HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 45384538
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL,
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED (R-PZD 03-06.00)
LOCATED ON TIIE EAST SIDE OF CROSSOVER ROAD
NORTH OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD AND SOUTH OF
WYMAN ROAD CONTAINING 8.34 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE
ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS
AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH
AGREEMENT OF THE APPLICANT
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:
Front RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre to R-PZD 03-06.00 as shown in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2_ That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved
master development plan and development standards as shown on the plat and approved by
the Planning Commission on December 8, 2003 and further amended by the City Council on
Fchruary 3, 2004.
Section 3: That this ordinance shall take affect and be in full force at such time as
all of the requirements of the 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 I
above.
F F r I rye% PASSED and APPROVED this the 3 a day of February, 2004.
♦.,
7p t.x.,. . cam•;.
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
APPR YED:
ddd
By.
DA COODY, Mayor
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Doc ID: 007007630004 Tvoe: REL
Recorded: 02/27/2004 at 10:05:27 AM
Fee Amt: $14.00 Paae 1 of 4
Washlnaton Countv. AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
Flle2004-00007191
EXHIBIT"A"
R-PLD 03-06.00
PART OF LOTS 40 AND 41 OF W.E. ANDERSON FARM OR SUBDIVISION AS PER
PLAT OF SAID SUBDIVISION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK OF
WASH INGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING PARTOF THE SE1/4 OF T'lIE SEl/4
OF SECTION 14 1N TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BFGINNING AT AN EXISTING IRON PIN ON THE NORTH LINE OI: LOT 41 OF W.E.
ANDERSON FARM THAT 1S S87044'19"E 147.06 FEET FROM THE N.W. CORNER OF
SAID LOT 41; THENCE S87°44'19"E 515.99 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIN AT
THE NE CORNER OF SAID w'I- 41; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINF.OF SAID LOT
41 502058'03"W 330.68 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIN AT THE NE CORNER OF
LOT 40 OF SAID W.F. ANDERSON FARM; THENCE ALONG THE FAST LINE OF
SAID LOT 40 S02046'06"W 323.67 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIN AT THE SI
CORNER OF SAID LOT 40; THENCE ALONGTHE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 40
N88"00'06"W 185.72 FEET TO THE SE CORNER OF A CEMETERY; THENCE ALONG
THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID CEMETERY THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4)
COURSES: NOl °34'51 "E 150.00 FEET, N88°00'06"W 267.00 FEET, SO1 °34'47"W 132.00
Fl:l?T','I'1 IEN(`E N88°00'06"W 192.64 FEET TOTHE iE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR
ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY 265; THENCE ALONG SAID HIGHWAY 265 EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE, FOLLOWING TIIREE (3) COURSF,S: N05°57'13"E 217.36
FF.I'T. N04"37'51"W 150.74 FEET, THENCE. N01017'4511E 145.72 FEET; THENCE
I.EAVING SAID HIGHWAY 265 EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S87044'19"E 142.52
FEF.'I TO AN EXISTING IRON PIN; THENCE NO2°30'01"E 127.01 FEET TO THE.
POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 8.34 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Washing'on County, AR
02/27/Y this instrument we
and reco 04 s filed on
10.-05:27 AM
File riled in Real Estate
Nte ber 2004-00007191
9ette
Fs Circuit Clerk
b
0:
i+1.
tor.
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No, 4638
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1
12.17.03
memo to mayor & city council
draft ordinance
memo to planning commission
Summary of trip generation
Grafton, Tull & Associates Itr
copy of email-zimmerman
Crafton, Tull & Associates Itr
Crafton, Tull & Associates Itr
Crafton, Tull & Associates Itr
Crafton, Tull & Associates Itr
Benton Ridge proposed covenants
letter to Jerry Kelso
email-rustytwr
Clanton Itr
Bozarth Itr
Gerstner Itr
Parks Itr
Mounce Itr
copy of Close Up View
copy of One Mile View
staff review form for 1.6.04
copy of planning commission letter
Crafton, Tull & Associates Itr
Crafton, Tull & Associates Itr
copy Sarasota Grove
copy of floor plan
copy Nutmeg Circle
copy of floor plan
copy of Chelsea Boulevard
copy of floor plan
copy of picture
copy of floor plan
copy of floor plan
copy of Morenci Court
copy of floor plan
copy of Greenspace plan
copy of PZD
copy of PZD
Grafton, Tull & Associates Itr
2
1 2.9.04
1 memo to Dawn Warrick
3
1 2.10.04
lAffidavit of Publication
NOTES:
2.27.04 filed with the Wash. Co. Circuit Clerk
• City Counciteting of January 6, 2004
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator
Date: December 17, 2003
Subject: Residential Planned Zoning District for Benton Ridge (R-PZD 03-06.00)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance creating the Residential Planned
Zoning District (R-PZD) for Benton Ridge. This action will establish a unique zoning
district for development of an 8.34 acre tract located on the east side of Crossover Road,
north of Huntsville Road and south of Wyman Road. The proposal is for the construction
of 43 dwelling units on 23 residential lots (20- two family units, 3- single family units).
BACKGROUND
Staff has met with the applicant numerous times to discuss both the PZD process and the
content of the proposal as submitted. Originally, the applicant proposed 21 Two-family
lots and three commercial lots connected by a loop drive. Staff concerns with the
proposal included the loss of significant tree canopy and natural drainage -ways, in a PZD
process which specifically requires consideration of existing natural amenities in an effort
to preserve them. A number of submittals and meetings occurred thereafter, all in which
Staff reiterated concerns with these issues (see attached comments letter dated 31 July).
The proposal was modified with the use of a cul-de-sac and single family homes in
October, however Staff and the Subdivision Committee expressed concern with the use
of proposed 4-plexes in a single-family residential dominated area. A neighborhood
meeting was held by the applicant and several concerns addressed from the Subdivision
Committee meeting, all of which are documented in the Staff report. Covenants for the
development as well as detailed information regarding the location of proposed
driveways and building footprints for each lot were considered as a part of this review
process.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 in favor of this request on Monday, December 8,
2003. Approval of a planned zoning district requires City Council approval as it includes
zoning (land use) as well as development approval (preliminary plat). Recommended
conditions included in the attached staff report were approved by the Planning
Commission.
Lei Peddtn j 1'/�/d f
• City Council lCleeting of January 6, 2004
Agenda Item Number
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED (R-PZD 03-06.00)
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CROSSOVER ROAD
NORTH OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD AND SOUTH OF
WYMAN ROAD CONTAINING 8.34 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE
ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTAAW AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMIS_ N.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY •OUNCIL b HE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
AV
Section 1: That the zone classificati _ the Poll wing descrit property is
hereby changed as follows: 40
From RSF-4, Residential Single Family four units p r cre to R-PZD 03-06.00 as
shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto_and amide a part h J.
Section 2. That the change n 2:ningg' as 'fication is based upon the
approved master develop a lan and a elopmen tandards as shown on the plat
and approved by t la m : � ommissiokon December 8, 2003,
Section 3. "I`lia
hi
ordinance sh
' l take affect and be in full force at such
time as all there ire
ants
of the deve
piplan have been met.
ection 4. hat the o'ffi�tJialoioning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
is here mended to reflect the in mg change.provided in Section 1 above.
PAS D APP OVED this day of 12004,
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
R-PZD 03-06.00
PART OF LOTS 40 AND 41 OF W.E. ANDERSON FARM OR SUBDIVISION AS PER
PLAT OF SAID SUBDIVISION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING PART OF THE SEU4 OF THE SETA
OF SECTION 14 IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT AN EXISTING IRON PIN ON THE NORTH + 1 OF LOT 41 OF W.E.
ANDERSON FARM THAT IS S87044' 19"E 147.06 FEET FR . W THE . CORNER OF
SAID LOT 41; THENCE S87°44'19"E 515.99 FEET TO -' STING IRON PIN AT
THE NE CORNER OF SAID LOT 41; THENCE ALON E LINE OF SAID LOT
41 S02058'03"W 330.68 FEET TO AN EXISTING � AT + CORNER OF
LOT 40 OF SAID W.E. ANDERSON FARM; C ALONG T + ST LINE OF
SAID LOT 40 S02046'06"W 323.67 FEET T EX I ING IRON + THE SE
CORNER OF SAID LOT 40; THENCE AL E S LINE OF D LOT 40
N88000'06"W 185.72 FEET TO THE SE CORNER M ERY; TH CE ALONG
THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID CEMETER E FOLLOWING FOUR (4)
COURSES: NOI 034'51 "E 150.00 FE 8°00'06"W 2 1 0 FEET, SOI 034'47"W 132.00
FEET, THENCE N88000'06"W 192.64 THE EAS�LT'f-OF-WAY LINE FOR
ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY 265; E : �bONG S HIGHWAY 265 EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLO I IRE GO1 RSES: N05057'13"E 217.36
FEET, N04037'51"W 11. ET, T WE N010lj/'4511E 145.72 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING SAID H WA 5 EAST HT -OF -WAY LINE S87044'19"E 142.52
FEET TO AN E ' G IRf PIN; THE - NO2°30'01 "E 127.01 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINN G 8.34 CRES, MORE OR LESS.
I
fAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENC
TO: —
FROM:
THRU
rayet[ev111e Planning Commission
Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
December 02, 2003
PC Meeting of December 08, 2003
113 W. Mountain St.
Fsyetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-5754264
R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ride PP )
Tull and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Long LLC for property located onthe east side of Grafton,
Crossover Road, yman Road. The property is zoned
was submted by
d contains approximately per north of Huntsville Road and south of W
RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre anacres. The
43 dwelling units on 231ots (20 Two -
request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District, with a total of
family, 3Single-family). planner: Jeremy Pate
Findings;
Proposal: The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District on 8.34 acres currently zoned
RSF-4, which allows a maximum density of 4 units per acre of single family dwellings. The
applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with 23
lots. Eighteen (18) lots are proposed to be constructed with two-family dwelling units for a total
of 36 dwelling units. Two lots are proposed to be developed with one (1) four -unit multi-plex
spanning the lot line, resulting in a total of 4 dwelling units. The three remaining lots near
Crossover Road are proposed to be single family lots, for a total of 3 dwelling units. Total
Proposed dwelling units on the 8.34 acres numbers 43, therefore the proposed density for the R.
is 5.2 DU/acre cue.
Proposed Lots:
-- -^- "., 4� w-r¢ 03-6.00 (Benton Ridg,)LR-Pa) 03-6.00 (Benton Rldg,).do
1 he site contains significant groupings of trees, some of which are located along a natural
drainage way, which is required to be considered as part of a Planned Zoning District:
Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation, water
conservation, preservation ofursnatural site amenities, and the protection of
watercoes from erosion and siltation. (§166. 06)
Natural Features. Maximum enhancement and minimal natural features and amenities. (§161.25) disruption of existing
With this in mind, staff has worked with the applicant to preserve several groupings of trees and
a portion of the natural drainage way that meanders through the center of the site,
Protecting the trees that depend upon this water source. thereby
A waiver for the maximum 500-foot length of a cul-de-sac has been formally submitted. The
applicant requests a 965-foot length. In previous submittals, a loop drive was utilized, which both
K.' IReporv120031PCREPOR7S1/2-081R-P� 03-6.00 (Beyon RldgeJlR-PZ) 03-6.00 (Benton RidgeJ.doc
I
removed a significant grouping of trees near the front of the property and minimized the area
available for a detention pond, thereby creating a 9-10' wall surrounding the pond. Staff
recommended realignment of the drive for these reasons, and supports the proposal and waiver
request the applicant is presenting.
Three lots at the entrance of the development are indicated for single family homes, with the
remainder proposed to be two-family dwelling units. A draft of restrictive covenants addressing
building materials, size, fencing, landscaping, etc. has been submitted. A final draft is required to
be filed with the Final Plat.
Existing Development: Currently two single family homes are on the site, to be removed.
North Jy
Single family homes
South Buckner Cemetery, Single family
homes
East Single family
West Crossover Road, Vacant
RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4
units per acre
RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4
units per acre
RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4
units per acre
RSF-41 Residential Single Family, 4
Water: Existing 8" line along Crossover Road, 8" lines extended to serve development
Sewer: Existing 6" sanitary sewer
.Street Improvements Proposed.. None
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Crossover Road (State Hwy 265) is classified as a principal
arterial on the Master Street Plan, requiring a minimum 55 feet of right -of --way dedication, by
warranty deed.
Tree Preservation: Existing canopy: 29 72%
Preserved canopy. 16.21 %
Required: 20.00%
Mitigation: $10,800.00
Tree preservation areas indicated on the plat are to be placed in a protective easement with
ownership noted on the plat.
Background.' Staff has met with the applicant numerous times to discuss both the PZD process
and the content of the proposal as submitted. Originally, the applicant proposed 21 Two-family
ff
lots and three commercial lots connected by a loop drive. Staff
taconcerns with the proposal
included the loss of significant tree canopy and natural drainageways, in a PZD process which
K. Wepont120031PCREPORM12-081R-PID 03-6.00 (Benton Ridge) IR-p2o 03-6 00 (Benton RUge).doc
specifically requires consideration of existing natural amenities in an effort to preserve them. A
number of submittals and meetings occurred thereafter, all in which Staff reiterated concerns
with these issues (see attached comments letter dated 31 July). The proposal was modified with
the use of a cul-de-sac and single family homes in October, however Staff and the Subdivision
Committee expressed concern with the use of proposed 4-plexes in a single-family residential
dominated area. A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant and several concerns
addressed from the Subdivision Committee meeting, all of which are documented in the Staff
report. A timeline summary of the Benton Ridge R-PZD process is below:
Project History:
25 June
14 July
30 July
31 July
06 August
12 August
14 August
14 October
15 October
In-house Review
Meeting with applicants to discuss
inadequate submittal of materink
Technical Plat
Letter to Applicants, Representatives
detailing Staff concerns
Meeting with applicant to discuss
staff concerns
Meeting with annliennt
Three
lots
1 abled at In -House for
materials
21 Two.
Tabled; no changes were
Presented in the new submittal by
the applicant with the exception
of a greenspace drawino
Comments addressed density,
natural drainageways, tree
Preservation, discrepancies in
submittal information, submittal
rur eievations etc
Commercial Design Standards,
density, PZD process discussion
Agreed with applicant to table
prior to meeting to address
outstanding issues, changes in
Proposal (cul-de-sac, no
commercial proposed,
611b(Iivision Committee Table
Meeting with Applicant to discuss
new proposal for submittal
Technical Plat Review Staff
to
to
to Subdivision Committee
K'IRepora120031PCREPOR7SV2-081R-PID 03-6.00 (Rennin Ridge)W-PA) 03-6.00 (Benton Ridgq.do
40
30 October Subdivision Committee
11 November 1 Neighborhood Meeting
26 November Subdivision Committee
02 December Zoning Review Team
08 December Planning Commission hearing
Recommendation:
Project Tabled by S.C. pending
N'hood mtg, footprints added to
site plan, bldg elevations, other
Project forwarded to Planning
Commission w/revisions for
setbacks, driveways, parking,
0O11u L.. _t .
Toured the Property
Staff recommendation of approval
and forward to City Council
Forward to the City Council with a
rezoning. recommendation for approval of the requested
Planning Commission approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
t • Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the
subject property to the unique district for R-PZD 03-06.00 with all conditions of approval
as determined by the Planning Commission.
2. An ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council
3• A Final Plat is required to legalize the lot configuration, requirements. filed pursuant to Fayetteville city
4. Lot 20, which is not currently identified with a corresponding building footprint/
5• elevation, shall be identified prior to Final Plat approval.
6• Interior street names shall be approved by the City 9-1-1 Coordinator.
7• All setbacks, protective easements, designated lot uses, building footprints and elevations
are binding with the approval of the R-PZD.
8• Submitted covenants are binding to the project and a final draft shall be filed with the
Final Plat. The covenants shall be enhanced and revised to more adequately and correctly
reflect the conditions of the proposal herein.
9.
Planning Commission determination of a waiver for cul-de-sac length (500 feet
K..-IRepona110031PCREPORM/1-081R-PZD 03-6.00 (Benton Ridge) IR-PH) 03-6.00 (Benton Ridge).do
maximum, proposed is 965feet). Staff is in support of the waiver, in order to preserve an
existing significant stand of trees.
10. Payment of Tree Preservation mitigation fees in the amount of $10,800 into the City's
Tree Escrow Account, as approved by the Landscape Administrator, shall be made prior
to Final Plat.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
11. 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)
12. 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.
13. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $16,275 shall be required prior to Final Plat.
14. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with current City regulations along both
sides of the interior street, four feet in width, a minimum of six feet from the curb.
Sidewalks shall tie in to existing sidewalks along Crossover Road, and be constructed
through the driveway.
15. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed
utilities shall be located underground.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Date: December 08, 2003
Comments:
Yes Required
Approved Denied
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
0
Title
K'IReporul2003WCREPOR7S1/2-081R-P2D 03-6.00 (Benton Ridge)IR-PZ) 03-6.00 (Benton Ridge).do
endings associated with R-PZD 03-06.00
Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD).
(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 Two-family and Single Family residential subdivision includes
provisions that preserves and enhances the surrounding neighborhood. Setbacks from
adjoining properties to the north and west have been revised in order to provide a buffer that
is more indicative of the existing RSF-4 zoning. Site layout, circulation patterns and land uses
have all been altered from initial inception to best preserve existing stands of trees and a
natural drainage way through the property. The proposed density (5.2 DU/Acre) is only
slightly above that allowed by right in the existing zoning district, and buildings, open space,
screening and landscaping have been placed and/or ensured by covenants to further the
amenity of the development to the community. Accommodations have been made to place 4lots
in Conservation Easements, in addition to Tree Canopy preservation areas, common green
spaces and a lot serving as a detention pond. The applicant is required to file a Final Plat and
Covenants pursuant to City regulations to create legal lots of record in the subdivision, prior to
the issuance of building permits.
(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, berms
and plant material to be used.
FINDING: The cemetery is required to be screened with native, drought tolerant vegetation, as
indicated on the Tree Preservation plan. In addition, the draft Covenants submitted by the
applicant requires each lot to plant a 2" caliper tree for each residential unit. Where possible,
existing vegetation and tree canopy has been placed in a Tree Preservation Easement or
Conservation Easement to ensure adequate screening from adjacent properties.
(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) Interrmal 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 proposed cul-de-sac is 965 feet in length, which requires a waiver by Planning
Commission. Staff has worked with the applicant to provide adequate vehicular access while
still preserving a significant stand of trees near Crossover Road. The street has been designed
with a 28-foot width, which allows on -street parking.
(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
respective use areas.
FINDING: N/A
(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: The applicant has made revisions to setbacks and saved existing tree canopy along
the perimeter of the property when possible to meet this requirement.
(6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Four -foot sidewalks are proposed along both sides of the proposed street, and shall
connect to existing sidewalks along Crossover Road.
(7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Adequate street lights have been provided to meet Ordinance requirements.
(8) Water. As required by §166.03.
FINDING: 8" water lines are being extended to serve the development.
(9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sewer lines are being extended to serve the development. A 6" sewer line is existing
on the site.
(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
streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below.
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
L
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'
*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.
E
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a public street that meets all requirements set
forth by the adopted standards of the City.
(11) Construction ofnonresidential 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: N/A
(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: The Landscape Administrator has approved -the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan
preserving 16.81% of the 29.72% existing canopy and the proposed mitigation fees in the
amount of $10,800, due prior to Final Plat approval.
(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.
FINDING: N/A
(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: N/A
(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 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.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted a draft of covenants for the proposed PZD describing
the responsibilities and maintenance of future open space, landscaping, building types, heights,
etc. A final draft shall be submitted and filed with the Final Plat.
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.
FINDING: The proposal exhibits flexibility in the density of development and types of
residential units, mixing single family and two-family units in a variety of building types and
elevations to provide a cohesive new neighborhood. The site plan has been reflective of the
adjoining neighborhood's wishes, enlarging setbacks when adjoining single family homes,
utilizing single family homes in those areas that are most visible from Crossover Road, and
preserving open space and tree preservation areas in places that offer the most benefit to the
surrounding community. The proposed development will provide for a variety of housing
types, from owner -occupied duplexes to rental properties to single family homeowners.
Suitable enhancement and minimized disruption of existing natural features has been a goal
from the initial submittal of the proposed PZD.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in which it meets the guiding policies for
Residential Areas which are:
9.8.fSite new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative transportation modes,
community amenities, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods and services.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in which it meets the guiding policy for
Environmental Resources which is:
9.16.b Define and protect areas of significant... hillsides, trees and other environmental
resources through... density controls, protective easements ,and other new and existing
development standards and regulations.
9.16.e Develop methods to identify tree preservation ares in perpetuity throughtree
easements and/or private conservation easements.
•
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in which it meets the guiding policy for
Community Character which is:
9.19.g Encourage new residential development to incorporate varying lot sizes, home
prices, and types of dwelling units.
(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: Staff has reviewed the proposed development with regard to findings necessary
for rezoning requests. Those findings are attached to this report. An ordinance will be drafted
in order to create this Planned Zoning District which will incorporate all conditions placed on
the project by the Planning Commission. Covenants provided by the developer will be
included in the PZD ordinance. This ordinance will be forwarded to the City Council for
approval.*
(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 General Plan 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.
(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 R-PZD proposed is consistent with the City's General Plan for residential
development, and allows a more flexible means of development to better accommodate the
siteing of structures and drives so as to preserve the existing natural amenities of the site,
including significant stands of trees and a natural drainage channel.
(2) Permitted uses.
Unit 1 City-wide uses by right
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5 Government facilities
Unit 8 Single-family dwellings
Unit 9 Two-family dwellings
Unit 10 Three-family dwellings
Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13 Eating places
Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping
Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 24 Home occupations
Unit 25 Professional offices
Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings
FINDING: The proposal calls for Use Unit 8, Single Family Dwellings, and Use Unit 26,
Multifamily dwellings.
(3) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent
(519/6) of the gross floor area within the development.
FINDING: The PZD proposed is entirely residential in use.
'Required Findings for Rezoning Request.
RECOMMENDATION:
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property
to R-PZD03-06.00 is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land
uses in the area.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
I . A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
E
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed rezoning from the existing RSF4 to R-PZD, with the
development as presented, is consistent with the General Plan's designation
of the site as Residential. The density proposed is 5.2 Dwelling Units per acre,
only slightly above the allowed 4 units per acre. The single family and two-
family dwelling units proposed are compatible with the surrounding single
family residential land use and zoning.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed rezoning is needed in order to facilitate development of the
proposed mixed -density, mixed -use unit (single family and two-family)
subdivision. The flexibility of the PZD zoning allows for better insurance of
compatibility with adjoining properties by permitting reduced interior
setbacks not available with standard zoning districts.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning will not create or appreciable increase traffic danger
and congestion in this area. Crossover Road is an improved state highway in this
location, and street improvements are not recommended in this location. An increase in
traffic will occur with development, approximately 323 average vehicle trips per day
generated by the proposed development. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police
Department that this Planned Zoning District will not substantially alter the population
density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create and
appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area.
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: The proposed zoning would not substantially alter the population density.
Engineering - The property currently has access to an 8" water line along Crossover Road,
which is proposed to be extended to serve development onsite. An extension of the water
main will be required to provide water supply within any development on this property.
The site currently has access to an 6" sewer main on the site and an 8" sewer line to the
east. Sewer is to be extended within the development. The existing sewer mains should have
sufficient capacity to serve the development.
Fire - Water supply
with fire hydrants
is needed to
serve development
on this site.
Response time from
the Fire Station #5
is will be 1
minutes 43 seconds
(1.2 miles).
Po/ice - Projects existing in this area already receive police services. The same level of
service will be provided to this site as is currently applied to the existing citizenry. No
additional equipment or personnel is needed to provide service to this area. No undesirable
increase in load on police services is perceived by the proposed rezoning.
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
Benton Ridge
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 43 Dwelling Units of Residential PUD
December 04, 2003
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Deviation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 7.50
3.32
1.00
323
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter
0.11
0.00
1.00
5
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit
0.40
0.00
1.00
17
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total
0.51
0.72
1.00
22 .
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter
0.40
0.00
1.00
17
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit
0.22
0.00
1.00
9
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total
0.62
0.80
1.00
27
Saturday 2-Way Volume
6.82
2.66
1.00
293
Saturday Peak Hour Enter
0.27
0.00
1.00
12
Saturday Peak Hour Exit
0.29
0.00
1.00
12
Saturday Peak Hour Total
0.56
0.75
1.00
24
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
doCrafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.craftull.com
December 2, 2003
Mr. Jeremy Pate
City of Fayetteville — Planning Department
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72703
RE: Benton Ridge PZD — Subdivision Committee Comments
CTA Job No. 031061-00
Dear Mr. Pate:
The attached set of plans and drainage report were revised per the subdivision
committee review comments from the November 26 h meeting. Below is a breakdown of
how the comments were addressed:
1. The varied rear building setbacks along the north property line and the east property
line were revised to be a minimum of 20.
2. The driveways for the proposed building on Lots 1 and 2 were revised to provide
additional room for parking.
3. A note was added to the site plan to provide screening, between the cul-de-sac and
the cemetery.
4. A note addressing conservation easements and tree preservation were added to the
preliminary plat
5. The draft covenants were revised to address how buildings would be sold, tree
preservation, etc.
6. The proposed sanitary sewer was extended to Lot 23.
7. The developer will not able to determine the accurate eave heights for Sarasota
Grove or Nutmeg Circle until the building plans are ordered. The developer is not
comfortable with ordering the detailed building plans until the project is approved, but will
fumish this information for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. The developer is still looking for a building footprint for Lot 20 that will maintain the
integrity of the proposed subdivision. Once a footprint is selected, the developer will
furnish the information to the planning department for review prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Respectfully,
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
OX l/ l
Juli Zimmerman, E.I.
Project Engineer
RECEIVED
DEC o 2 2003
PLANNING DIVE
A r c h i t e c t s, E n g i n e e .r s & S u r v e y o r s
Cefe6rating 40 years of Design Eicceffence and Dedicated Service 1963 - 2003
From: "Juli Zimmerman <jzimm@craftull.com>
To: <jpate@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 11/24/03 1:03PM
Subject: Benton Ridge - summary of changes
Jeremy -
Several items have been addressed since the previous Subdivision Committee,
and I would like to summarize them in preparation for this week's committee
meeting.
1. A note was added to the preliminary plat explaining the Tree
Preservabon/Green Space areas that are to be located within protective
easements. Conservation easements are areas of common property and will be
maintained by the POA Areas designated as green space area to be owned by
lot owner and to be maintained by covenants by the lot owner.
2. The cul-de-sac was moved north, so that there would be no grading within
5' of the south property line. A formal letter was submitted requesting a
waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac.
3. Lot 23 was changed from a two-family dwelling to a single-family
dwelling.. There are now 20 two-family dwellings and 3 single-family
dwellings. The total number of units for the project is 43 units, and the
proposed density is 5.2 units per acre.
4. A drawing was submitted showing the building footprints and driveways
for the proposed lots' An identification key was made to show which
building elevations went with which lot The building heights and number of .
bedrooms were also included. A packet showing the floor plans and
elevations of each building was also included.
5. The 5' setback in front of Lots 1 through 5 was revised to a 20' utility
easement
6. The 8' setback on the back of Lots 7 through 9 was revised to a 15'
setback.
7. The 5' setback on the east side of Lot 17 was revised to a 10' setback.
8. A meeting was held on Tuesday, November 18th, at 6:30 with the
neighboring property owners. The neighbors that signed -in were:
Orvie Gosnell (2678 Travis)
Dorothy Ryskey (555 Sherlock)
Jerry and Sue Mounce (577 Sherlock)
.Rick Nickell (2633 Wyman)
Clanton (390 Crossover)
Elsa Isaacs (2665 Travis)
James Wright (3758 Huntsville)
Wilda Hardin (2677 Travis)
Per property owners comments at this meeting, the proposed duplexes on Lots
9 and 10 were revised from the Creekstone Way floor plan to the Cooper Lake
floor plan. I will bring a revised drawing showing these new footprints to
the subdivision committee.
•
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4638 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.aabB.com
November 19, 2003
Mr. Jeremy Pate
City of Fayetteville - Planning Department
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72703
RE: Benton Ridge PZD - Subdivision Committee Comments
CTA Job No. 031061-00
Dear Mr. Pate:
The attached set of plans and. drainage report were revised per technical plat review
comments on October 30, 2003. Below is a breakdown of .how the comments were
addressed:
Plannino Comments:
1.. A note was added to the preliminary plat explaining the Tree: Preservation/Green
Space areas that are to be located within protective easements. (See Sheet 2)
2. The detention pond was assigned a lot number. (See Sheet 2).
3. A meeting was held on Tuesday, November W. at 6:30 with the neighboring
property owners. A copy of the invitation is attached.
4. The building footprints and driveways were added to the lots. An identification key
was made to show which building elevations went with which lot. The building heights
and number of bedrooms were also included.
5. A formal letter is included requesting a waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac.
6. The cul-de-sac was moved north, so that there would be no grading within 5' of the
south property line.
7. Lot 23 was reverted back to a single-family dwelling.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments about the revised
plans. My direct dial number is (479) 878-2455.
Respectfully,
Grafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
A r c h i t e c t s, E n g i n e e r s a n d S u r v e y o r s
Ce(e6rating 40 years of Design Exceffence and (Dedicated Service 1963 - 2003
A
Crafto
es, Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200, .Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.craftuq.cw
November 10, 2003
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72703
RE:, Benton Ridge PZD —Formal Request for Waiver
CTA Job No. 031061-00
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The developer would like to formally request a waiver for the length of the proposed cul-
de-sac street for the Benton Ridge Planned Zoning District project.
The proposed cul-de-sac length is 965' in length. Rather than extending the proposed
street to Crossover for a second entrance, the proposed cul-de-sac allows for a large
group of existing pine trees to be preserved.
Respectfully,
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
�u�i �/urrvincs�nms`
Juli Zimmerman, E.I.
Project Engineer.
A r c h i t e
c
t s,
E n g
i n e e
r s
a n d
S u
r v
e y o r s
Cele6rating
40
years
of (Design
Excellence
and
OedicateQ
Service
1963
- 2003
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Sufte 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.cr4wil.com
November 11, 2003
Dear Neighbors:
You are invited to an informational meeting which will be held on November 18, 2003 at.
6:36 p.m. at the Ramada Inn located at 3901 N. College, Fayetteville, Arkansas
concerning the proposed Benton Ridge PZD Subdivision.
The proposed project is located on the east side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville
Road and south of Wyman Road. The developer will be present to answer any questions,
you may have.
Thank you,
14 �Is�rvnuvna�v ,
Juli Zimmerman, EI
Project Engineer.
A r c h i t e
c
t s
E n
g i n e
e r
s &
S u r
v e
y o r s
Cefe6rating
40
years
of
Design
EXcellence
and
Dedicated
Service 1'963
-
2003
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
901 N. 47th Sheet, Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Faic 479.631.6224 .www.aaftull.cam
October 6, 2003
City of Fayetteville
Planning: Commissioners
Fayetteville, AR
RE: Benton Ridge PZD Rezoning Request
CTA Job No, 031061-00
Dear Commissioners:
We` are: respectfully requesting this rezoning on . behalf of Raymon and Melba
Rogers, the current property owner of Lot 40 of the W.E. Anderson Farms, and
on behalf of Carl and Ora Murrell, Trustees, the current. property owner of Lot 41
of. the W.E. Anderson.. Farms, and on behalf of Long, L.L:C., who has the
properties under contract for purchase,
We are requesting that the property be rezoned. as a Residential PZD for the
following: reasons:
1. Flexibility. The developer is proposing a mixed use within the twenty-
three -lot subdivision. Lots 1 through 20 will be designated as two-family
residential lots.(Unit 9). Lots 21 through 23 will be designated as single-
family residential dwellings (Unit 8),
2. Compatibility and Harmony. This area of Fayetteville Is currently
being developed as single-family residential (RSF-4), and the develoPer
feels that a Residential PZD Is compatible with the surrounding usage and
will be beneficial to the community. The developer is proposing 43 units
(20 duplex units, and 3 single family units), which will give the proposed
site a density of 5.2 units per acre. This is just slightly about the density
allowed by the. RSF4 zoning.
3. Natural Features. The building setbacks were adjusted throughout
the proposed subdivision to best protect the natural features on the site,
which will be designated as tree preservation areas in the covenants. The
natural drainage way that runs through the center of the property is being
preserved.
RLCE7.IVED
ACT 0 6 2003
r.c h i t e c t s, Engineers a n d S u r v e y o r s
Cefebrating 40 years of Design EXcerfence and Dedicated. Service 1963 - 2003
Full public utilities are available. An existing 8-inch waterline is located along the .
west property line along Crossover Road. An existing 6-inch sanitary sewer, line "
runs through the. center of the property and along the, north property line. , An -
existing 8-inch waterline runs along the east property line.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please
contact us at your convenience.
Respectfully,
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inca
e also, P.E.
Project Manager
rIVE®
OCT 0 6 2003
...;-t llvi VLi DIV.
;r.
y
fit
Benton Ridge PZD
Proposed Covenants
All Residential units must be 1400 sq.ft heated and cooled. E.g. a
duplex would be 2800 sq.ft overall
All building must be a minimum of 70% brick or masonry finish
material.
s
F
- Any siding must be of natural materials — no vinyl or masonite.
Soffit & Fascia may be either wooden or aluminum. F
- R
All roofing must be of an architectural shingle or wood shingle.
All units must have a landscape plan approved by the POA.
All yards will be fully sodded.
All units will have a sprinkler system installed in the front and side
yards.
A POA will be created to maintain(mowing,weedeating) all of the
yards.
Any structural changes, exterior color/fagade treatment alterations,
or additions must be approved by the POA
No vehicles can be parked anywhere but the designated areas. No
inoperative vehicles can be left in sight.
Fencing must be wood or wrought iron and must be approved by
the POA. The poa will be responsible for letting an individual
homeowner know when the appearance of his fence is
unacceptable and will work with that homeowner to remedy the
situation (i.e. stain the fence, new fence required)
No businesses or live stock will be kept or operated on the
residential lots.
DEC-18-2003 14:22 99% P.02
No trees existing in the building setbacks may be cut down unless
the have been determined to be dead.
Each lot will plant atleast a 2" caliper tree for each residential unit
located on that lot. E.g. duplex = 2 trees planted and maintained
Each unit will have a 6' yard light and matching mailbox. They
will be of black painted metal ( same as in Brookbury woods)
All Structures(units) within the bounds of a legal lot are to be sold
in their entirety.(no sale of one side of a. duplex unit is permitted)
Conservation areas are within common property and are to be
owned and maintained by the property Owner's Association.
Areas designated as green space are to be owned by the lot owner,
but maintained by the POA.
Since the PZD has included a larger road than required, Parking
will be allowed on the street.
- The minimum square footage for lots 1 & 2 (zero lot lines) will be
1200 square feet per unit.
99% P.03
DEC-18-2003. 14:22
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAVETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-820
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
trammoot
Jerry Kelso
901 N. 47th Street Ste 200
Rogers, AR 72756
Re: Benton Ridge PZD proposal
Dear Mr. Kelso,
The following is a review of project requirements concerning the project mentioned above:
Staff remains concerned with the development as proposed and at this time is not comfortable
recommending approval for the overall project. The following comments are items of concern that have
been discussed with the applicant and applicant representative on several occasions (June 25, July 07, July
14, 2003). The site plans from the initial meeting have not appreciably changed in any manner as an
outcome of these discussions. Staff remains unconvinced with how the proposed development achieves
the intent and spirit of the Planned Zoning District as set forth in the Unified Development Code.
166.06 Planned Zoning Districts (PZD) D.
(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 ofnatural site amenities, and the protection of
watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that
specific development fewures, includingproject 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 f other the health, safety, amenity
and we of the community. To these ends, all applicationsf led pursuant io this ordinance
shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those uti/Lwdfor
zoning and subdivision applications.
The natural drainage features of the site are not being preserved in any manner. The natural
drainage pattern is being reconfigured and stormwater is being channeled to a detention pond with
approximately 9-foot high detention walls, creating an undesirable condition that could be avoided
with more site -sensitive design and clustering of structures. Staff has expressed specific concern
regarding these retaining walls, and comments are included in the Technical Plat review packet.
a In numerous places, the proposed tree preservation areas in which trees are intended to remain also
contain building envelopes. The tree preservation areas effectively become negated once the lot is
sold and built upon. In particular, lots 2, 5, 18, and 24 indicate preserved tree areas within the
building envelopes. Again, more site -sensitive design and potentially the clustering of dwelling
units could alleviate both the potential loss of units and loss of trees for the overall development.
The tree preservation area on lot 24, proposed to be utilized as commercial/office use, effectively
creates an unbuildable lot. If the tree preservation area is truly to be in effect in this location, Staff
needs to see a building footprint that works with that lot in the proposed manner.
• The natural drainage area has associated trees, including a 30" Ash, a 24" Elm, a 20" Elm, and
several 10-12" Cherry, Sycamore, Pin oak and Ash trees, all of which are being removed. Staff is
optimistic that some of these trees could be saved, along with the natural drainage area, with an
alternate site layout.
Staff has consistently asked for design alternatives for the layout of the overall development, and as of yet
has not received anything more than the current plan to review. The conceptual idea for the project
reaches the benchmark set by the Planned Zoning District ordinance, however, the development needs to
follow through. It is Staffs opinion that the site is overly developed to accomplish the goals and criteria
set forth by the Planned Zoning District. The density allowed with the current zoning (RSF4) is more
compatible with that of the surrounding single family residential land use. The site plan could perhaps
provide better compatibility with fewer lots and a reconfiguration of site layout and circulation to
permanently preserve natural features and site amenities.
Please feet flee to contact City Staff to review these and other comments and concerns regarding your
proposed development project. We look forward to reviewing a revised site plan, and hope these
comments will aid in that process.
Planner
cc: Juli Zimmerman, Crafton, Tull & Associates
Mr. Jon Brittenum
Dawn Warrick, Zoning & Development Administrator
Craig Camagey, Landscape Administrator
From: <rus4rtwr@oox4ntemetcom>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2003 12:16 AM
Subject: benton ridge subdivison
Garey Sorensen
425 S Stone Bridge Rd
'Fayetteville AR
72701
479 521 8718 -
479 871 9012 .
rustytwr@cox4ntemet com
October 27, 2003
Subdivison Committee
Planning Commission
113 West Mountain St.
Fayetteville AR
72701
Members of the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission,
My name is Garay Sorensen and I am a resident at 425 S Stone Bridge Rd. I am also President of the
Wyman/Stone Bridge Neighborhood Association. This letter is in regard to the development known as
Benton, Ridge. Mypersonal concerns are as follows,
1. the density of the development
2.' the encroachment next to the cemetery
As a concern of the neighborhood associations, besides my own conoems, are
1. effects of changing the natural drainage
2. effects on our property values
3. that these are not planned as single family homes
4: will structures fit in with already established homes
5. Set back from property lines.
I have looked at a blueprint of the development and one of.my major concerns is the curl -sac next to the
cemetery. I believe there should be some kind of buffer and a removal of the street to protect the
cemetery. My wife has family in the cemetery, I have church family that has family members there, and
have planned to be buried there myself.
Simply put, we do not wish to stop development. We would like to see the development be for single
family homes on about half of the lots now called for. As it looks now, there would be 22 duplexes, which
would be 44 families. That could roughly amount to 150 people on approx 8 acres. As one resident put it,
in 10 years time that would be a blight (slum) on our neighborhood.. We wish the Committee and
Commission to turn down the plans as they are now. We would like to see the developers work with the
Neighborhood Association and the over seers of the Buckner Cemetery to build something that is pleasing
to the majority.
Sincerely,
Garey Sorensen
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 2003
October 27, 2003 PLANNING D IV.
-,City of Fayetteville
Subdivision Committee
My name is Malcolm Scott Clanton I live at 390 S. Crossover Rd. This letter is in
regards to the Benton Ridge proposed subdivision. I am an adjoining landowner and I
acquired a set of plans from the city. I and am very opposed because of the extreme
population density of the plan. I am also concerned about the closeness to the Buckner
Cemetery. Following the plans I took my.tape measure to the Cemetery and noticed that
the sidewalk that goes around the cul-de-sac would be approximately fifteen feet from a
..grave. As you know with dead. end cul-de-sacs especially during constriction you would
have far increased litter into the cemetery proper i.e. trash, beer bottles. I feel this plan is
irreverent to the historical cemetery.
Most people don't remember that Buckner Community had it's own autonomy at
one time, The. only remaining pieces of the Community are Buckner Church, and
Buckner Cemetery. I am not naive enough to think that 81/2 acres of land in the middle
.of Fayetteville would stay undeveloped, however, I feel that this is not a good plan and
should be rethought. lack only one thing of the developer, which is any street that comes
off -of Crossover rd. in Buckner Community, should be Buckner Street. I know these
v4opers have.a lot of money tied up in what they do. However, all of my money is
-tied up in where l five in this community. I love where I live and the people this is a
great neighborhood and much thought should be placed into what is built here.
Thank You,
Malcolm S. Clanton
Vice President of the Wyman /Stonebridge neighborhood watch association
390 S. Crossover Rd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
N
October 20, 2003
Planning Commission:
We are writing concerning a project called. Benton Ridge Planned Zoning
District. This project, located on the east side of Crossover Road, north of
Huntsville Road and, south of Wyman, abuts to the subdivision and
community area that we live in.
We are strongly against having a rental project adjoining our quiet area of.
living. Not. only do we feel that this will increase the noise and traffic in our
area, but also decrease our property values. The proposed residential project
will be placing 63 family dwellings on the property that at present has two
families. We as,a small quiet single- family residential area, are asking you
to please consider the neighborhoods that are already in this area and ask
you to deny this request.
Leon and Elaine Bozarth
2761 Travis Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RECEIVED
OCT. 2 2 2003
PLANNING DIV.
4A
RECEIVED
SO ).v, 15"0 �o r f f �eJ OCT 2 12003
/ PLANNING DIV.
44 h v.z �S C) //4e . k( h � �aJ� d -1' uU/y,►)C*) zp
jnAYe7levr'l�2 A j �30 /4 �, o ., / ,t ✓rsd�(
U/7a Ui Sr 0/7 Wr 7"� v20 /CK%O ��Cy,.,, lv
2eS,oli,, 3 S,;,S/� �` ..ly lofS on
�• 3�1 /�Ccrs weer ld P—uwf Ay>/-00x. G3
�y o p,
rCq,SOnS 6e:�
LA��aocl
S%�+S aS g0..& ,.,.L/`J� baowes C .Ajo-r QOJOe j) J _
due
home.. k) z U
/(/2JqLi�o!'S Dn T ,2u%S � %6�wr � S .ST LcJoiJ�d I
V '
Hd .
v57e�'- o-� �o�doe5 b017'
ours
140 /20 /03
✓ANEPARKS RECEIVED
3365 VVYMoi wRD. OCT. 2 1 2003
FAYE7TEWUZ, AR. 72701
October 19, 2003 ,PLANNING DIV.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
ROOM 219
113 W. MOUNTAIN
FAYETTEVILLE, AR, 72701
PLEASE NOTE MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE BENTON RIDGE.
DEVELOPMENT,. THE PROPOSALS BY BRYAN DANDY AND ROBERT
SCHMIDT WILL COME.BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE ON OR ABOUT
OCTOBER 30, 2003.
1. SHODDY WORKMANSHIP ON SIMILAR DWELLINGS BUILT ON -
MISSION BLVD,
.2. WYMAN/STONEBRIDGE NEIGHBOR HOOD IS NOTA MIXED USE
NEIGHBOR HOOD,
3, TREES WILL BE CUT, TOP SOIL REMOVED AND CLAY AND ROCKS
BROUGHT IN AS FILL
4, THIS AREA WAS ORIGINALLY A 2 FAMILY LOT
5. A RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX WILL NOT FIT IN WITH THIS
AREA
6, PROPERTY VALUES WILL DECLINE.
7, INCONSISTENCIES IN CITY COMMUNICAES ARE TROUBLING, HOW
MANY OF WHAT TYPE BUILDINGS WILL BE BUILT VARIES WITH
EACH MEMORANDUM,
8, WILL THERE BE DAMAGE TO BUCKNER CEMETERY?
9, WILL. THE NATURAL CREEK BE OBLITERATED?
10. THE DENSITY OF POPULATION THIS WILL ADD TO OUR AREA IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE WYMAN/STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATION
OR TO ME PERSONALLY,
PLEASE CONSIDER THESE CONCERNS.
R P CTFULj�', /
J E PARKS
i
Jeryand Sue Mounce
577 Sherlock Avenue OCT 2
Fayetteville, AR 12701
PLANNING DN•
October 20, 2003
Subdivision Committee
City ofFayetteville
City Administration Building
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear. Sirs or Madams:
I am writing you regarding the Benton Ridge Planned Zoning District .
I am an adjoining landowner to the East of the proposed project and want you to know that.I am greatly
disturbed at the prospects of such a development being in my back yard. I built this house about eight years
ago in'a single residential neighborhood and would not have done so if such a project as this could be seen
(and heard) from my back porch. This type of project is not in keeping with the neighborhood I chose to
build in and live in. I want you to not allow it
I have been a resident of this area all of my life and my parents lived here all of their lives. As I now
approach retirement in this neighborhood, I am appalled that the city would even consider changing my
neighborhood in this way. I did not move here to live next to renters. I moved here to live with
landowners who have a vested interest in their own property and live as owners of it. I do not wish to look
out my back window to see a neighborhood that is not in keeping with the one I have chosen to live in as I .
retire with my wife.
This letter is to let you know of my displeasure in the possibilities of the impact that such a development
would have on my hard earned and long sought investment here on Sherlock Avenue. If I had wanted to
live in a duplex neighborhood I would have moved near to one. I did not then want to live near one and I
do not appreciate that the powers that be in Fayetteville would make me live near one now.
Please do not allow this project to proceed.
Sincerely,
Mounce
File
:�=kkI[el►0IMNII
• 0
STAFAVIEW FORM - NON -FINANCIAL &GATION
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: January 6, 2004
FROM
Dawn Warrick Planning
Name Division
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
CP&E
Department
R-PZD 03-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) submitted by CraRon, Tull and
Associates, Inc. on behalf of Long, LLC for property located on the east side of Crossover Road, north of
Huntsville Road and south of Wyman Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units
per acre, and contains approximately 8.34 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a R-PZD 03-
06.00, with a total of 43 dwelling units on 23 lots (20 Two-family and 3 Single-family).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Department Director y
Ae L 'j��
Fi ance & Internal Services Dir.
Chief Aftini
Mayor
Approval.
tN tk �63
Date
�3
Date
lz-(L-OD
Date
Date
!� 5 v
ate
Received in Mayor's Office
Date
Cross Reference:
Previous Ord/Res#:
Orig. Contract Date:
Orig. Contract Number:
New Item:
Yes No
EOV7
ff, °
7
Planning Commissis
December 8, 2003
Page 11
R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) was submitted by
Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Long LLC for property located on the east
side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road and south of Wyman Road. The
property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains
approximately 8.34 acres. The request is rezone the subject property to a Residential
Planned Zoning District, with a total of 43 dwelling units on 23 lots (20 Two-family, 3
Single-family)
Hoover: Item
number four
has been withdrawn, that
was RZN 03-39.00 so we are
on to
item number
five, R-PZD 03-06.00 for
Benton Ridge.
Pate: Madam Chair, as you mentioned, this is a request for an R-PZD,
Residential Planned Zoning District for Benton Ridge. The proposal is for
a residential subdivision with 23 lots, 18 of these lots are proposed to be
constructed with two family dwelling units. Two lots are proposed to be
developed with one four unit multi-plex which expands that lot line
resulting in a total of four dwelling units for those two lots. The three
remaining lots near Crossover Road are proposed to be single family lots.
This results in a total of 43 units and a total density of 5.2 dwelling units
per acre. The applicant has provided both this graphic and within your
staff report and on the plat the corresponding lots with the elevations and
the site plans to be placed on each of these lots. These site plans and
elevations are binding to this approval through the covenants and through
the Planning Commission and subsequent City Council approval if you
and City Council choose to do so. This site is located on North Huntsville
Road on the east side of Crossover Road. It contains approximately 8.34
acres. There is a waiver request for the maximum 500' length in cul-de-
sac that has been formally submitted by the applicant that a 965' length be
allowed. In previous submittals a looped drive was utilized. Staff was
concerned within a PZD they are required to look specifically at
environmental considerations. There is a significant grove of trees in that
location that the Landscape Administrator was looking at trying to
preserve and save on this site, as well as a natural drainage way which the
applicant has also proposed to remain on the site. Tree preservation areas
as listed in your reports are to be placed in a protective easement and there
are two or three lots that are conservation easements that would be
protected in perpetuity. I have included also a project history that is for
the Planning Commission to peruse. We have been contacted about this
specific project with the applicant since the 25`h of June of this year from
it's initial meeting with the applicant. What we have today is similar but
is also very different than what was initially proposed. Just for a little
background, initially there were commercial lots on this site. There were
also four plexes at one time. The density was quite a bit higher at one
time and there was also quite a bit lower percentage of tree canopy
preserved. Staff has worked diligently I believe with the applicant to try to
address some of these issues. A lot of those have disappeared from our
Planning Commissis •
December 8, 2003
Page 12
conditions of approval as we have gone through several of these meetings.
A lot of them never made it to the meeting that you see here. It was tabled
just previously. It has been to Subdivision two or three times for review
and Technical Plat just as well. The applicant did conduct a neighborhood
meeting and I believe the results of the people who attended that meeting
are in your packet as well. Staff recommended that as well as did the
Planning Commission to hopefully address or alleviate the concerns of the
neighbors. Specifically, some of the concerns addressed were setbacks to
the north and to the.east. The applicant has changed those setbacks.
Within a PZD the developer is able to vary setbacks. However, the
Planning Commissioners were concerned as were the neighbors about the
closeness of this development to their homes. I believe on the north and
east side all setbacks are now 20', which is more consistent with a single
family residential dwelling unit type of development, which is allowed in
this district by right at the current time. The applicant has submitted a
draft of covenants as well addressing proposed PZD responsibilities and
maintenance of future open spaces, landscaping building types and
heights. The final draft shall be submitted with this and the Final Plat that
has to follow this development. Staff is recommending approval of the
proposed PZD with a number of findings as listed in your staff report.
The 15 conditions of approval that staff is recommending are indicative of
some of those issues. Specifically, lot 20 is currently not identified with a
corresponding building footprint and elevation. That does need to be
identified prior to the Final Plat approval for this project. Also, Planning
Commission must determine tonight and recommending for or against the
waiver for the cul-de-sac length. I will be available for questions.
Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward with a presentation?
Zimmerman: Hello, my name is Julie Zimmerman with Crafton, Tull & Associates and I
am representing Long, LLC for the Benton Ridge PZD project. Jeremy
pretty much hit, all the points that I also came up with. Basically, the
property right now is zoned for Residential Single Family, RSF-4. We are
proposing a PZD. with 18 two family lots, three single family lots and two
multi -family lots with one building which spans lot one and two but there
will only be two units allowed per lot. This comes up with a total number
of units of 43 with a density of 5.2 units per acre. As a background, also,
originally we did have a looped street that created a horseshoe pattern and
I brought along some before and afters to pass around. This is just to
show you how we have come along. Originally we were proposing 22 two
family lots with two Residential Office lots adjacent to Crossover, which
had a total units of 46 with 5.5 units per acre and there was also one lot for
a detention pond. Originally we had proposed a 24' back to back street
with a 40' right of way and now we have a 28' back to back street with a
50' right of way. Originally we did not preserve the natural drainage way,
nor did we preserve very many trees. The second sheet in the packet I
Planning Commissis •
December 8, 2003
Page 13
handed out is where we are today. As you can see, we have a long cul-de-
sac street so that we can stop right before we hit a large group of pine
trees, which make up the conservation easement and lot 25. That is why
we are requesting the formal waiver of the 500' cul-de-sac length. Some
areas of tree preservation, lot 25 is a conservation easement. It is a large
grouping of pine trees and a large elm and it is west of lot 18. Lot 26 is a
conservation easement and we are preserving some existing cherry trees,
some elms and willows. This lot is on the southeast of the property and it
is also an area where we are preserving the natural drainage way. Lot 27
is a conservation easement, which is west of lot 21 and lot 28 is kind of a
small conservation easement and it is just south of the cul-de-sac. In
addition to the conservation easements, we also have areas of greenspace
which there is a 13' greenspace along the north property line to preserve a
row of existing trees there. There is a 20' greenspace along the east
property line. There is a 20' greenspace north of the cemetery and a 15'
greenspace along the south property line which is north of the driveway to
the cemetery and west of the cemetery. The conservation easements are
areas of common property that will be maintained by the P.O.A. and the
greeenspaces will be owned by the lot owners but also maintained by the
P.O.A. per the covenants so that the trees will be preserved. Also, there is
a 40' greenspace in between lots 16 and 17 and lots 19 and 20 and this is
to preserve an existing ditch that runs through the property so all those
trees that are existing along that ditch will also be preserved. One of the
requests from the staff was to provide you with the colored drawing you
have in your packets. We showed the building footprints and we also had
elevations to help everyone see what we were proposing for each lot. The
driveways are also shown on that. We did hold a meeting with the
property owners around the project and with some discussion with them,
originally we had some varying setbacks along the perimeter of the
property, some of them were as small as 8' so we have changed them all to
a minimum of 20' along the north and the east property line. They also
had some concerns about a couple of our footprints. One of them was
Creek stone Way, which was a huge building and it was two story and
since talking with them we have changed it to Cooper Lake on lots 9 and
10 which is a single story duplex. We have also changed, we did have
some 5' setbacks along the street, which we changed to a 20' utility
easement. That area was in front of lots one through five. We have
worked quite a bit at this project. I think that we have pretty much
addressed most of the concerns from the staff and adjacent property
owners so I will just answer any questions you might have.
Hoover: Thank you Julie. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any
member that would like to address this Planned Zoning District 03-06.00?
If you would come to the podium.
Planning Commissio •
December 8, 2003
Page 14
Isaacs: Hi, I'm Ilsa Isaacs I live at 2665 E. Travis. I would like to note Mr.
Clanton is here today and Mr. Clemens is here today. Both of them said
they wanted to say something and address this issue. Just a couple of
quick comments. I am going to ask, I don't know who is best to address
for this, one of the old sticking points was Creekside Way backed up to
lots 9 and 10 and the material I got from Renee Thomas on Friday still has
Creekside Way building and the lower profile building not shown on page
two. I don't know if that is an over sight. It is a matter very close to my
heart since my property abuts three of these properties. Whom should I
give this to?
Pate: Madam Chair, that is an oversight. Ms. Zimmerman made me aware of
that today. That should be changed in our staff report to reflect what is on
your current color drawing I believe. The Cooper Lake for lots 9 and 10.
Isaacs: Your saying that puts it on the record, is that correct?
Pate: Yes Ma'am.
Isaacs: Alright. The other thing I want to say just as nicely as possible is the
density issue, which is one of the primary issues of all the residents who
wrote letters has not been greatly changed. It has been changed, it hasn't
been greatly changed. Apparently the parking issue has been modified to
the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Maybe I shouldn't ask, that
will come out in the discussion no doubt. I'm going to repeat myself but
all teachers repeat themselves, it is one of the requirements. When the just
position of the new zoning placed in the old zone is so different there is
bound to be a lot of ruckus and there are bound to be a lot of
accommodations that are necessary. I would suggest to the lovely young
people who work so hard at this, I would suggest to them that the new
zohings blend, articulate, melt with the old neighborhoods somewhat
better, not quite so extreme, maybe bazaar isn't the right word, but not in
such an extreme manner. That said, I will say that it's not the happiest
thing that ever happened in my life but I'm going to withdraw my.
objections. I won't give it my empery mature but then I'm not the pope.
Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to
address this Planned Zoning District? Seeing none, I will bring it back to
the Commission. Would someone from Subdivision like to give us a
report? Julie and Jeremy did a good job.
Bunch: I guess in looking at the historical record of this project it has been to
Subdivision several times as well as Technical Plat and staff and the
applicant have worked on it and reworked it and fine tuned and tweaked it.
Some of the last issues that were discussed at the last Subdivision
Committee meeting were delineating parking and setbacks to be more
Planning Commissis
December 8, 2003
Page 15
commensurate with RSF-4 setbacks. The applicant has provided all of
these things so the project has come a long ways and it has made many
attempts to create compatibility, albeit a slightly greater density than it's
previous RSF-4 zoning.
Vaught: I have a question for clarification. The three lots with the single family
residential, which ones are those?
Pate: Lots 21, 22 and 23, lot 23 is identified as a cottage, that is a single family
lot.
Vaught: The footprint for that has two units. That is why I was wondering, at least
from what I can tell. That is why I was confused. I just want to make sure
it is 43. We are stating 43 and if there are 44 I want to make sure that got
changed.
Pate: Right.
If
that
is
the
case staff has recommended consistently that all of
those
lots,
21,
22
and
23 be single family lots.
Warrick: Correspondence from the applicant's representative dated November 19`n
itemizes that as a cottage in their proposal, lot 23 was reverted back to a
single family dwelling. That is in your packets on page 24.
Vaught: On a PZD, my understanding is that when we specify these footprints,
those will be set, that is what they have to build there. On that one we
need to make a condition stating that will be designated single family
before Final Plat or how would we do that?
Warrick: As this goes forward this does still require City Council approval because
they will be changing the zoning that is associated with this development
project. Staff can ensure that that change is made before this goes forward
to the City Council.
Bunch:: For the same line of questioning Commissioner Vaught was pursuing, in
the covenants there is also a statement that lot 23 will be a two family lot
but must maintain a single story single family look when viewed from
Crossover Road. That also needs to be addressed just to have continuity
within the packet.
Pate: That was the intent of one of the conditions of approval to clarify one of
the draft covenants before City Council approval and ultimately before
Final Plat when they are filed with that Final Plat. There are some
discrepancies in the covenants at this time. If you will note, on your plat
on page two with the lot schedule, it does call out lots 21, 22, and 23 as
single family unit eight lots.
Planning Commissio •
December S, 2003
Page 16
Bunch: A question for the applicant. In your covenants you are calling out a 1,400
sq.ft. minimum and Sarasota Grove on lots one and two your prototype
shows that that is less. Do you need to put an exception in or do you need
to propose a different prototype?
Zimmerman: We will propose a different footprint.
Hoover: Are there other comments or motions?
MOTION:
Bunch: I will attempt a motion. I move that we approve and recommend to the
City Council for their review and approval R-PZD 03-06.00 for Benton
Ridge subject to the conditions of approval as stated and with the
clarification of some of the discrepancies as reviewed tonight.
Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, is there a second?
Shackelford: I will second.
Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there more discussion?
Renee?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 03-06.00 to
the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
C4 Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
O 901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.craftull.com
January 22, 2004
Mr. Jeremy Pate
City of Fayetteville — Planning Department
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72703
RE: Benton Ridge PZD — City Council
CTA Job No. 031061-00
Dear Mr. Pate:
It is the developer's intentions to schedule a meeting with the adjacent property owner's
per the request of the City Council, from the January 201" City Council meeting, to further
discuss the covenants, the lot layout, the building footprints, and the density of the
proposed Benton Ridge PZD project. The attached notice is being sent out to adjacent
property owners this afternoon.
The results of this meeting will be incorporated into the next City Council meeting on
February 3rd, 2004.
Please do
not hesitate to
call, if you have any questions or comments.
My direct dial
number is
(479) 878-2455.
Respectfully,
Grafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
�i4 �in„murm[w�+
Juli Zimmerman, E.I.
Project Engineer
Attachments: Notice to adjacent property owners
CC: Jon Brittenum
A r c h i t e c t s, E n g i n e e r s & S u r v e y o r s
Cele6rating 40 years of (Design EXce!lence and Dedicated Service 1963 - 2003
/-vr� Grafton, Tull & Associates,' Inc.
IMLAL
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.craftull.com
January 22, 2004
Dear Neighbors:
You are invited to a second informational meeting concerning the proposed Benton
Ridge PZD Subdivision. This meeting will be held on Monday, January 26`h, 2004 at
6:00 p.m. in the fellowship hall of the Buckner Baptist Church, which is located at 2748
East Wyman Road in Fayetteville (near the intersection of Wyman and Stonebridge).
The meeting is initially being held to discuss traffic issues in the area, but the proposed
Benton Ridge PZD Subdivision is being added to the agenda. Both the developer and
the engineer will be present to address any comments or questions that you might have
concerning the project.
Thank you,
Juli Zimmerman, E.I.
Project Engineer
A r c h i t e
c
t s,
E n
g i n e
e r
s &
S u r
v e
y_ o r s
Celebrating.
40
years
of
Design
Exceffence
and
Oedicaterf
Service
1963 -
2003
Fi
PL o 03- `. 0.0
'
• �— ti ^nil/ lnrir �� ..v�py.
Plan HPT260109
Square Footage: \6\,
r 1,060 per unit
Width: 80'-0"
Depth: 51'-8"
Sarasota Grove
With stylish European and
Mediterranean accents, this dazzling
Old World design provides a stunning
multi -family option for the growing
family. A quaint front covered porch
welcomes you inside to a two-story
foyer, overlooked by a second -floor
balcony. Each of the four units provides
nearly identical layouts. The living
room enjoys a charming corner
fireplace, across from the bayed
kitchen area. Bedrooms 2 and 3 share
a full hall bath, while the master
bedroom includes a walk-in closet
and private bath. Each unit provides
a laundry closet, equipped for a
washer and dryer. The fast -floor units
offer rear patios, while the second -floor
snits offer rear decks.
RECEIVED
DEC 18 2003
112
PLANNING DIV.
LnTs 1/2
We . .—2B'to-----
. . .. ..6....... 281
NOV-14-2003 08:48
99:
i
sup.som
Cj Qpllt
Lets � f Z
P.02
.,sit
T
N
N
r
NUTMEG CIRCLE
1 7,1
i
N
N
lam— —.._._.... .. . �i'1 ... ................. . ... .�
L o-rs 3, Li is 1617-
NOV-14-20M 08:48 99% P.04
}
'+-. �•`�P r� (hnti a Yt t ..n{ gv�}11ryt�...i:� k� x1 _�-Z�. 'No -r.;r�!1 ✓Lr i.
c,. J.h . ._ .... .,.t. $. h. 3 s. .: y_,,,, ,.[,re a.y x,Y � . c�„ __._ 'Lrca .i x ut. c.::w ,. d._.✓.ki?E �$A _. _..
