCmnj N Sc a30 m o� �o a'a ZmZ 5' 9nE, P.�3. $� `fin c re oo'ca �a O Zr�y a.m 5$ dg3c O`�o' d.�mom m on I'o Ta '5'3 Oo O . p E '< - m �>•�PFiC a Ado $ n o S,S§ c hT n aID eG5pn 5 5x°3'2 `� $a 5Da 5' EE'ymoo^$,c�'P .� . Fxm 5qm 3�N °. afl �^°°9 aAg SNoyw mm $cn° EGR nd m'-�cs^�5 05 0o m� fiE E �. n -n _ -e _ a_ '+ �+1EW -n5 wrn rn N E- Fy'°� q9 °o^+�pp`"��. w'•F CmO'p6 ?�-�wn�� `m!�.mx `w<Hn �s" gg 6 ='g ^i ryryo B.F'< S. O n-._ o<E.so� A� n� 3$�m aa a�^^;o°on 'tts -n.. -'o. A �as �n Ew y5 S `�wnq anEm "A��E S °nsBE --. fl nG� a=. n N c�ajn p oy5 a rtp-p. n at nrCnn G. ao5 6 e°gg�ggoarte 5'G raEE °' BGm�5� °c S �.� ^ w$ fin go. B$� 3SE5y'F Ngd cIn v 5n5 $�� Rm _^ '�� m .n my . Ja ?tea -^NA � °c �1 �og,�g'u yy -°egoB Hid •m am n$ S, as wn why' o g g g En �° ^5ri 0 .wnw'o �5•Pm ' S'C'g wE +.. X- S' w w° F tt�O�•3 �5F, F_ n^ 9 ✓� a A w 6 m F O ° O E n-0 o Ps -el.' S � ' E<o mno5' 5<3Nn n a a tv y e w5. ^.�3�Scoa m w5 'on Gsw g�a,'u gna-A mho S o m Eo m Q n gp$ n 3 a p rt n a n w .s-8( 3 F E e 3 m o o g5R 6� UqF (a B. Gowan C0 n m °5_. .n w _C �i G4 Ga Eon Eom< FoO cn'`� m S5r.• > m d'2 sc mn00< c > Fo E eaenE v s wOw nw Sa 55 O J f1 E n d .T g5�w°ma H Froe3F�a• v,nea -- ° =0 nB^ Sn 0n $pm a wnd G'E.n, m anzp ^,Qc So Em n�� �' B p,o <n+nw <,y�+J n w0 mZa0n o °C woe0 v -0=-. M �a °o rt9J $�H E4m 0- - `Jo a ; <C' a"� mg�y B. >•a. �op?� H o�o mg O' d d G. F'O `aGn C. E j 9.19 OOlOi ..nn -E o Eoo o'�m .. 6.e FFn_�_ a ;F aoM na m,+r.W o: o 2)2, w n 5.� oo 3�c.m 5.,�n <� 5' yn$ ono 55 � °��B.B �+Eo5w? I B 'E'BSd �B 5.B.a m° e8'm BB 5' 3, 0 5 Frt_C�y''T �w ',�� Si' -,vT Qo o:�a� w -.�-°" o E a ^w wm 5- o= ogaw Eyw E o J.. C n- 6o C. C. B.�yw a a_a to pno n3 y cn — w3 — E'�'— Page l of l Clarice Pearman - Ord. 5220 From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 2.19.09 6:42 PM Subject: Ord. 5220 CC: Audit; GIS Attachments: Audit; GIS Jeremy: David: Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council regarding R-PZD 06-2170, Villas. This item will be published and filed with the circuit clerk. Please let me know if there is anything else needed for this item. Have a good day Clarice file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\cpearman.000\l ocal%20Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\499DA812F... 2.19.09 RECEIVED FEB 27 2009 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION Benton County Daily Record P. O. BOX 1607 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 PHONE: 479-571-6421 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: City of Fayetteville Ordinance 5220 February 22, 2009 Publication Charge : $119.14 Signed: Subscribed and sworn to too before me Thiso day of � 0 ` , 2009. Notary Public CfIjQ My Commission Expires: �j/JY 4 Do not pay from Affidavit, an invoice will be sent ORDINANCE NO. 5220 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL 1 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 06- a r V ��� 2170 VILLPS AT STONEBflIDGE, LOCATED SOUTH /1 OF HIGHWAY 16 EAST AND EAST OF GOFF FARM ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 53.03 ACRES AMENDING'.TIIEOFFICIAL ZONING MAP pRKARSAi OF THE ASSOCIATED F FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE MASTEROPMENT PLAN BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; Sectron 1: That the zone classification of the following described property Is hereby changed as fd- bws: From R -A, Residential -Agricultural to R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebrbge as shown In Exhibit 'Aand depicted in Exhiblt'B' attached hereto and made a pan hereof. Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development plan, development standards, statement of commitments and the conditions of approval as submit- ted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Ccumll; further, that Me conditions of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerknreasurer of the City of Fayetteville. Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be In full force at such time as all of the require- ments of the master development plan have been net, Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED thls'17th day of February, 2009. • APPROVED:By: By: ,.-r ATTEST: IO LNELD JORDAN, Mryor SONDRA E. SMITH. City CI.AFTnoura Exhibit A Is a map and may be viewed in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer during normal busi- ness hours. EXHIBIT'B' R-PZD 06-2170 A PART OF SECTION 24, AND A PART OF SECTION 25 ALL iN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25 AND RUNNING THENCE N 87°01'16' W 987.33 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE=ALONG. SAID CENTERLINE N 03°0300' E 600,87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD CENTERLINE S 87°0116' E 52.27 FEET; THENCE 556°35'20' E 339.81 FEET; THENCE S 81°27'33' E 631.08 FEET; THENCE S 33°4931' E 271.57 FEET; N 88°15'23' E 161.27 FEET, THENCE S 42°1139' E 488.91 FEET; THENCE S 04°3652' E 928.17 FEET; THENCE S 15°59'30' W 713.53 FEET; THENCE S 70°37'32' W 185.48 FEET; THENCE S 32°3957 W 467.30 FEET; THENCE.S 46°5922' W 162.84 FEET; THENCE S 16°0227 W 109.30 FEET; THENCE S 02°3346' W 105.25 FEET; THENCE S 36°4944' E 79.65 FEET; THENCE S 16012.04-E 74.82 FEET; r THENCE N 66°5506' W 339.76 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID ROAD CENTERLINE N 49°07'24' W 36.69 FEET; THENCE N 60°1241' W 100.68 .FEET; THENCE N 77°29'04' W 137.15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S 86°55'06' E 456.61 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 02°3346' E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25, 407.00 FEET; THENCE N 87°261St W 213.99 FEET; THENCE N 02°33'46' E 1276.27 FEET: THENCE S 73°50'46' W 819.41 FEEL TO A POINT.IN THE COUNTY ROAD; THENCE N 02°33'46' E 42.23 FEET; THENCE N 73°5046' &1045.35' FEET;, THENCE N 02°33'46' E 843.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING AN'AREA OF 53.03 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AND EASEMENTS AND OR RIGHT OF WAYS OF RECORD, RECEIVED FEB 272009 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE