The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-152 - Appeal: PZD-2024-0005: (N. Rupple Rd. & W. Salem Rd./Foxtail Meadows, 205) (7) CityClerk From:Harrison, Gretchen <gharrison@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent:Monday, March 3, 2025 8:07 AM To:Agenda Item Comment Subject:Fw: PZD-2024-0005 (Foxtail Meadows) Attachments:Fire Code from State Fire Mashal's Office.pdf Good morning, I received the email below and file attached over the weekend as public comment on an item that is on tomorrow's City Council meeting agenda: B.2. Appeal: PZD-2024-0005: (N. RUPPLE RD. & W. SALEM RD./FOXTAIL MEADOWS, 205). Forwarding it to ensure that it's received by the Council. Thank you! Gretchen Harrison Senior Planner Development Services City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 479-575-8263 Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube From: Michael Mauldin <mike@mauldinvaught.com> Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 8:17 PM To: Harrison, Gretchen <gharrison@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: PZD-2024-0005 (Foxtail Meadows) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Michael Mauldin 3917 W Cedar Ridge Ln Fayetteville Hello, Gretchen. You were very nice last Fall to help me in my attempt to voice opposition to this rezoning request. I wasn’t sure if you were still involved in the process now that it’s in front of the city council. I’d appreciate your help, very much, if you could forward to the proper channel. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning request for PZD-2024-0005 (Foxtail Meadows). This email will primarily focus on concerns related to emergency vehicle access and stormwater management. 1. Fire Code – Inadequate Emergency Access 1 Phase 1 – West Side of Development  The State Fire Marshal’s office provided the attached fire code. Section D107 requires developments with more than 30 dwelling units to have two separate fire apparatus access roads.  This proposal includes over 65 units in Phase 1 but only one access point to Rupple Rd. The only additional outlet shown is a stub out leading to undeveloped private land, which does not meet the fire code requirement.  To comply, the developer would need to construct a road 800-foot long and 20-foot wide on (someone else’s property) to connect to Weir Rd. This may not be a feasible or enforceable solution.  Additionally, Section D107.2 states that two access points must be at least half the property’s diagonal distance apart. o Phase 1’s diagonal dimension is ~1,400 feet, meaning the access roads must be at least 700 feet apart. o The property’s frontage on Rupple Rd is only ~650 feet, making a second compliant access point impossible on Rupple. Phase 2 – East Side of Development  Using the same Section D107.2 guidelines: o The diagonal dimension of Phase 2 is ~1,700 feet, requiring access points to be at least 850 feet apart. o The two proposed Rupple Rd access points are only ~600 feet apart, not complying with fire code. o The developer owns property with access to Salem Rd, making it entirely possible—and necessary—for an access road to be built there to comply with fire safety regulations. This would also reduce congestion on Rupple Rd. General Issues for Both Phases  Red-marked areas on the following map highlight additional concerns.  Sections 503.1.1 and 503.2.1 require a 20-foot-wide, unobstructed road within 150 feet of every unit’s farthest exterior wall. However: o Phase 1 has 20+ townhouses with only alley access, which is insufficient for emergency vehicles. o Phase 2 has 25 townhomes and 12 homes without proper street access, meaning they also fail to meet the 20-foot clearance requirement. o The lack of designated parking in the current plan suggests that these alleys will be used for resident and guest parking, further obstructing fire access. o If guests can’t easily access front doors, it’s even harder for emergency personnel. Key Takeaway: ??? This development should not move forward without additional properly sized and spaced access roads. 2 2. Stormwater Management & Misrepresentation of Green Space Lack of Parking  The current plan provides zero dedicated parking for residents or guests.  While the developer may claim on-street parking will suffice, none of the 25 townhomes in Phase 1 have a street in front of their homes.  Without redesign, portions of the green space will likely have to be paved to accommodate resident and guest parking, further reducing advertised green space.  The same issue exists in Phase 2, where 25 townhomes and 12 houses lack front-door street access. Absence of Required Detention Ponds  The developer promotes the green space between the rows of townhomes in Phase 1 as a park for grandchildren to play in—but this space will likely become the detention pond.  Detention ponds are often poorly maintained because of standing water and soft soils, which leads to increased risks of pests and safety hazards. Snakes and mice often make detention ponds their home.  Instead of a manicured park, this area will likely become an overgrown, unusable space that poses risks to children playing there. Phase 2: Misleading Park Designation  The blue-marked areas on the following GIS map show steep slopes exceeding 15%, meaning much of the proposed “park” is actually a gulley or ravine.  The developer promotes this as a recreational space, but in reality, this terrain is unsuitable for public use. 3  If the City assumes responsibility for this land, it would inherit unnecessary liability and costly maintenance for an area that provides little actual value as public green space. Stormwater Drainage & Impervious Surface Concerns  I have serious concerns about the high concentration of impervious surfaces in the proposed development and the existing stormwater drainage issues in the area.  Impact on My Property: My home borders the north side of Phase 1. When I built my home ~10 years ago, I was required to install a cap and fill septic system due to the high water table. To accommodate this, we had to bring in approximately two feet of topsoil to raise the drain field elevation.  Phase 1 Sits at a Lower Elevation: Given that this development sits below my property, it’s reasonable to be concerned that a detention pond in Phase 1 may not function properly if the water table is already high.  Existing Drainage Problems: Currently, Phase 1 is an open field, and even in its undeveloped state, it struggles to handle heavy rainfall. I have frequently seen standing water and, at times, full-on flooding in the area.  Excessive Impervious Surfaces: The developer’s Phase 1 proposal for 67 rooftops, along with roads and alleys, will dramatically increase the amount of impervious surfaces, further compounding the existing drainage issues.  I strongly encourage a redesign that eliminates the alleys, allowing for more green space throughout the development to help mitigate stormwater runoff and improve drainage capacity. 4  Addressing these concerns before approval is critical to preventing future flooding, property damage, and infrastructure issues. 3. Streamside Protection Zone  The red-circled area on above GIS map marks a designated Streamside Protection Zone.  The City of Fayetteville has clear regulations protecting these areas, as stated on the City’s website.  I appreciate the City’s leadership in maintaining these protections and ask that they be upheld. Conclusion For these reasons, I respectfully request that the rezoning request be denied. This development, as currently proposed, violates fire safety regulations, misrepresents green space, and fails to address serious stormwater concerns. There is no reason to approve this PZD unless the developer revises the plan to: ✅ Provide proper fire access roads for each phase as required to exceed 30 units. ✅ Clearly show required detention ponds, realistic green space, resident/guest parking, and 20-foot-wide unobstructed fire lanes in compliance with state and city code. I’m not opposed to this property being developed, but I ask the developer to revise the plans using the current zoning and work with the city planning staff and the planning commission to find a solution that meets these requirements. The needed revisions appear to be substantial. I appreciate your time and consideration, and I urge you to prioritize public safety and responsible development when making your decision. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you, Mike Michael V. Mauldin, CPA, CVA Mauldin Vaught, PLLC 4064 N Remington Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone 479-587-1040 www.MauldinVaught.com 5