CHeLse► T wLavaen
Lors L, 8,1', I4 $'l
NOV-14-2003 08:48 99% p•06
TIC.
3
i e Ix ,j,I L� r '
•iy. rrfro .a -
u
r4. .• •� .za,,.e
V w ! u24C WA , ...... oaf who am w, rn.`......... wager s�..+a�'Y�
uw.�x'y lei Il ttt e• ,d.t „Bab .
lei ro e T
W0'
S swap
. F i .... tay
Baema i ieMam i
ya 14°. t6' Slbwei 3 ectlo 3- lee 14 2e
FL04W
hft •/hnnanv frankhet�..cnm/nirnaQes/coonerlakefirst.eif
CooFm 'LAK.6
ors 7 , Is � i Ib
y�10
10/21/2003
C66PEe WZ
LOTS">Is1'1 16
9 iiD
NOV-14-2003 08:48
IN
P.0?
T4
Te —_..
so,
sPQ{iCe ew6e
Lots
WOU-17-2003 11:39
99i
I0"I
Ok T` Jar / yr ♦ Jt`� _�^t
�1
l
,I
i
3
m
i
Y6� I
n-J-er I-
a
3
ta
FL
t"tope►�p Cou27
— -- -- __— a Wo
L e r 18 '
NOV-14-2003 08:48 99% P.03
NOV-17-2003 11:38
72
26FY--- —
•
ra--
06F4MtcJ CbW&&,e
LOT 2.'S
P.02
T
141 P.
S
Doe
1.1M (PS)
Y/1/2W3
OwYq Ilmlc 031M1-W\wq\d9\�
l a mbl T . 03IMM
4.m ia. 54" (alum)1 %$
d
/
0
A
i
m
D
n
=
D
rmm
r�
0
1
\..
m
0
o
W
t8
o
mz
eza
m
J
tgQ
PIP
Ag
rn
c
b
mN1
O
z�$
i _ 1
p
a
H�Z
wm
�
N
a�
O
Q
c
ra
ID
CY)
0
y
0CD
CD
F3
. %.
rn
-�v
m
m
Z
Z
N
m
m
a
�
O
to
Z
n
m
m
E,
0
w
FJ
3
A
8�
ouauat a MM PM3MAml nuraNa (.mrd
I
a
29, S � N �0
L g
it
g
Fla. $�9 � gg p e g g}$
$elig s Q O
�I�
a � , s
e� 14 1`
f ps¢ V N I 3 I$ag&3 w gPa
it
6g gg p 6P yi+
C�o.3 a�B� �s 7 68Y a 43
r 6 g gg
rf a (a7 3s
ILI gcg
fir- c'' l
i
y
I
I
Y'i`.��rli� .. \ - � - A • � ` 'nit' 'I�1�iJ'
, I
r
II tl I I" I �dQw
(1
I
/
i,
N 4 g
Lj
BENTON RIDGE
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT
Crofton, Tull &Crofton. Tull & Associates, Inc,
6a1 B .48Street Sutra.63 Ropers, AR u 11.
94TS01 N. 470 t tufts 200 6324 www.annull.wm
s
Architects, Engineers &Architects, Engineers Surveyors
9
D
� I
BENTON RIDGE
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT
40) Crafton, Tull & Associates. Inc.
e01 N.4T Street, Sufts 200 Ropsn, AR 72756
478.838.4838 FA%: 478.531.5224 wf .mfbUll.wm
Architects, .Engineers & Surveyors
cofla
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.craftull.com
January 22, 2004
Mr. Jeremy Pate
City of Fayetteville — Planning Department
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72703
RE: Benton Ridge PZD — City Council
CTA Job No. 031061-00
Dear Mr. Pate:
It is the developers intentions to schedule a meeting with the adjacent property owner's
per the request of the City Council, from the January 20"' City Council meeting, to further
discuss the covenants, the lot layout, the building footprints, and the density of the
proposed Benton Ridge PZD project. The attached notice is being sent out to adjacent
property owners this afternoon.
The results of this meeting will be incorporated into the next City Council meeting on
February Td, 2004.
Please do
not hesitate to call,
if you have any questions or comments.
My direct dial
number is
(479) 878-2455.
Respectfully,
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
,y��imvrnaomnn.�
(JJuli Zimmerman, E.I.
Project Engineer
Attachments: Notice to adjacent property owners
CC: Jon Brittenum
A r c h i t e c t s, E n g i n e e r s & S u r v e y o r s
Celebrating 40 years of Design Excellence and (Dedicated Service 1963 - 2003
/-W� Grafton, Tull & Associates,Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax: 479.631.6224 www.craftull.com
January 22, 2004
Dear Neighbors:
You are invited to a second informational meeting concerning the proposed Benton
Ridge PZD Subdivision. This meeting will be held on Monday, January 2616, 2004 at
6:00 p.m. in the fellowship hall of the Buckner Baptist Church, which is located at 2748
East Wyman Road in Fayetteville (near the intersection of Wyman and Stonebridge).
The meeting is initially being held to discuss traffic issues in the area, but the proposed
Benton Ridge PZD Subdivision is being added to the agenda. Both the developer and
the engineer will be present to address any comments or questions that you might have
concerning the project.
Thank you,
�L adv
Juli Zimmerman, E.I.
Project Engineer
A r c h i t e
c
t s
E n
g i n e
e r
s &
S u
r v e
y.o. r s
Celebrating.
40
years
of
(Design
EXcellence
and
(Dedicated
Service
1963 -
2003
6
F 'YETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman�
City Clerk Division
Date: February 9, 2004
Re: Ordinance No. 4538
Attached is an executed copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, January 3,
2004, establishing R-PZD 03-6.00 and adopting the associated residential development plan.
This ordinance will publish in a paper of general circulation and filed at the Washington County
Courthouse.
This
ordinance
and exhibits
will
be recorded
in the
city clerk's office and microfilm.
If anything
else
is needed
please let the
city
clerk's office
know.
Attachment(s)
cc: John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering
Aikawas Demomt
P I7 a., / , , ' W
I_\99I
AVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, do solemnly swear that I am
Leg I Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication, that advertisement of:
was inserted in the regular editions on
e
PO# c�% �rt0 /
** Publication Charge: $ ��%. J-/
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
10 day of Feb rK4 ry , 2004.
49
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: 07kMod
** Please do
not
pay
from Affidavit.
An
invoice
will
be
sent.
Official Seal RE"F IV E O
SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO
Public -Arkansas FEB 12 2004
:Notary
ASHINGTON COUNTY CRYOFFAYETTEVILLE
My Cmmission Expires 07-254073
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
ORDINANCE NO. 4598
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT TITLED (R-PZD W3 .00) LOCATED ON THE
FAST11SDp OF CROSSOVER ROAD NORTH OF HUNTSVILLE
ROAD�AND SOUTH OF WYMAN ROAD CONTAINING 8.34-
ACRES, MORE OR LESS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING !—_ S
MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE EY'YEE�*&
ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WfTH
AGREEMENT OF THE APPUCANT
e. f
BE R ORDAINED BY THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OP FAYETTMLLE, ARKANSAC
Section 1: That the zone c1355ificatlon o1 Me following described prI6 hereby changed as follows:
I ,�
From RSF-4, R.esidentlal Single Family, four units per acre to R-PZD 03-06.00 as shown in E#ubI'A'
attached hereto and made a pan hereof.
Section 2: That the change in zoiing classification is based upon the approved master development Wan
and development standards as Shown on the plat and approved by the Pkeriig Commission on
December 8, 2003 and further amended by the City Council on Febmary 3, 20D4.
Becton 3: That this ordinance shell tees effect and be in full force at such time as Of of the requirements
of the development Wan have been met.
Section 4: That the Official zoning map Of the Gty of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Is haveloy amended to reflect
the zoning charge pmvidad in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this the Ord day of Febmary, 2004.
APPROVED:
By.
DAN COODYr WhOw
EXHIBIT 'Am
R-PZD 03-06.00
OF LOTS 40 AND 41 OF W.E. ANDERSON FARM OR SUBDIVISION AS PER PLAT OF SAID
(VISION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK OF WASHINGTON-COUNTY;
VSAS, BEING PART OF THE SEt/4 OF THE SE1/4 OF SECTION 14 IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH,
E 30 WEST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
INING AT AN EYJSTING IRON PIN ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 41 bF W.E: ANDERSON FARM
IS S87-44.19-E 147.06 FEET FROM THE N.W. CORNER OF SAID LOT 41; THENCE SBP44'19'E
) FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIN AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID LOT 41; THENCE ALONG THE
UNE OF SAID LOT 41 S02058'03'W 330.68 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIN AT THE NE
IER OF LOT 40 OF SAID W.E. ANDERSON FARM; THENCE ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID
A CEMETERY; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID
HIGHWAY 265; THENCE ALONG SAIO HIGHWAY 265 EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE THE
HANG THREE (3) COURSES: N05057-13-E 217.36 FEET, N04037-51'W 160.74 FEET, THENCE
'45-E 145.72 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID HIGHWAY 265 EAST RIGHTOF-WAY UNE
1191E 142.52 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIN; THENCE N02030'01 'E 127.01 FELT TO THE
OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 8.34 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.