Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4830 Doc ID : 009702180006 TVoe : REL Recorded : 02/28/2006 at 09 : 57 : 52 AM Fee Amt : $23 . 00 Paae 1 of 6 Mashlnaton County . AR Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 4830 File 2006-00008169 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL - - PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 05- 1735, PADDOCK ROAD, LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PADDOCK ROAD AND HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 9.77 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 units per acre, to R-PZD 05- 1735 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, development standards, and conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council. Section 3 : That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section I above. PASSED and APPROVED this 7 h day of February, 2006. APPROVE . By: DAN COODY, Mayor By: %a(x .\TY ' .�9SG,'� O DRA SMITH, City Clerk a 0�•e. ;I : V. : G c : FAYETTEVILLE ; TOS 0, :�v�,y,pKANSPS Jam` EXHIBIT "A" R-PZD 05-1735 PART OF THE NWI /4 OF THE SWI/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT A FOUND IRON PIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1 /4 OF THE SW 1 /4; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1 /4 OF THE SWI /4 S02046'39"W 20.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PADDOCK ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N87°07'09"W 15 .00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PADDOCK ROAD AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S02046'39"W 368.72 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S87006'49"E 15 .00 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SWI /4; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S02°46'39"W 303 . 19 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE N87006'50"W 627.69 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2°46'07"E 239.05 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2044'01 "E 452.81 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW1 /4 OF THE SWI/4; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S87°07'09"E 460. 10 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE S02049' 16"W 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID PADDOCK ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S87007'09"E 152.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 9.77 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD OR FACT. EXHIBIT °B" R-PZD 05-1735 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 1 . Planning Commission determination a waiver request from the minimum street grade requirements of 10% and 15% for a maximum of 300' in hilly terrain to allow the following: i. Paddock Road — 12.3% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 5+30 ii. Acacia Drive — 12.4% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 3+00 and 14.7% from Sta 3+00 to Sta 5+10 After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff' recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 2. Planning Commission determination a waiver request from minimum street grade of 4% for 100' from an intersection to allow the following: i. Happy Hollow Road and Acacia Drive — 5.4% ii. Acacia Drive and Street 1C — 10.26% iii. Street 1C and Street 3 — 12.97% After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 3 . A waiver request of minimum residential street radius of 150' . The applicant requests the following minimum radii: i. Paddock Road and Street 113 — 50' ii. Street 1 A and Street 2 — 75' iii. Street I and Street 3 — 75 ' After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 4. A waiver request from minimum street standards for the width of Paddock Road and Acacia Drive. Staff recommends that the applicant modify the southern stub-out from 23 ' street width to a minimum 24 ' street width. Additionally, the street width on either side of the proposed landscape islands located within the principal east-west street shall be a minimum 20 ', which may require the increase of right-of-way or reduction of the width of the landscape islands. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 5 . Planning Commission determination of appropriate street alignment. Staffrecommends that the stub-out to the west be realigned either to the north or south so that it does not terminate adjacent to two property owners. This will potentially create problems should either property owner desire to develop and require the dedication ofthe other 's propertyfor right- of-way. CITY COUNCIL AMENDED (02-07-06). THE WEST STREET STUB-OUT SHALL BE RELOCATED TO THE NORTH TO ALLOW COMPLETE STREET CONSTRUCTION TO THE ADJACENT (NORTH) PROPERTY OWNER'S EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. 6. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of parking regulations described in Ch. 172.04A which prohibits backing vehicles into public right-of-way to allowing perpendicular (90°) parking north of Paddock Road for the Mount Sequoyah Preserve park land. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver finding that the proposed parking on Paddock Road will not create a dangerous traffic situation. Access to those lots on Paddock Road will be provided by an access easement leaving the street relatively clear of residential vehicular movements and Paddock Road will not be a through street. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 7. Planning Commission determination of street improvements, to include the following: a. Installation of a 14' wide street from centerline of Happy Hollow Road, including 14' pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains, and a 6' sidewalk. b. The construction of 15 parking spaces and a landscape island north of Paddock Road to serve as parking for the Mount Sequoyah Park. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 8. Dedication of right-of-way in conformance with the Master Street Plan and/or approved waivers for street standards for all interior streets and 35' right-of-way from centerline of Happy Hollow Road. 9. Structures located on lots adjacent to Happy Hollow Road shall be constructed to face Happy Hollow Road. 10. Any landscape island shall be exclusive of the right-of-way, owned, and maintained by the Property Owner's Association. 11 . Zoning and development criteria shall be enforced as approved by the City Council as currently referenced in the attached zoning criteria. 12. Future development shall comply with at least the minimum design standards for development in the Unified Development Code with exceptions listed herein, including but not limited to landscaping, parking, access, street design, stormwater detention, etc. Buildings proposed shall be reviewed to ensure appropriate architectural compatibility, compliance with commercial design standards, and/or conformance with the architectural standards and concepts provided with the subject submittal. 13 . Parks fees in the amount of$32,190 for 58 single-family units shall be paid prior to issuance of the final plat. 14. Conditions included in the Tree Preservation Report prepared for this Planning Commission meeting are hereby included in the official conditions of approval for the Paddock Road Subdivision. 15. The ordinance does not allow for Tree Preservation Easements on residential lots used for single family use. Restrictions within the Tree Preservation Easements identified on the plat shall be established in the covenants and regulated by the Property Owners Association. 16. All signage within each Phase of the Master Development Plan shall be permitted in accordance with the current sign regulations at the time of development. The development comply with the RSF-4 zoning district requirements which would allow a moderate amount of signage, such as a subdivision sign, if so desired. 17. Compliance with federal, state and local regulations regarding the development of any wetlands is required. 18. All development shall meet applicable building codes and other ordinances of the City of Fayetteville. 19. The applicant shall install signs at each street stub-out to indicate the future extension of said street prior to the application of signatures on the final plat. 20. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building setbacks. 21 . Buildings shall be constructed generally as depicted in the building elevations in the booklet with the materials specified. Standard Conditions of Approval: 22. The applicant shall be granted one (1 ) year from the date of Planning Commission approval to receive all permits necessary for development of the Phase with a one ( 1 ) year extension available. 23 . The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 24. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required public improvements are required to be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. 25. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code, and shall be subject to signage requirements for residential multi-family development. This shall be reflected in the booklets and on the plats. 26. 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). 27. 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. 28. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. C. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. d. Project Disk with all final revisions e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 02/28/2006 09:57:52 AM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2006-00008169 Bette Stamps - Circuit C by i ®RD Hometown Development y3o 1747 N. College Avenue R Fayetteville, All 72703 o5- / 7 L �bdd January 17, 2006 Mrs. Sondra Smith City Clerk City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dear Mrs. Smith On January 9t°, The Fayetteville Planning commission considered Paddock Lane, a project submitted by my Company, Hometown Development. After considerable discussion, the project received a favorable vote of 4-3 . However, as you know, the rules of the commission require 5 affirmative votes for approval by the commission. I am formally submitting, with this letter, a request for appeal to the Fayetteville City Council for this excellent project. It is my understanding that the appeal can be placed on the next council meeting on February 7a', 2006 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns on this request or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact my representative in this matter, Mr. Hugh Earnest. He can be reached at 841 -8549. Robert Schmitt President Hometown Development RECEIVtO JAN 18 2906 CIN OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Sondra Smith - Appeal From: Lisa Branson To: Smith, Sondra Date: 1 /11106 11 :48AM Subject: Appeal Hugh stopped by to say that he will send a letter of appeal regarding Paddock Lane he understands he has 10 days to do that, and he didn't realize that it had to pass with 5 votes. Lisa City Council Meeting of February 07, 2006 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru : Gary Dumas, Director of Operations From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning Date: January 17, 2006 Subject: Residential Planned Zoning District for Paddock Road Subdivision (R-PZD 05- 1735) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted to deny the subject request for an ordinance creating a Residential Planned Zoning District (R-PZD) for Paddock Road Subdivision. This action would establish a unique zoning district for a residential subdivision on a 9.77-acre tract located west of Happy Hollow Road, south of Mount Sequoyah Preserve. BACKGROUND The applicant requests a rezoning and Master Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a mixed-density project on the property. The proposal includes a maximum of 58 dwelling units within the proposed subdivision. The development will consist of 33 single-family detached dwelling units on large lots (comparable to the RSF-4 zoning district) and narrow lots to allow urban densities. A total of 25 lots will allow for townhome (attached single family) development. The overall density proposed is 5 .91 units per acre. This development would create a unique R-PZD combining single-family detached and single-family townhomes in the immediate vicinity of the Happy Hollow Elementary School and Mount Sequoyah Preserve. The applicant has attempted to modify the street alignment to reduce the number of streets that traverse the slope of the land to reduce the incline and visibility of the streets and submitted several waiver requests which have been recommended by staff. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission voted 4-3-0 in favor of this request on January 09, 2006, with Commissioners Ostner, Allen and Clark voting no. Commissioners Anthes and Vaught were absent. Due to the lack of five affirmative votes, the motion to approve the R-PZD failed. Those who voted against the motion discussed their concerns regarding the proposal, most of which revolved around the compatibility of the proposed density on a hillside. The applicant has submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Clerk within the 10-day appeal period. (See applicant's appeal of Planning Commission decision.) A PZD requires City Council approval as it includes zoning City Council Meeting of February 07, 2006 Agenda Item Number approval. Recommended conditions were approved by the Planning Commission and are reflected in the attached staff report. The applicant has attempted to transition ' between the detached and attached units, clustering the more dense development near the adjacent Collector Street, parkland and in areas with less tree canopy. The Planned Zoning District contains a total nine Planning Areas. Each Planning Area has its own specific density (maximum number of dwellings units allowed), depending upon the desired effect. For reasons of zoning, each Planning Area also has to have established bulk and area criteria, setbacks, height, etc. The information is provided both in a booklet form, which describes the intent of each Planning Area along with a drawing of the overall Planning Area boundaries, and by way of the larger plat, which gives more engineered information . The applicant requests approval of both the zoning, given the proposed Master Development Plan, statement of commitments, and development standards, and the approval of the preliminary plat which would allow the immediate review of construction plans. BUDGET IMPACT None. FOR- tTFE Pore 3D rCY. t�tgqF pt,gntrrwr. (Ar+wi� bstoN AtMr%q�. (Pt rr�S ( t) truG 5 WIU. C-oU.ow) eK^-1 a . tio. 9a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 05- 1735, PADDOCK ROAD, LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PADDOCK ROAD AND HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 9.77 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS : Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 units per acre, to R-PZD 05-1735 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, development standards, and conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council. Section 3. That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met. Section 4. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 2006. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" R-PZD 05-1735 PART OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SW 1 /4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT A FOUND IRON PIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1 /4 OF THE SW 1 /4; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1 /4 OF THE SW 1 /4 S02046'39"W 20.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PADDOCK ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N87°07'09"W 15.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PADDOCK ROAD AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE S02046'39"W 368.72 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S87006'49"E 15 .00 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1 /4 OF THE SW 1 /4; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S02046'39"W 303 . 19 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE N87006'50"W 627.69 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2046'07" E 239.05 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2°44'01 "E 452 . 81 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW 1 /4 OF THE SW 1 /4; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S87007'09"E 460.10 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN ; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE S02°49' 16"W 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID PADDOCK ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S87007'09"E 152.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 9. 77 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO ANY.EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD OR FACT. STAFF REPORT PC Meeting of January 09, 2006 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: January 5, 2006 Updated January 16, 2006 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District (PADDOCK ROAD S/D, 526): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at SW CORNER PADDOCK LANE AND HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The request is for 58 dwelling lots, of which 33 are detached and 25 are attached townhomes. Property Owner: HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT Property Owner: NORMA OSBURN Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN Findings: Property Description: This site is located on the southeast edge of Mount Sequoyah, along the west side of Happy Hollow Road and south of Paddock Lane. The site is heavily -wooded and steep. Surroundine Land Use/Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Mount Sequoyah Preserve RSF-4 South Scattered single family dwellings RSF-4 East Timber Trails (Cliffside) — R-PZD at 4.25 units/acre R-PZD West Largely undeveloped residential property RSF-4 Proposal: The applicant requests a rezoning and Master Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a mixed -use project on the property. The proposal includes a maximum of 58 dwelling units within the proposed subdivision. The development will consist of 33 single family detached dwelling units on both large lots, comparable to the RSF-4 zoning district, and narrow lots to allow urban densities. A total 25 lots will allow for townhome development. The overall density is 5.91 units per acre. This development would create a unique R-PZD combining single-family detached and multiple family townhomes, and would be in the immediate vicinity of the Happy Hollow Elementary School and Mount Sequoyah Preserve. The applicant has attempted to modify the street alignment to reduce the number of streets that follow the slope of the land to reduce the incline and visibility of the streets. K: IReportsl2p061 PC Reports1O1-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision)Jor CC.DOC The applicant has attempted to transition between the detached and attached units, attempting to place the more dense development near the adjacent Collector Street, parkland and in areas with less tree canopy. The Planned Zoning District contains a total nine Planning Areas. Each Planning Area has its own specific density (maximum number of dwellings units allowed), depending upon the desired effect. For reasons of zoning, each Planning Area also has to have established bulk and area criteria, setbacks, height, etc. The information is provided both in a booklet form, which describes the intent of each Planning Area along with a drawing of the overall Planning Area boundaries, and by way of the larger plat, which gives more engineered information. The applicant requests approval of both the zoning, given the proposed Master Development Plan, statement of commitments, and development standards, but also approval of the preliminary plat which would allow the immediate review of construction plans. Process: The purpose of the subject request is for a rezoning and development approval. Approval of the Residential Planned Zoning District would effectively rezone the property based on the engineered plans and information provided. Bulk and area criteria: While usually provided within the staff report, zoning criteria for each Planning Area has been provided in duplicate by the applicant. The project booklet provided gives the zoning criteria in detail, as do the Master Development Plans. Please reference this provided material for more information. Water & Sewer: Water lines and sewer lines are currently being made available in the vicinity with the development of Timber Trails R-PZD directly to the east. Public water and sewer lines will be extended to serve the proposed development and will be designed and constructed in accordance with city specifications to serve the development. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: East: Happy Hollow Road (Collector Street), to be improved by the City of Fayetteville & Crossover Road (Principal Arterial) South: Huntsville Road (Principal Arterial) Traffic: Access to the site is provided from Crossover Road and Happy Hollow Road to the east and Huntsville Road to the south. There are at this time no roads constructed which would give access to the property to the west, over Mount Sequoyah. The intersection of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Road is planned to be realigned and signalized by the City of Fayetteville in the near future. A traffic study was not recommended for the proposed development. Interior to the project, public and private streets and alleys are proposed. The applicant has proposed several cross sections for the streets within the development which would require waivers of the current street standards. Staff requested that all proposed street sections and be enlarged from a 23' wide street to 24'; this has been done on the plat, though the street stub -out to the south is shown as a 23' wide street. This will need to be modified with construction plans. A 24' wide street would not only be in compliance with the width of a Residential Street, but making the street stub -outs this width will make it possible for future developments to extend these streets without requesting waivers or constructing odd transitions in width. The applicant proposes both alleys and private access easements for rear access and entry to many of the K: IReporrs110061PC Repor is101-09-06IR-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision)for CC.DOC townhome lots. Pedestrian circulation has also been addressed with sidewalks on either one or both sides of the proposed streets. Street Improvements: Staff recommends the following improvements: Improve Happy Hollow Road to include a 14' wide street section from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drains and a 6 -foot sidewalk at the Master Street Plan right- of-way. • Dedication of right-of-way in conformance with the Master Street Plan for all interior streets and Happy Hollow Road. The construction of 15 parking spaces and a landscape island north of Paddock Road to serve as parking for the Mount Sequoyah Park. Tree Preservation: The property is primarily wooded and located on a hillside. There are several existing easements on the property, including a 100' electric easement, which impedes development of the property. The applicant has attempted to work around the natural features, trees and drainage, as well as the easements on the property by clustering development to the north and east. Four large areas have been designated as tree preservation/common area and additional area has been shown to be preserved and protected by covenants to be filed with the Final Plat. The tree preservation lots will be owned and maintained by the Property Owner's Association. A Tree Preservation Plan has been submitted for this development. The applicant proposes to exceed the expected minimum percent canopy requirements, which is 25% in property zoned PZD, by preserving no less than 30% of the existing canopy through the development of the infrastructure and disturbance within proposed utility easements. More detailed comments from the Urban Forester are included in the attached staff report. Parks: The Parks and Recreation Board recommends money in lieu of park land dedication. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to provide parking for the park land north of the subject property. More detailed comments from the Parks Planner are included in the attached staff report. Public Comment: Staff has received several inquiries from adjacent property owners. Any written comments from adjacent property owners will be submitted to the Planning Commission. Additional Information: The applicant submitted the proposed Planned Zoning District application to the Planning Division on September 15, 2005. It was reviewed at the Technical Plat meeting of October 19, 2005, after which staff has held several meetings with the applicant and his representative(s) to further discuss the waivers requested, street alignment and tree preservation. The item was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on December 29, 2005 and forwarded to the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Residential Planned Zoning District for Paddock Road Subdivision (R-PZD 05-1735) with the following conditions: K:IReports120061PC Reports101-09-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdhision)Jor CC.DOC Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination a waiver request from the minimum street grade requirements of 10% and 15% for a maximum of 300' in hilly terrain to allow the following: i. Paddock Road — 12.3% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 5+30 ii. Acacia Drive — 12.4% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 3+00 and 14.7% from Sta 3+00 to Sta 5+10 After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. Planning Commission determination a waiver request from minimum street grade of 4% for 100' from an intersection to allow the following: i. Happy Hollow Road and Acacia Drive — 5.4% ii. Acacia Drive and Street IC — 10.26% iii. Street IC and Street 3— 12.97% After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. A waiver request of minimum residential street radius of 150'. The applicant requests the following minimum radii: i. Paddock Road and Street I B — 50' ii. Street IA and Street 2— 75' iii. Street IA and Street 3-75' After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. 4. A waiver request from minimum street standards for the width of Paddock Road and Acacia Drive. Staff recommends that the applicant modify the southern stub -out from 23' street width to a minimum 24' street width. Additionally, the street width on either side of the proposed landscape islands located within the principal east -west street shall be a minimum 20', which may require the increase of right-of-way or reduction of the width of the landscape islands. 5. Planning Commission determination of appropriate street alignment. Staff recommends that the stub -out to the west be realigned either to the north or south so that it does not terminate adjacent to two property owners. This will potentially create problems should either property owner desire to develop and require the dedication of the other's property for right-of-way. 6. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of parking regulations described in Ch. I72.04A which prohibits backing vehicles into public right-of-way to allowing perpendicular (90°) parking north of Paddock Road for the Mount Sequoyah Preserve park land. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver finding that the proposed parking on Paddock Road will not create a dangerous traffic situation. Access to those lots on Paddock Road will be provided by an access easement leaving the street relatively clear of residential vehicular movements and Paddock Road will not be a through street. K:I Reportv170061 PC Reports101-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) for CCDOC 7. Planning Commission determination of street improvements, to include the following: a. Installation of a 14' wide street from centerline of Happy Hollow Road, including 14' pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains, and a 6' sidewalk. b. The construction of 15 parking spaces and a landscape island north of Paddock Road to serve as parking for the Mount Sequoyah Park. 8. Dedication of right-of-way in conformance with the Master Street Plan and/or approved waivers for street standards for all interior streets and 35' right-of-way from centerline of Happy Hollow Road. 9. Structures located on lots adjacent to Happy Hollow Road shall be constructed to face Happy Hollow Road. 10. Any landscape island shall be exclusive of the right-of-way, owned, and maintained by the Property Owner's Association. 11. Zoning and development criteria shall be enforced as approved by the City Council as currently referenced in the attached zoning criteria. 12. Future development shall comply with at least the minimum design standards for development in the Unified Development Code with exceptions listed herein, including but not limited to landscaping, parking, access, street design, stormwater detention, etc. Buildings proposed shall be reviewed to ensure appropriate architectural compatibility, compliance with commercial design standards, and/or conformance with the architectural standards and concepts provided with the subject submittal. 13. Parks fees in the amount of $32,190 for 58 single-family units shall be paid prior to issuance of the final plat. 14. Conditions included in the Tree Preservation Report prepared for this Planning Commission meeting are hereby included in the official conditions of approval for the Paddock Road Subdivision. 15. The ordinance does not allow for Tree Preservation Easements on residential lots used for single family use. Restrictions within the Tree Preservation Easements identified on the plat shall be established in the covenants and regulated by the Property Owners Association. 16. All signage within each Phase of the Master Development Plan shall be permitted in accordance with the current sign regulations at the time of development. The development comply with the RSF-4 zoning district requirements which would allow a moderate amount of signage, such as a subdivision sign, if so desired. 17. Compliance with federal, state and local regulations regarding the development of any wetlands is required. K: IReporls120061PC ReporlslO/-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Suhdmision)Jor CC.DOC 18. All development shall meet applicable building codes and other ordinances of the City of Fayetteville. 19. The applicant shall install signs at each street stub -out to indicate the future extension of said street prior to the application of signatures on the final plat. 20. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building setbacks. 21. Buildings shall be constructed generally as depicted in the building elevations in the booklet with the materials specified. Standard Conditions of Approval: 22. The applicant shall be granted one (1) year from the date of Planning Commission approval to receive all permits necessary for development of the Phase with a one (1) year extension available. 23. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 24. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required public improvements are required to be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. 25. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code, and shall be subject to signage requirements for residential multi- family development. This shall be reflected in the booklets and on the plats. 26. 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). 27. 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. 28. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. K:IReports120061PC Reports l01-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision)_ for CC.DOC 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Commission Action: Required YES O Approved ✓ Denied El Tabled Meeting Date: January 09, 2006 Motion: Lack Second: Myres Vote: 4-3-0 with Commissioners Ostner, Allen, and Clark voting no. Comments: The Motion was to approve finding in favor of conditions 1.2.3.4.6. and 7. Also finding on Condition 5 that the western stub -out should be moved north such that the southern right-of-way line was adjacent to the southern property line of the northern property. The vote failed for lack of five affirmative votes. Main concerns were with regard to the affects of the proposed density on this hillside. The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature CITY COUNCIL ACTION: City Council Action: Motion: Second: Vote: Meeting Date: Comments: Date Required YES O Approved Cl Denied O Tabled February 07, 2006 The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", stated in this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this rezoning/master development plan item. By Date K: IReporlsl2006)PC ReporrsIOI-09-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision)Jor CC.DOC Findings associated with R-PZD 05-1735 Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD). (E) Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned Zoning Districts The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the review of a planned zoning district application based on the proposed master development plan: (1) Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the UDC and the General Plan 2020; FINDING: Staff finds the application to be in substantial compliance with the Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District criteria established by the City Council. (2) Whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory provisions; FINDING: The application has been reviewed. Staff finds that the project booklet, Master Development Plan and Tree Preservation Plan comply with all applicable statutory provisions. Conditions regarding any minor edits have been included in the staff report. (3) Whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services; FINDING: The impact of the rezoning and subsequent development would require the provision of public facilities, at the cost of the developer with the development of the proposed subdivision. Fire and emergency response time is adequate and estimated at three (3.25) minutes or less. (4) Whether the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses; FINDING: The rezoning request, combined with the Master Development Plan, attempts to create a more dense living environment. It is located in close proximity to an elementary school and the Mount Sequoyah Preserve. The location of the property offers many amenities to the residence of such a community. The property is compatible with the surrounding multi -family and single-family neighborhoods to the north and south, respectively. Additionally, it is an extension of the R-PZD Timber Trails (under construction) located just east of this property, which incorporates a mixture of single family detached and two-family attached townhomes. (5) Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural environment; FINDING: The subject property is a steep hillside with substantial tree canopy. The applicant proposes preservation of no less than 30% tree canopy located in separate lots and within single-family lots. A Tree Preservation Plan is presented for this proposal. Specific conditions from the Urban Forester have been included within the staff report. K:IReportsl20061PC Reportsl0l-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) for CCDOC (6) Whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing road network; FINDING: The proposed development is located on a Collector Street (Happy Hollow) and proposes street connectivity within the development and to adjacent properties. Staff finds that the improvements proposed by this developer will improve traffic movements within the area. Additionally, the property is just north of a Principal Arterial (Huntsville Rd), which will provide adequate vehicular movement. (7) Whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a unified plan; FINDING: A plan has been submitted, recognizing the zoning and development criteria required of a Master Development Plan submittal. Architectural standards for the proposed structures have been submitted in detail. Architectural standards will be evaluated with the submission of each building permit to ensure all buildings proposed adhere to the context of the neighborhood surroundings. (8) Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. FINDING: Staff finds that in review of the requested rezoning, the Master Development Plan proposed does not violate recognized zoning considerations, as found below. (J) 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 Planned Zoning District has been reviewed in light of all applicable development and zoning ordinances. Emphasis on tree preservation has been placed with the development proposal, and appropriate routing of utilities, streets, and protective easements has been achieved. Natural site amenities is being retained as greenspace and concentrated Tree Preservation areas. The proposed density, while slightly higher than current underlying density, creates a compatible transition from higher density to the northwest to the single family homes to the south. This transition is also achieved KAReports120061PC Repons101-09-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision)Jbr CC.DOC with the proposed mixed housing types within the development; attached multi -family townhomes to the north and single-family homes on lots to the south. In addition, parking spaces are proposed to be provided to serve the parkland to the north. The proposed subdivision tree preservation and overall public amenities required of the developer, along with the variety of housing types furthers the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community as a whole. (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: Screening is not required as a part of this development. (3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply: (a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of the projected future traffic volumes. (b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate relationship with one another. (c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different land uses. (d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system, providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development. (e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the planned zoning development and to adjacent areas. (I) 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: Internal streets are comprised of public streets within 50 feet and 40 feet rights -of -way, with no dead -ends. A north -south Collector Street is indicated adjacent to the west property line, within a minimum of 35 feet of right-of-way from centerline. A street connection is proposed off -site to connect the existing Ray Avenue with the proposed K:;Reporfsl2006iPC ReporrsI0I-09-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision)Jor CC.DOC development. Additionally, a street stub -out is proposed to the east. Currently, connectivity provided allows for future residents to travel west to Crossover Rd. and south to Huntsville Rd. Sidewalks are required on all sides of public streets within the development. Due to their narrow width of the proposed two-family lots, staff recommends a combination of shared 24 -foot driveways and separate 12 -foot wide driveways to facilitate a safe, attractive and functional internal street. Pedestrian traffic will thereby be protected from an impractical continuous curb cut, and the overall proportion of lot width to driveway width/paved surface will be more in keeping with typical residential ratios. FINDING: Internal streets are comprised of public streets and alleys. Most streets are 28 feet and 33 feet rights -of -way, with the primary east -west street being a larger right-of-way with islands. Appropriate connectivity is proposed, though staff recommends that the western connection be realigned so that it fully adjoins one property owner. Many lots will be accessed from the rear of one-way public alleys with 20 feet right-of-way. This will be a unique feature among all surrounding developments and within the subdivision itself, emphasizing an older pattern of development typically seen in more traditional neighborhood developments. This feature helps create a streetscape with garages in the rear of the lot, and encourages pedestrian use along the tree -lined streets. Most services will access rear alleys, and have reviewed the plans accordingly. (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: Standard parking ratios for single family units (2 spaces per unit/dwelling) is enforced. Although some of the dwellings within this development may be attached, they are utilized for a single family on a distinct lot and are required to comply with the single family dwelling parking lot requirements. (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 development does not provide onsite public parkland and is contributing money in lieu of land for 58 single family units. (6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Four -foot sidewalks are to be constructed on a minimum one side of all interior streets; six-foot sidewalks are required on the side of the Collector Street adjacent to the subject property. (7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: All street lights installed shall be pursuant to the above -referenced code section, with a maximum of 300 feet spacing on all streets. K:IReporls120061PC ReportstOl-09-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision)for CCDOC (8) Water. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public water is being provided to the project site, pursuant to city code. (9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public sewer is being provided to the project site, pursuant to city code. (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. (iii)All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer. (iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density served by a loop street shall be 80 units. (v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private street." (vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the other parties to the covenants. (vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be K:IReports110061PC Reports10/-09-061R-PZD 05-/735 (Paddock Road Subdieision)for CC.DOC 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. FINDING: The applicant request several waivers of street standards for this development (see conditions of approval). (11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities. FINDING: N/A K: IRepons12M161PC Reports101-00-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision)Jor CCDOC (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: Staff recommends approval of the Tree Preservation Plan, with a minimum 30% tree canopy preserved. (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: The applicant has proposed design standards for residential structures. (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: Staff finds no specific scenic views to be protected on the subject property. (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 K: Reports120061PC ReporrsWl-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision)Jbr CC.DOC 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. K:IReporn120061 PC Reporis101-09.0618-PZD (15-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision)for CC.DOC (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 shall comply with the above requirements, as part of the Planned Zoning District ordinance. 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. K: tRepor1s120061PC Reports10/-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) for CCDOC (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 best fits the flexibility and variety goals of the intent of the Planned Zoning District, while also providing a development that is compatible with surrounding residential and undeveloped area. The development will offer attached and detached single family housing types, with alley access to most lots, and restrictive subdivision covenants requiring all units to meet development standards including exterior and interior architectural requirements. These development standards will result in the creation of a unique neighborhood in this area. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with many of the guiding policies of the General Plan 2020 including: Residential Areas: 9.8.a Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable, and accessible neighborhoods. Community Character: 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: The subject described real property is proposed to be rezoned to R-PZD 05- 1735. The development standards and plan approved shall be adopted with the rezoning. (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. K:IReportsl20061PC Reports101-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road S,bdirision)Jor CC.DOC (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 proposed Residential Planned Zoning District allows residential development in the form of single-family detached and multi -family attached ,while preserving many of the significant trees in pockets within the site. This tree preservation area will help ensure that the development will be compatible with the residential community character in the vicinity and adjacent park areas. A general rezoning would not allow the type of development the applicant is pursuing, based on the bulk and area requirements of typical zoning districts, therefore a Planned Zoning District is more appropriate for the proposed development. The proposed subdivision allows for a density and land use that is compatible with adjacent properties, yet also allows for a flexible site plan and layout. A harmonious relationship with surrounding developments is achieved, while allowing for a very unique style and type of development. Public improvements provided with the development will ensure future street connectivity in the area. (2) Permitted uses vary between each Planning Area. The proposed uses within all Planning Areas are as follows: K:IReporisl20061PC Repons101-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) for CC. DOC FINDING: The proposed Use Units are• permitted uses within a Residential Planned Zoning District. (3) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross floor area within the development. FINDING: The proposed PZD proposed is entirely residential in use. *Required Findings for Rezoning Request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request from RSF-4, to R-PZD 05-1735, with the adoption of the associated preliminary plat. LAND USE PLAN: The General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to R-PZD 05-1735, with associated Preliminary Plat, is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the general vicinity. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: The proposed rezoning of the existing RSF-4 property to the proposed R- PZD development with single and multi -family residential use at a density of 5.91 units per acre is consistent with the General Plan 2020 that identifies this area for residential use. The proposed land use is unique to the area with regard to site layout and organization, meeting many of the objectives and principles of the land use plan that promotes unique forms of development. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is needed in order to develop a subdivision in the manner proposed with the R-PZD site plan. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Public comment has been received from adjacent property owners discussing the proposed street layout. The Police Department has reviewed this proposed rezoning and finds it will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. K:1Reporis120061PC Reporis101-09-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision)-Jbr CCDOC 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 development would create, on average, 128 future residents in this area, thereby altering the population density in the immediate vicinity. Based on findings from public service providers, as outlined below, an undesirable increase in load on public services would not be created. Engineering: There is currently a 2" waterline running along Happy Hollow Road. An 8" public water main has been approved to extend near to the site with the Timber Trials Subdivision. Sanitary sewer is not currently adjacent to the site. A public main has been approved to extend near to the site with the Timber Trails Subdivision. Improvements to the sewer system may be required which includes off -site improvements. The site has access to Happy Hollow Road. Runoff from most of the site flows overland to the east. Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the development. Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. Fire: The subject property is located approximately 1.3 miles from the Fire Station No. 5. Response time to the property is 3.25 minutes. This response time will be reduced to 2 minutes when Station 3 is operational. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A K. IReports120061PC Reports10l-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) for CC.DOC LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to R-PZD 05-1735 with multi-family/townhouse dwelling units is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses and density in the area. 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. (I0)Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. K: IReports120061PC Reportsl0l-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) for CC.DOC (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. (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. (21 Permitted uses. Unit I 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 K: IReports120061PC Reportsl01-09-0618-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision)Jbr CCDOC Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings (3) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross floor area within the development. K:IReports120061PC Reporns101-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision)for CC.DOC FAYE'Y TEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS January 3, 2006 Jeremy Pate Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Pate, POLICE DEPARTMENT This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed Annexation PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road SID, 526) submitted by Project Design Consultants for property located at SW corner of Paddock Lane and Happy Hollow Rd. would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. 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. Sire✓�� Captain William Brown Fayetteville Police Department FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT too -A Wes RoeFS s,r FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ia'7ol (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 PHONE: 479-587-3555 FAX: 479-587-3522 To: Suzanne Morgan, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher Thru: Chief Tony Johnson From: Captain Dale Riggins Date: January 5, 2006 Re: January 3, 2006 Re -zoning Review — Fire Department Comments PZD05-1735 (Paddock Road, S/D, 526) These 10 acres are covered by Engine 5 at 833 N Crossover Rd. It is 1.3 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 3.25 minutes. After Station 3 is located at Happy Hollow and E Huntsville, the distance from the station will be reduced to .6 miles with an anticipated response time of 2 minutes. The Fire Department anticipates 13 (8 EMS — 5 Fire/Other) calls for service per year once the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred. Measured Hydrant Flow in this area is 1325 gallons/minute. There should be no adverse effects on our call volume or response time to this development. If you have any questions or need additional information don't hesitate to call me at x365 `.5G.8 a Fayetteville Fire Department 1 Station 3 to Paddock �.l Road .6 miles 2 Minute -- — -sin- da...wrow a Response Time u 1_=�Ei wcwN>J �, 1I ('TJUI �J[l'�' / ���� Station 5 to 1zT)��I Paddock G lLG 1 Road -' 1.3 Miles ��,F@ 285 _� 5S 3 Minute I. Response Time (A IIXJ OM •Cao1CIXy �� Taye ev le ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of January 9, 2006 TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester Date: January 4, 2006 113 W. Mountain Si Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3470 ITEM #: R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District (Paddock Road) Requirements Submitted: T Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator ✓ Site Analysis Map Submitted ✓ Site Analysis Written Report Submitted ✓ Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted Canopy Measurements: Total SYe�Area '..; acres 9.4 square feet 409,464 Existin Tree Cano , acres square feet 304,920 percent of site area 74% EzistinTree Cano Preserved acres 3.23 square feet 140,937.5 percent of total site area 34.42% u_,.� ii M „ Percent�> n><mum Cano . r Re, cored 25% FINDINGS: The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. This site is found along the sloping sides of Mount Sequoyah. The area is thickly wooded with about 72% canopy covered. The hillside is a typical oak hickory mix ranging in fair to poor condition with 6 trees meeting the significant status. All but one of these 6 will be preserved. Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities. • The design of the plan does incorporate the required priorities. A covenant will be established among the residents to further preserve and protect trees found within the lots. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the tree or group of trees. • Environmental degradation will occur as a result of the loss of canopy. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located. • Adjacent properties should be minimally impacted by the loss of canopy. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of development on existing trees. • N/A Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design. • The topography of the lot and existing utility easements made design a challenge for this project. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease, injury or hazard. • The general health of trees on this site ranged from poor to fair. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the property. • Removal of trees on this site was inevitable. The engineers are utilizing the clearings through the utility easements and the existing private drive to limit the impact. Several large preservation areas are planned that would be owned and maintained by the POA. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. • In most cases the utility easements will be kept to the fronts of all properties. This design minimizes disturbance to trees. Because of the existing easements, the location of additional utilities had to be moved to other areas. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. Not all the roads are designed to flow with the existing topography. This site has an existing power easement running directly up hill with a private drive. The engineers/developers utilized these areas for roads to minimize the disturbance in the other areas. By designing the roads in this manor, the lot lines were quickly determined leaving little flexibility for the utilities. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives. • N/A The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives. • On -site mitigation will not be required for this site. A covenant will be set up among the home owners association to preserve additional trees found on each lot. The effect other chapters of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the development design. • This project is coming through planning process as a Planned Zoning District. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by state and federal regulations: • N/A The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the Applicant: • Staff is recommending approval of the Tree Preservation Plan with the following conditions of approval: t. With submittal of a Final Plat staff would like to review a convenience directly pertaining to the preservation of tree canopy found on individual lots. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479-444-3469 TO: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner DATE: December 28, 2005 SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Comments ****************************************************************************** Meeting Date: December 29, 2005 Item: PZD 05-1735 Paddock Road S/D Park District: SE Zoned: RPZD Billing Name & Address: Hometown Development, LLC Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = ` acres 60@ $555 per unit = $33,300 Multi Family @ .017 acre per unit = acres @ $393 per unit = $ Mobile Home @ .024 acre per unit = acres @ $555 per unit = $ Lot Split @ $555 per unit = $ COMMENTS: • The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu of land for 62 Single Family Units on September 12, 2005. • Mount Sequoyah Woods is located across the street from development and will serve the recreational needs of this development. • Parks and Recreation staff has been working with the developer to establish a parking area for Mount Sequoyah Woods. Exact location and size of the parking area along with agreements for parking and grading will need to be in place prior to final plat. Fees are due prior to signing of the final plat. PZD05- 1 PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. December 20, 2005 Mr. Jeremy Pate City of Fayetteville Planning Department 125 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Request for Waivers of Minimum Street Standards Paddock Road R-PZD # 05-1735 Dear Jeremy: This letter serves as a request for waivers of the following minimum street standards due to the hilly and wooded terrain and in an effort to reduce the impact to the existing hillside by reducing grading and tree removal. 1. Waiver of the minimum street grades of 10% and 15% for a maximum of 300 feet in hilly terrain. • Paddock Road, 12.3% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 5+30. • Acacia Drive, 12.4% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 3+00 and 14.7% from Sta 3+00 to Sta 5+10. 2. Waiver of the street intersection minimum grades requiring 4% for 100 feet and allowing grades of 5.4% at the Happy Hollow Street and Acacia Drive intersection, 10.26% at Acacia Drive and Street 1C, and 12.97% at Street 3 and Street 1C. 3. Waiver of the minimum street and right of way widths to allow the following street sections: • 27' wide right of way, 23' wide street, and a 4' wide sidewalk on one side for Paddock Road, Streets 1A, 16, 2, and 3. • 33' wide right of way, 23' wide street, and a 4' wide sidewalk on each side for Acacia Drive except for the area with the landscape islands. 4. Waiver of the minimum residential street radius of 150 feet. Request a minimum 50 feet radius on Paddock Road at the intersection of 1B and 75 feet radius for Street 1A where it intersects Streets 2 and 3. 5. Waiver of regulation 172.04A prohibiting backing vehicles into public right of way and allowing perpendicular parking on the north side of Paddock Road for the park land to the north. Sincerely, Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Senior Project Manager 130 N. MAIN • CAVE SPRINGS, AR 72718 PHONE: 479-248-1161 • FAX: 479-248-1462 PROJECT DESIGN September 14, 2005 City of Fayetteville Planning Department 125 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Attn: Mr. Jeremy Pate RE: PADDOCK 1455 Happy Hollow Road Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dear Mr. Pate: CONSULTANTS, INC. The subject property mentioned above is being developed by Hometown Development, the property is zoned RSF-4. The properties immediately to the, north, south, east and west are also zoned RSF-4. We are proposing 40 Townhouses and 22 Single Family Lots. There is a 21/4 inches water main along Happy Hollow Road and Paddock Road, and there is no sanitary sewer line .The size of the pipe supplying the surrounding area with water is not adequate to handle the demand of this project, and needs to be increased in size to a minimum of 8 inches. The closest sewer is located at the Happy Hollow Road and Fourth street intersection. It is approximately 1210 feet away from our site property line and the size of the pipe is 8 inches. Electric is provided by overhead wires. All of the existing buildings will demolished prior to construction of the subdivision. Please find attached Patti Erwin, Certified Arborists report for 7 acres. We have coordinated with Ms. Sarah Patterson, Landscape Administrator regarding the additional 3.5 acres of Tree Identification. This will be completed in the near future. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 479-248-1161. Sincerely, Amy S , ASLA I Vice President 130 N. MAIN • CAVE SPRINGS, AR 72718 PHONE: 479-248-1161 • FAX: 479-248-1462 I] IIII• :4.Y.1 utCfl I RPZD05-17; One Mile View 1 Rlf-24 41 PADDOCK ROAD SID SUBJECT PROPERTY RI RAf 2t I RSf4 4F 2t _- RSFJ RSF� RSFi 11 O- _ __ 1• _} JRSFI ( - C3 i2 J 4 �RSF� GI t f y E 22 grJ2 Gt C -I AC11 w�Yi. / 1 RA� RO RSF 42 tr C-2 C -I RA F4� j i� 4I , " I _ o. I � wr ._.....� i 11 �' / 42 i Legend Boundary Subject Property ' ' laming Area RPZD05-1735 .0000e, �' Overlay District outside City Legend 00.125.25 0.5 0.75 1 files iii I I: RA 1 RPZD054735 PADDOCK ROAD SID Future Land Use a Subject Property Boundary --'-- '�Ir. RPZDOS-1735 Planning Area 000 I Streets o Overlay District ••,-,_ 0000.30 O ' \ . E fisting Outside City --i Planned• Legend 0 150 300 600 900 1,200 Feet PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 71 R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District (PADDOCK ROAD S/D, 526): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at SW CORNER PADDOCK LANE AND HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The request is for 58 dwelling lots of which 33 are detached and 25 are attached townhomes. Morgan: This property is located just west of Happy Hollow Road and south of Paddock Road. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 and is undeveloped with the exception of one single family dwelling at the very northeast corner of the property. The applicant requests an approval for a residential planned zoning district. This is a detailed PZD. They have submitted drawings for a preliminary plat approval so with the approval of the PZD, and City Council approval of the PZD, the applicant can submit construction plans and begin construction of this subdivision. This subdivision includes 58 units, 58 lots, 33 of which will have detached single family dwellings and 25 lots will be for attached townhomes. The density overall will be 5.91 units per acre. The existing density allows for four units per acre. Staff finds that the proposed density is appropriate. The property is near a collector street and just north of a principle arterial, Huntsville Road. It is adjacent to a park to the north, and an elementary school. There is a multi -family development just to the northeast of this property and to the east of the property is a development called Timber Trails which is currently under construction. It is a PZD which combines both single family detached and two family attached townhomes. We find that it does provide a good transition between these areas and would allow for density which can utilize the services located in that area. As for the bulk and area criteria, it is located both on the plat and in the booklet. It is different and unique compared to standard RSF-4 zoning districts, to allow for greater areas of true preservation and unique character in this area. As for water and sewer utilities, they will be extended to the property. Right- of-way, streets and traffic have been evaluated. This is near a collector and arterial. The applicant will be doing improvements on the adjacent collector street. No traffic study was requested for this development. It is just under six units per acre and Staff did not find that there was significant impact on this collector or the surrounding streets to necessitate a traffic study. Waivers have been requested for many of the street requirements. Those are listed in conditions of approval and can be found on I through 4. The applicant is developing this property on a slope and constructing several streets which the grades higher or greater in slope than required by ordinance. Staff has worked with the applicant considerably in regard to this and finds that these are necessary in order to reduce the amount of impact on these slopes. Street right-of-way and alleys will be utilized. Several of the homes and especially the attached townhomes will be utilizing access easements and alleyways. They will be accessing from the rear of these alleys. There are six lots in the northwest corner that will actually be accessing on an access easement, Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 72 which will have no frontage on a right-of-way. Homes on Happy Hollow will access from the interior street and will face Happy Hollow Road to give a street presence and that has been given as a condition of approval in your Staff report. With regard to condition #4, the applicant is proposing a main street within that subdivision that runs east -west, islands within street right-of-way and Staff had made a comment and condition of approval #4 that 20 feet of street width needed to be maintained on either side of those islands. Staff has discussed with the applicant and finds there should be at least one side of the street that needs to maintain that 20 feet. The applicant has stated that they will work with the Fire Department to maintain necessary access to the property. Condition #5 addresses determination of appropriate street alignment. Staff recommends that the stub -out to the west be realigned either to the north or south, such that is does not terminate adjacent to two properties owned by two separate land owners. This creates difficulty when one or the other of the property owners wishes to develop in order for them continue that street and they would negotiate with the adjacent property owner to get access and right-of-way from that property. The improvements that the applicant will be making are adjacent to Happy Hollow to match the improvements across the street at Timber Trails S/D to include 14 feet from center line, curb, gutter line and standard improvements and sidewalk. Something unique that this property owner will be doing is providing spaces for the parks property to the north. They will be providing 15 parking spaces with a landscape island to the north of that property. That will greatly improve the usability of the park property to the north. There is, however, a waiver that would need to be granted to allow that parking to be constructed in that manner. There is a requirement that no vehicles back out onto a public street, which they would have to do in this parking lot configuration. Therefore, there is a request for a waiver for that requirement in condition #6. As for tree preservation, the applicant is proposing to maintain a minimum of thirty percent tree canopy on the property. They will do so by dedication of specific lots or planning areas (planning area 8) as well as preserving easements by covenant to preserve canopy within the property. This can be found within the center of the property as well as on the southern and western property lines. Parks Review Board has reviewed this application and the applicant will be given money in lieu of dedication. They will also be constructing those 15 parking spaces. There are a total of 30 conditions of approval. I would like to mention that condition #22 addresses additional modifications to the booklet. There were several modifications/items that did not correspond between the site plan and the project booklet, that weren't sufficiently addressed between Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission and Staff with work with the applicant this week to make those necessary modifications for City Council. We are recommending approval. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 73 Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and make your presentation. Earnest: Hugh Earnest representing the developer. I want to commend the Staff for an excellent presentation. We spent an awful lot of time on working on this. It is no secret that this is a difficult site. Without the use of the PZD, and there was a conscious decision on our part, we would have been unable to develop the site to this level. We used as you may note, nine separate planning areas, to ensure an excellent housing mix, as Suzanne very carefully pointed out and very correctly pointed out. We are using different types of ingress and egress to minimize the pressure on the streets. We are the ones that suggested to the Parks staff that we would provide parking to service Mount Sequoyah Park. We will obviously work very carefully with the Park staff and someone here from the Planning Staff. We will work very carefully to ensure that we accommodate the existing kiosk that is in that comer. That's about all we have to say. Obviously we have no problems with any of the conditions and we will meet of all those as required. There needs to be some discussion obviously about the #5, the access on the west side of the property. Ostner: Public Comment; please step forward and give us your name. Lawler: I'm Nan Lawler. I really hate this way of public comment because when you start discussing things, there have been many times when I have been sitting back there and dying because I couldn't answer your discussion because public comment period was over. I will try to foresee everything that might come up. Our property adjoins this property on the west, almost all of it is adjoining our property except for a small amount which adjoins some property owned by Dan Coody. We were not enthusiastic about it because think it is too dense, however, the one bright spot for us was that road being stubbed out on our property line. We now have no public access to our property. That was fine when we were in the middle of the woods, but development is closing in and thus far our neighbors have been wonderful. But it's not as quiet as it used to be and I figure that sooner or later, our living situation is not going to be as pleasant as we would like it to be. Without public road access we are very much limited as to what we can do with our property, and although we have never tried to sell it, we have never put it on the market, I have a hunch it would be harder to sell without public road access. So we saw that public road access as at least a bright spot in this development. And then we went to the Subdivision Committee meeting last week and low and behold, the public road access had been moved. And after all this talk about preservation of trees, it had been moved from the power line easement, where you would not have had to cut down any trees, all the way as far south as it could go (there is a ravine there) into a very heavily wooded Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 74 area and it got all but a couple of feet off of our property. And we couldn't help but feel that maybe there was some pressure put on somebody to move that road. Ostner: Ma'am, if you are dissatisfied with the layout, we can talk about that. We aren't going to have insinuations. That is a rule, not an accident, to straddle property lines and it is dead even — the street is stubbing out dead center to the property line. Half of it goes your way, half of it goes the property owner to the south. We do that all over town to be fair. We don't give stub outs to one property owner and the other gets turned down. So that's what is going on there. Lawler: Isn't this kind of an idiotic way of doing it though? It really doesn't make sense. At the meeting, it was not half and half. It was as far onto the Mayor's side of the property line as far as it can go without getting into the ravine. The reason given for this was the appearance of following the easement up and fear that people would start suggesting, why not just take this over the mountain, and we all know we don't want to open that can of worms. However, there are several arguments to that: one is that this has been suggested for at least twenty years that I know of, before there was any road there. People are suggesting following that electric easement over the mountain. If the first place, it doesn't go over the mountain, it goes a little bit west of our house and then goes south. In the second place, since it was first suggested, some twenty years ago, there have been not one, but two developments of big, expensive houses between that easement and any kind over the mountain. It wasn't feasible to begin with because of the terrain. It is even less feasible now so I don't think this is a legitimate reason not to put that road up that easement and stub it out right there. I would like to mention that the parking spaces for the Mt. Sequoyah Park are very nice, but you do realize that by any stretch of the imagination that they will be sufficient. We drove by the trailhead for East Mudd Trail last Saturday and I counted fourteen cars there. There is official parking for about eight or nine. There were up the road and into the adjoining property. The fifteen spaces are obviously not going to do it. Covey: My name is Richard Covey. I am part owner of that property on the west of the development. I would like to request that the property access be moved to the north so that we have complete access to the road going out, the stub out. Brown: I'm Steve Brown. I live out on Fifth Street. I know development is going to happen; it looks really nice on the preliminary plat, parking spaces are good for the Sequoyah Trail. My only concern is that they are going to do improvements on the one across the street behind the Cliffs, there are going to improve on this side of the road, but what about the part on the other side of Fifth Street, from Fifth Street up to where these are going to Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 75 start. It is really skinny, there are no sidewalks, there are kids walking back and forth to school, and they go about 45-50 MPH down through there now. I've complained, but it doesn't do any good to complain. I know that they say the traffic density is not going to be worse, but it is going to be a lot more with the other one and this one. Ostner: We are talking about Happy Hollow south of this development? Staff: Yes. Brown: That is my only concern. It is going to get really hairy. There is barely enough room for cars to pass on that street. You cannot walk down through there. It's nice to have trail over at the Cliffs, but you can't get from my street to the Cliffs safely. Ostner: It's perfectly appropriate for you to speak by the way. Is there any further public comment? I am going to close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Pate: I'd like to respond to a couple of the comments at least and to refer you to the page #20, the next to the last map that you have in your booklet. I think the applicant did a good job of showing the land use table and how the single family vs. multi family vs. dedicated park, tree preservation and green space area works. The land use table keynotes a total of 58 dwelling units, 67% single family and 21% multi -family, 10% dedicated park, tree preservation and green space that does not include a lot of the area that included within interior lots, that is green space which I believe is between 30-34%. Initially Staff had concerns with the development proposal and we have worked through a whole bunch of those over the past couple of months. Not necessarily density, it is around 6 units per acre, right next to a school, next to a collector and adjacent to a collector street which leads to a principal arterial, which will be improved in the very near future. That wasn't a concern as much as the topography on the site and how we could look at an atypical development with higher tree preservation standards and I think this has gone a long way to accomplish that. A lot of the concerns also with hillside developments are the streets that directly go up the hillsides. There have been several efforts including for instance, there is a large power line easement that goes into this property and that's their primary entrance. It's the second entrance down. It lines up with the Cliffside to the east. There is