Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-22 - Agendas - Final ayve ARKANSAS 113 W.Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8267 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,September 22,2008,5:30 p.m. Room 219,City Administration Building ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item—Chair B. Presentation of Staff Report C. Presentation of request—Applicant D. Public Comment E. Questions&Answer with Commission F. Action of Planning Commission(Discussion&Vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Public comment occurs after the Planning Staff has presented the application and will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Members of the public are permitted a maximum of 10 minutes to speak, representatives of a neighborhood group will be allowed 20 minutes. The applicant/representative of an application before the Planning Commission for consideration will be permitted a maximum of 20 minutes for presentation. Once the Chair recognizes you,go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. He/She will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Open dialogue will not be permitted: please ask any questions, and answers will be provided once public comment has been closed. Please keep your comments brief,to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2008 Planning Commissioners Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Porter Winston Andy Lack Christine Myres Jeremy Kennedy Jill Anthes • Taeevle ARKANSAS The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 W.Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8267 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,September 22,2008,5:30 p.m. Room 219, City Administration Building The following items will be considered: ConsentAQenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the September 8,2008 meeting. 2. PPL 08-3086: Preliminary Plat(CREEKSIDE,360): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING,INC.for property located at the SE CORNER OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND BRIDGEPORT DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 10.94 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 16 single family dwelling units. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Old Business: 3. 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. Planner: Jesse Fulcher New Business: 4. C-PZD 08-3062: (WESTSIDE STORAGE,400): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 1192 N RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2,THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.05 acres. The request is to review a zoning and land use only application for an additional climate controlled storage building,a new entrance from Wedington Drive with new management buildings at that entrance. Planner: Jesse Fulcher THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL THE OCT. 13,2008 MEETING. 5. CUP 08-3097: (VICTORY COMMONS,560): Submitted by TRACY HOSKINS for property located SOUTH OF RAZORBACK ROAD,N OF THE ARKANSAS-MISSOURI SPUR. The request is for additional square footage of residential over the percentage allowed by the UDC. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 6. LSD 08-3037: (VICTORY COMMONS,560): Submitted by BATES &ASSOCIATES for property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, 500-FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH 6TH STREET. The property is zoned I-1,HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 1.29 acres. The request is for a commercial development with 18 attached dwelling units and 9,319 s.f. of commercial space with associated parking. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 7. CUP 08-3095: (RENAISSANCE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT,523): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located on the NW CORNER OF COLLEGE AVENUE AND MOUNTAIN STREET. The request is for a temporary parking lot with 46 spaces on the subject property. Planner:Andrew Gamer 8. RZN 08-3084: (CANDLELIGHT PLACE,367): Submitted by PAT MCGOWAN for property located at the SE CORNER OF GREGG AVENUE AND ASH STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4,SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY,24 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Data Sanders 9. RZN 08-3085: (WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU,400): Submitted by VINCE MASSENELLI, MGR.WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU for property located at 1165 N.MEADOWLANDS DRIVE. The property is zoned R-O,RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 2.53 acres. The request is to rezone a portion of the subject property to C-1,Neighborhood Commercial. Planner: Data Sanders 10. R-PZD 08-3071: (BRIDGEDALE PLAZA,569): Submitted by JORGENSEN&ASSOC for property located at THE SE CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD AND RIVERMEADOWS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE AND R-A,RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 15.95 acres. The request is to review a zoning and land use only application for 129 residential units and 40,500 sq. ft. of non-residential space. Planner: Data Sanders 11. ADM 08-3100: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 112,CLEAN TECH.USE UNIT): Submitted by Planning Staff. An ordinance to amend Chapter 162: Use Units and Chapter 163: Use Conditions of the Unified Development Code in order to create a Clean Technology Use Unit. The Clean Technology Use Unit will be allowed as a use by right or as a conditional use in industrial and commercial zoning districts. Planner: Leif Olson All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning(575-8267),125 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville,Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public hearings;72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 575-8330. Taye71 PC Meeting of September 22, 2008 'ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: September 16, 2008 PPL 08-3086: Preliminary Plat (CREEKSIDE,360): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at the SE CORNER OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND BRIDGEPORT DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 10.94 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 16 single family dwelling units. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Findings: Property: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Bridgeport Drive and Mt. Comfort Road, and is bordered by Hamstring Creek to the south. The approximately 10.94 acre site is currently undeveloped, as the single-family home and accessory structures that were on the property have been removed. Background: The applicant originally submitted a Residential Planned Zoning District(R-PZD 08-2990 Creekside) on May 1, 2008,proposing 52 residential dwellings touts in a condo-type development pattern. The proposal included single-family, two-family,three-family and multi- family structures. The project was reviewed at the May 14, 2008 Technical Plat Review meeting,where staff cited concerns with tree preservation, density,compatibility and disturbance of the floodplain/floodway. Staff also noted that the floodplain/floodway data had been updated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in May 2008 and therefore the floodplain/floodway data shown on the PZD proposal was no longer valid. The updated data expanded the floodplain/floodway boundaries to the north and thus the amount of developable area was reduced, significantly altering the original PZD design. Considerable changes to the floodplain boundary, staff concerns and opposition from the surrounding neighborhood organizations regarding density,property values and design standards resulted in the applicant withdrawing the PZD application and instead submitting a preliminary plat application. Proposal: The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 18 total lots. Lots 1-16 will be available for single-family development, Lot 17 will be reserved for common open space and tree preservation, and Lot 18 will be dedicated as parkland allowing for future trail construction. K.Teports120081PCReportsll8September 221PPL 08-3086(Creekside).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 1 of 14 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning, Direction Land Use Zoning North Residential RSF-4,Residential Sin le-Famil South Residential RSF-4, Residential Sin le-Famil East Agricultural R-A,Residential Agricultural West Agricultural Washington Coun Water and Sewer System: Water and sewer lines are adjacent to the property and will be extended through the development to serve individual lots. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Mt. Comfort Road (Minor Arterial) and Bridgeport Drive (Local Street) Right-of-way to be dedicated: Right-of-way in the amount of 42.5' from centerline shall be dedicated for Mt. Comfort Road to meet the minimum requirements of the Master Street Plan. Sufficient right-of-way for Bridgeport Drive was dedicated with the development of Bridgeport Subdivision. Street Improvements: Improvements to the south side of Mt. Comfort Road shall result in a 28' street section with widening, curb and gutter, storm drains and a 5' sidewalk at the right-of-way line. Improvements to Bridgeport Drive shall include a 5' sidewalk at the right-of-way line. Connectivity: There are no interior streets being constructed as part of this development and therefore there are no stub-outs proposed to the west. The south side of the property is bounded by Hamstring Creek. Access: The proposed project positions 13 lots with access only to Mt. Comfort Road, which is a minor arterial street. Due to the fact that the request is for a residential subdivision, access for each lot is permitted to Mt. Comfort; however, staff has voiced concerns to the applicant regarding individual access for each lot to a highly traveled, high speed street. Accordingly, the applicant has presented a shared drive, which would serve all 13 lots, but reduce the number of curb-cuts to two. Staff did ask the applicant to evaluate the use of an alley cross-section along the rear of the lots as an alternative to the front-loaded driveway. The applicants did so, but the cost increase proved to be a deciding factor. Staff is fully supportive of providing a shared drive, which will ultimately reduce vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. Parks: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting approximately 0.83 acres of parkland dedication for use as a trail corridor on December 3,2007. However,the dedication ratio was based on the original proposal for 52 dwelling units. The applicant is still proposing to dedicate 0.83 acres; however,the amount of required parkland dedication has been reduced to approximately 0.38 acres based on the current proposal for 16 dwelling units. Consequently, the remaining 0.45 acres of parkland will be banked for future use by the developer in the same park quadrant. Tree Preservation: Existing: 11.28% Preserved: 8.75% Required: 11.28% Mitigation: 36 two-inch caliper trees- (Existing tree canopy within the boundaries of Lot 17 will be placed within a tree preservation easement) K:IReports120081PC Reportsl]8-September 221,-PL 08-3086(Creekside).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 2 of 14 Public Comment: Staff received numerous letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors who vyere opposed to the original PZD development proposal. Since reducing the development to 16 residential lots, staff has mostly answered questions from neighbors. However, a concern now is that the project isn't a PZD, and therefore there are no design standards for neighbors to review. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PPL 08-3086 with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends that Mt. Comfort Road be improved to provide a 28'street section with widening, curb and gutter, storm drains and a 5'sidewalk at the right-of-way line, and that a 5'sidewalk be constructed on Bridgeport Drive along the entire propertyfrontage. 9/11/08: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING STREET IMPROVEMENTS,AS IMPROVEMENTS WERE STILL BEING EVALUATED DUE TO THE CHANGE IN THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. 2. Planning Commission determination of a variance from UDC Section 166.08(C)(14),to allow 4.5'.of greenspace between the back of curb and sidewalk along Bridgeport Drive where 6' is required. Staffsupports the requested variance, since the applicant is completing improvements to Bridgeport Drive, which was originally constructed as part of Bridgeport Subdivision Phase I in 1994. At that time, the street sections, greenspace and sidewalk widths were different than.currently required by the City's Master Street Plan. 9/11/08: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. 3. Planning Commission determination of accepting park land dedication in excess of that required for 16 single-family dwelling units (Chapter 166.03 (K)(h)). The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board(PRAB) recommended accepting 0.83 acres of parkland dedication based on a development proposal for 52 dwellings units. The applicant has reduced the number of dwelling units and thus reduced the amount of required parkland dedication to 0.38 acres. However, the applicant still proposes to dedicate the full 0.83 acres, resulting in 0.45 acres of excess land dedication. If approved, the excess parkland will be banked for future use by the developer in the same park quadrant. Staff recommends in favor of the request, as 0.83 acres is the minimum amount of parkland necessary to provide sufficient area for future trail construction along Hamstring Creek. 9/11/08: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST. 4. Lots 1-3 may have individual curb-cuts; however, direct access to Mt. Comfort Road shall not be permitted for Lot 3. All individual curb-cuts shall be at least 5' from adjoining property lines and at least 50' from any street intersection. Shared drives may straddle a property line. Lots 4-16 shall not have direct access to Mt. Comfort Road and shall utilize the shared driveway as shown on the plat. Notes regarding access for each lot shall be included on the final plat. K:IReports120081PC Reportsll8-September 221PPL 08-3086(Creekside).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 3 of 14 5. The shared driveway shall be located within an access easement and constructed prior to final plat approval. Driveways for Lots 1-3 are not required to be constructed prior to final plat approval. The eastern curb-cut for the shared driveway may be shifted to the west if the adjacent property owner does not allow grading along the property line. 6. The land area between the sidewalk and shared driveway is a part of the platted lots and will be privately owned, and therefore shall be maintained by the property owner of record of each lot, or by the Property Owners Association. Maintenance of the private driveway shall be the responsibility of the individual lot owners or Property Owners Association. A note shall be added to the final plat indicating maintenance responsibility for the driveway and greenspace. 7. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 42.5' from centerline shall be dedicated for Mt. Comfort Road with recordation of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall dedicate 0.83 acres of parkland by warranty deed prior to final plat approval. The legal description for the parkland shall be submitted to the city for review prior to recordation. 9. Opaque fences or walls, or other view obscuring objects shall not be permitted within the right-of-way or front utility easement along Lots 3-16. 10. Street lights shall be installed at all intersections and with a maximum separation of 300' prior to signing the final plat. 11. The applicant shall make the following revisions prior to submittal for Planning Commission review: a. Restate general note#2 on page 1 to read Lots 4-16. (make change on all 3 pages) b. Change the Total Units#table to: 16 lots, 1 common area/tree preservation, 1 parkland/multi-use trail (Page 1) Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan Conditions: 12. Mitigation will be required in order to replace the 11,518 square feet of canopy removed. This is equivalent to 36 (2) inch caliper large species shade trees. The applicant has requested and been approved for on-site mitigation. 13. Chapter 177 gives the choice of planting street trees with infrastructure or with development. Please coordinate a planting schedule with the Urban Forester and note on the final plat. 14. At the time of construction drawings the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 15. Under the new 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 signing the final plat. 16. A three-year maintenance bond for all mitigation trees is required prior to signing the final plat. K:Reportsl20QMC Reports118-September 22PPL 08-3086(Creekside).doc September 22,2008 _ Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 4 of 14 Trails Conditions: 17. Note that the 20' access easement along the east property line and the access easement adjacent to Bridgeport are clearly labeled as Multi-Use Trail Easements. Standard Conditions of Approval: 18. All signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. Freestanding signage is not permitted within utility easements,unless otherwise approved by all utility companies. 19. All street names and addresses shall be approved by the 911 coordinator. 20. 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). 21. 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. 22. All overhead electric lines under 12Kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. - 23. Impact fees for fire,police,water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 24. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Additional conditions: Planning Commission Action: O Approved O Forward to PC O Tabled Motion: Second: Vote: Meeting Date: September 22,2008 K:IReports120081PC Reportsl/8-September 221PPL 08-3086(Creekside).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 5 of 14 7aye ARKANSAS PC Meeting of September 22, 2oo8 ' 113 W. Mountain St. Fayettev72701 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Telephone: Telephone:(479)444-3470 LANDSCAPE REVIEW FORM To: H2 Engineering From: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner Date: September 16, 2008 ITEM #: PPL 08-3o86: Preliminary Plat (Creekside) Applicable Requirements: N e �, N U , Plan Checklist: Y= submitted by applicant N=requested by City of Fayetteville NA= not applicable - - - a y y Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib y y Species of plant material identified y y Size of plant material at time of installation indicated Y Y Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed Y Y Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds N N Plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect y y Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual NA NA Wheel stops/curbs Interior landscaping NA NA Narrow tree lawn(8'min width,1 ymin lengthl1 tree per 12 spaces) Tree island(8'min.width 1 tree per 12 spaces) SPeplernber 22,2008 annmg ommission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 6 of 14 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 of shrubs-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(80%landscape). NA NA Parldng lots and outdoor storage screened with landscaping dl ! Y Y Residential Subdivisions-i large species shade tree/lot tree planted within R.O.W.ifpossible NA NA Nonresidential Subdivision-i large species shade tree/3o L.F. tree planted within 15-25' reens ace NA NA Urban Tree Wells-urban streetscape only-iofoot sidewalk NA NA Structural Soil-if urban wells are used,a note or detail of structural soil must be indicated on the landscape plan N N Timing of planting indicated on plans (subdivisions only) N N Written description of the method for tracking plantings NA NA 1 deciduous or evergreen tree/3000 square feet NA NA 4 large shrubs(3 gal)or small trees/3000 square feet NA NA 6 shrubs or grasses(i gal)/3000 square feet NA NA Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified NA NA 50%of facility planted with grass or grass like plants Conditions of Approval: i. Chapter 17.7 gives the choice of planting street trees with infrastructure or with development. Please coordinate a planting schedule with the Urban Forester and note on the final plat. 2. At the time of construction drawings the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 3. Under the new Landscape Regulations Chapter 1717, 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. 4. A 3-year maintenance bond for all mitigation trees is required prior to signing the final plat. September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 '.. Page 7 of 14 7aye PC Meeting of September 22, 2008 RR.KAN3A5 113 W.Mountain St. Fayettev72701 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Telephone: Telephone:(479)444-3470 TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Greg Howe, Urban Forester Date: September 17, 2oo8 ITEM #: R-PZD 08-2990: Residential PZD (Creekside) Requirements Submitted: N Initial Review with the Urban Forester Y Site Analysis Map Submitted Y Site Analysis Written Report Submitted Y Complete Tree Preservation and Protection Plan Submitted Canopy Measurements: acres 10.44 s uare feet 45 ,88 6 acres 1.18 square feet 51,302-93 ercent of site area 11.28% acres 0.92 square feet 39784.64 ercent of total site area 8. 11.28 FINDINGS: The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. • The desirability of preserving the trees located along Hamestring Creek is very high due to their location, size, and species. This site has September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 8 of 14 approximately 12.5% existing canopy consisting of predominantly oak and sycamore. There are 27 significant trees on the site 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 since the trees located along the creek are being preserved. Significant environmental degradation would occur if the trees along the creek were removed, for they retain the slope and hold the bank from eroding completely along this stretch of the creek. The root systems help retain the soil, and canopy coverage helps to reduce the temperature of the stream run-off from adjacent impervious surfaces. 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. • Adjacent properties should not be affected by the removal of tree canopy because the existing trees that are shown as removed are scattered on the site. Screening in the form of landscape and mitigation trees will also be added. 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. The size and/or shape of the lot do not reduce flexibility. 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 to fair. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the property. • Staff recommends that the trees located along Hamestring Creek be placed within a Tree Preservation Area. This distinction will allow the continued preservation of these trees in perpetuity. The removed canopy is due to placement of structures, roadway and associated parking. Utilities will not encroach upon the trees designated as preserved. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. • Trees within the Tree Preservation Area should not be affected by utilities. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 9 of 14 routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. • Much of the grading to construct roads and pads for the units for this development was dictated by the existing elevations of the railroad corridor to be used for the trail and the creek along with off-site elevations. Existing topography, therefore, has been utilized for design of the roads and utilities and routed, where possible, to avoid 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. On-site mitigation will increase the canopy on the subject property, and is primarily located appropriately in the Tree Preservation area where it will survive in perpetuity. Some mitigation trees are in common 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: The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the Applicant: • Staff is recommending approval of the submitted Tree Preservation and Protection Plan with the following conditions. Conditions of Approval: >. The sanitary sewer line is re-routed to minimize disturbance to the white pines. 2. Special care with regard to root pruning and tying branches back during construction of the sewer line are properly notated on the plan. 3. All trees removed would be calculated back as mid-level priority for mitigation. 4. The majority of the preserved canopy on this project was placed within a Tree Preservation Area.This area shall be a dedicated easement and shall be dedicated with the new easement plat using the Tree Preservation Area signature block for the Urban Forester. 5. The applicant shall mitigate for the removal of tree canopy with on-site mitigation. The final amount of mitigation will depend on the disturbance of canopy located around sewer line. Staff s final recommendation for tree mitigation will be subject to final calculations. b. All mitigation trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.A 3-year bond, letter of credit, or check shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The amount shall be based on the final calculations. September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 '.. Page 10 of 14 7aye AR:KA.r45'AS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Telephone:(479)444-3469 TO: Jesse Fulcher, Planner FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner DATE: September 16,2008 SUBJECT: Parks &Recreation Subdivision Committee Review Comments Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Item: PPL 08-3086 (Creekside, 360) Park District: NW Zoned: RSF-4 Billing Name&Address: BSS, LLC, P.O. Box 6485 Springdale, AR 72766 Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family 16 @ .024 acre per unit= 0.38 acres @ $960 per unit= $ Multi Family _@ .017 acre per unit= acres @ $680 per unit= $ Lot Split @$960 per unit=$ COMMENTS: ■ Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed this project on December 3rd, 2007 and recommended accepting approximately 0.83 acres of 30' wide trail corridor and remaining fees in lieu. • The development is being resubmitted as a preliminary plat with 16 single family units. The developer will dedicate the trail corridor as recommended by PRAB to meet the Park Land Dedication requirements. ■ The reduction in units from the original development created an excess in park land. The developer is requesting to bank approximately 0.45 acres of land. This request was made after PRAB reviewed the project. ■ Please submit the deed for the trail corridor to the City Land Agents for review. Once the deed is approved file it at the Washington County Courthouse and submit a copy to Parks and Recreation. A copy of the filed deed is due prior to signing the final plat. September 22,2008 PPL 08-3086 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 Page 11 of 14 1 � Ar or= EI�IQIAIEEiY1M1®, INC. August 13, 2008 City of Fayetteville Planning Department 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville,AR 72701 RE: CREEKSIDE SCOPE,NATURE, & INTENT Mr. Pate, On behalf of our client, BSS, LLC, we are submitting Creekside for approval by the Planning Commission. This project consists of approximately 10.95 acres, located at the southeast corner of Bridgeport Dr. and Mt Comfort Rd. We are proposing splitting the property into 16 residential lots and 3 non-residential lots, 1 to be dedicated as tree preservation, 1 as common property, and 1 as trail corridor to be dedicated to the Parks Department. Water service for the development is available adjacent to the property. There is a 12"water line running through the north side of our property and an 8"waterline on the west side of Bridgeport Dr. A 24" sewer line runs through the south side or our property which we propose to tie to with an 8" sanitary sewer line that will serve our lots. Staff has mentioned some existing drainage problems downstream with erosion in Hamestring Creek. With no major point discharges into the creek, Creekside will not worsen the existing conditions in the creek. Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Board voted to take land dedication in the form of a 30' wide trail corridor at the PARB Meeting on December 3'a, 2007. With the addition of 16 single family residential lots, it is anticipated that an additional 160 vehicle trips per day will be generated. Please contact me at 582-4234 if you have any questions or need further information regarding this project. Sincerely, Jeremy Thompson, P.E. Project Manager H2 Engineering, Inc. September 22,2008 Planning Commission PPL 08-3086 Creekside 2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Favettev®Ile. Arkansas 72703 Phone. 479.582,4234 Fax: 479.5 Page 12 of 14 PPL08-3 086 CREEKSIDE Close Up View � ���� l � 11Y'ui'�" ',4 0 � ����� sf"rm h�e"ti��� ��'L hJ'.kY'�5�> x�`a3�.„""•,^.'a^ii'''��'r �, t ^n� Y i1�a. '1 1?�y\4 Ya �y>�"SK��^i, M��,,\C.5'vip•!a`"y" Y5q "�iA ,� C� `v, �)b""zleYh ` ix'ri�. �.I �`,2b � I „ ay4 ,u .�y SUBJECT PROPERTY45xs �5i t� x��+ii4ix* 'a COMFORT RD {. Y rvd w i i , t_FHEEO i IN 5 ` 1• - Sx..3,." �i'�'����2*v>s3sr'4'Ar.,^v. "..x`�„"E,'"^`�' 'i� ��`, ;,�:,� s,F1l;�`�i�����'�` 4 "a " S � 3 �',a 1 .,°r S :�,+ �'.:.�'9.4�3.'.y�1�S�sxa�',C�+va✓a«aa `�. „y`a.�. .` ND Overview September 22,2008 - e_ 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Planning Commission Fee PPL 08-3086 Creekside Agenda 2 PPL08-3086 C R E E KS I D E One Mile View K 1� £ f 'WillJd@E S ARtixCl'+j) A�., 3 O SUBJECT PRO ' s } Y.'° 'Y1 � pk ih�•L',,,y v; � �� � ;1'3 �. t'"•' 1 a v r RSF 1 tt CR F�4;\� �'` *��',�}tj�.Cr�w• a SF AQ S �` RSF 1 p'� kkk JE ON - sa, T- Moo cer DR sebp � Fri SC r i SF4 A V d I. � .�N`tM1\�. I .•1Le=. ..j Overview Legend Boundary "" --- Subject Property iy♦Planning Area ❑ ®PPL08-3086 ,poop 0 o Overlay District Outside City Legend --- ®Hillside-Hilltop O erlay District 0 0.25 0.5 1 September 22,28 - Planning Commiss n Miles PPL 08-3086 Creeks e Aaen 2 Page 14 of 14 Taye IPlanning Commission Meeting A R.KnrvsAs September 22, 200E THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate,Director of Current Planning DATE: September 12, 2008 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 1 Surrounding Land Use/Zonin Direction from Land Use Zoning Site North ResidentiaUA icultural/Golf course R-A South Residential/Agricultural R-PZD—Falliag 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 Reports178-September 2ZR-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stonebridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 1 of 76 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 DENSITY DWELL NON- NON- USE PLANNING (UNITS/ ING RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ACRES %OF AREA ACRE) UNITS INTENSITY SQUARE FEET SITE (SQ.FT./ACRE) 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.-IReports120081PC Reportsll8-September 22R-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stonebridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 2 of 76 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 anaroval 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 Phase 6: 7-year to obtain all required permits 8-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 K..-lReportsU0081PC Reportsl M-September 221R-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stombridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 3 of 76 the Stonebridge Road/Huntsville Road Traffic Signal Assessment Area. Both of these improvements 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 spacc 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 K..,IReports120081PC Reportsll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2770(Villas at Stonebrrdge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 4 of 76 presented for review in October 2006, November 2006 and December 2007. A proposal provided in 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 staffs 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 staff's 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 K.Vteports120081PC Reportsll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stonebridge).doc September 22,2008 - Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 5 of 76 tabled by the applicant with no discussion occurring at the meeting. 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 K:1Reporis120081PC ReportsV 8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stonebridge).do September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge - Agenda 3 Page 6 of 76 this particular area and promotes a development pattern more like the density of downtown 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 Ri t-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 clary 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 K:IReports120081PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stonebridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 7 of 76 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 Section171.02(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: i. (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 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). 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. K.-IReports120081PC Reports118-September 2218-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stonebridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 8 of 76 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 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 65-95%, 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. 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. 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 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 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. K.IReports120081PC Reports118-September 211R-PZD 06-2170(t r[tas at Stonebridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 9 of 76 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 L 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 Cornmercial 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. K.IReports120081PCReportsU8-September221R-PZD 06-2/70(Villas at Stowbridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 10 of 76 Phasin 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: 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 Phase 6: 7-year to obtain all required permits 8-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 he 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 1. 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. Prior to submitting revisions for City Council review, revise the canopy measurement table on the tree preservation plans to reflect the numbers herein. 24. Prior to submitting revisions for City Council review, include a mitigation table and/or calculations on the tree preservation plan, and indicate which trees are proposed for mitigation on the landscape plan. K.-tReports120081PCReportsII8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stomhridge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 11 of 76 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Before construction plan approval, the landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect with the state of Arkansas. 28. 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. 29. Street trees are required to be planted every 30', except for single-family lots where one tree is required per lot. 30. 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 31. The following revisions shall be completed prior to staff forwarding this item: a. Booklet Page 14. The building areas for PA-1 through PA-6 and the units per acre for PA-3 are incorrect. Include ADU's as a use by right in PA-4. The uses by conditional use do not match page 13. b. Booklet Page 15. Section I refers to zoning RSF-A, should be R-A. c. Plats. There does not appear to be any lot numbers for the townhouses? d. Page 4, 5 and 6. Street section 3 notes a 29' street width. This should be changed to a 28' street width. e. Plats Sheet 7. Correct greenspace acreage, lot width and lot area for PA-6. See revision `c' above. f. If either of the PA-7 lots are less than 2 acres,then the zoning requirements need to be reduced, or the entire area should be considered one lot. g. Revise landscape requirements,tree preservation tables, label mitigation trees, as requested by the Urban Forester prior to resubmittal. h. Page 2. All phases of the development that have lots being platted should have two distinct time frames; one to obtain construction permits and one for final plat approval. 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. K:IReportst20081PC Reportsll8-September 2218-PZD 06-2170(Villas at Stonebrrdge).doc September 22,2008 Planning Commission R-PZD 06-2170 Villas at Stonebridge Agenda 3 Page 12 of 76