a large power line easement so they are utilizing that for some of their street section. You notice that they have discontinued that area and included a green space so it starts to break up the street. The same thing has happened on the street to the south. They have put in a community green space, tree preservation area, to actually screen the view of the street for the most part from Happy Hollow Road, so the street doesn't just become a straight stretch going directly up the Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 76 hillside. It is also curved. The first submittal was a very tight, rigid grid, and on this hillside, just did not work as well as it could have. In response to the stub out, Staff would gladly recommend, I don't think the applicant has a problem moving the stub out to the north. If you look on that same page, the topography is more conducive to a street connection if you move it further north. While it has been practice to try to straddle those lines, it can also be difficult when a property owner next door tries to develop because half the street is on one side and half is not, so you can't connect with that until some unknown time in the future. We had to address those issues with subdivisions in the very recent past. So in keeping with that flipping that lot and moving that street to the north would be appropriate with our revisions to City Council. Staff would not have a problem recommending that particular connection in response to concerns of the neighbors and how that street lays out with the topography. Ostner: When you say north do you mean basically shifting it 25 feet. — keeping it generally where it is but shifting a little bit. Pate: Either that or shifting up a whole lot depth. I think we could work that out between now and City Council as long as the determination is made by the Planning Commission. Clark: Jeremy, on that same page, to the north of this access we are talking about, are those single family lots? Pate: Those three lots; yes, I believe so. Clark: And where this stub out is now located on this map straddling the line, doesn't the tree density lessen as you go north? Pate: That area is pretty much covered. I'm not sure that it really drastically alters that situation. Ostner: If I could ask for a Subdivision report from the Committee members that were there? Lack: The main points of discussion were the access to the west and the medians in the power line easement and what those did both for and against proper street construction and visibility. The access point to the west was a suggestion of Subdivision Committee Commissioner Anthes who thought it might be an equitable solution in that both property owners would have access to their property without regard to future development. They would both have public street access to the edge of their property. With the medians, the former version that we saw had a much more severe curvature to the northern section of the road which engineering felt and the members of the Subdivision concurred seemed to be a less than desirable Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 77 condition. The medians do provide the service of breaking up the road and keeping down the visibility of the road that goes straight over the hill, that you see across town, where the road can jog, that does maintain some hiding for that. We were in favor of moving that access point and not continuing that directly up the side of the hill to the property line. The presentation at Subdivision Committee, the plan that we started with did have the access points slightly more to the south, fully on the property line of the southern most adjoining neighbor. The use units seemed appropriate. There was some concern with Section 4, the single family at the northwest corner. There was some discussion about those in that they are accessed by easement and those are individual structures which do not have direct street frontage. They front onto a park setting so you walk the sidewalk to the house along the park. The are accessed with an easement to the rear. Trumbo: Question for Staff. Currently where the stub out is to the west, you are saying, if we leave it like that straddling the two property lines, that neither property owner will be able to develop to that stub out without the approval of the other one? Pate: That is correct. It is much like the situation when you have a point of a cul de sac that touches a property, that is literally the only point that touches the property and that sliver is under control of two different property owners which becomes extremely problematic. Trumbo: And originally, if I understand Mr. Lack, originally we were further north with this stub out. Pate: Originally, yes, in one of the submittals. Lack: I had understood that an original presentation was that it was to the north and connected through at the power line easement. The plan that we started with at Subdivision Committee that we saw presented there had the access fully onto the land owner to the south. Pate: I might mention that it might be of benefit and again we could work out the details with the applicant, to slightly move that street to the north and not an entire lot width, just in an effort to allow for there to be a potential adjacency of right-of-way should the street continue further west at some point, there would be an adjacent right-of-way to which the property owner to the south could connect. That is another option as well. I think there are a number of alternatives here, the point being that the connection to the west is advisable and the Staff would recommend it. We would rather see it on one property or another. Ostner: How big is that right-of-way section, that stub out? It is fifty, sixty? Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 78 Pate: I believe it is smaller, maybe a thirty-two foot right-of-way with a twenty- four foot wide street. Ostner: If we move it sixteen feet to the north, it will be completely on this person's property. Does that sound amenable? McDonald: Mike McDonald of Hometown Development. If the developer is going to move the stub out to one side, we'd like to make sure we don't lose lot #19 — we'd like to continue to work with City Staff. Clark: I don't know what we can do about this, it is a question for Staff. Happy Hollow accessing — the comments made by the young lady; how wide is Happy Hollow at it's most narrow and what recourse to we have? I don't think that the assumption that the last two RPZDs we approved in this area would give her a path. Happy Hollow is at the end of the road. Now more development is coming in and of course they have to make improvements around their immediate vicinity, but that certainly belies the entrance to these nice subdivision, but it does not help getting the kids to school, and having access and having parents fighting their way like salmon going up stream to get them there. What recourse, if any, do we have in terms of making improvements further off site. Pate: If the Planning Commission feels there is roughly proportional impact to that infrastructure based upon the 58 units proposed, we can look at the potential for, I couldn't say a substantial impact just because of the number of lots, the shape/width of this property is relatively square. The frontage is pretty long in width. That is what we look for, especially when looking at offsite improvements when you a property that doesn't have a lot of frontage. There is obviously more of an impact on the infrastructure than what that development has. Clark: Maybe just generating a discussion among the City Council members might be sufficient. It seems to that the developer services well to have an adequate access into something they are trying to make look as amenable and pretty as possible. A tandem benefit would be the patrons of that school and their families, because that is pretty dangerous. I have picked kids up from there before and it is narrow and there are no sidewalks in most places. Pate: Just so the Commission knows, there is a exit and entrance to the north, which is a ready access to Highway 265 through Happy Hollow and Cliffs Blvd. Additionally, the subdivisionunder the construction to the east, Cliffside, they are providing another street connection to the school, sidewalks close to that school, if not connecting. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 79 Clark: That's my point, all around in the new stuff is great, but that's a real slight to the existing stuff. I don't know that we have the power to do anything about it, but it seems that it is terrible inequitable. Maybe it is something the Council can talk about. Pate: We would be happy to at least evaluate it so the Council has more information if they wish to discuss that as well. Clark: I'm not suggesting that the developer improve everything, so please Mr. Earnest, don't flinch on me there. Lack: I would like to look at page 26 of 36 and say that I am elated that we are looking at a rezone that is within fire response times. It seems to be a rarity and it seems to be indicative of the more infill type of development that we are looking at here, which I appreciate. I would like to make a motion that we forward with an affirmative R-PZD 05-1735 with it's thirty conditions of approval with a consideration on #5, the alignment of streets, that the southern most border of the right-of-way be located at the adjoining property line, or with other modifications deemed necessary by Staff to make the proposal work. Myres: Second Clark: But you want it all on one property owner's area. Ostner: The southern line of the right-of-way and the southern edge of the property is to be contiguous. Lack: That is correct. Graves: A point of order for the motioner and seconder. There were determina- tions to be made on items #1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well that weren't addressed by the motion. I would invite the motioner to address those as well. Lack: Yes, I didn't want to read each one of them. Graves: If they are in line with Staff's recommendations. Lack: I do agree with Staff on findings and facts, specifically with items #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, which call for Planning Commission determination. Ostner: We have a motion to forward, changing the western stub out by Commissioner Lack and a second by Commission Myres. I have a little bit more problem with this. This is a welcome infill development. However, in my short tenure on some of the subcommittees going around, Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 80 land use on steep areas concerns me. I just think it is too dense for the site. The number one way to keep this kind of land in a state that makes people happy is less density. This is only 5.91 density units per acre overall, but I just can't see that. I think the development is going to be too intense. I would love to see a layout with a third less units. Bring it down to about three, three and a half, or four, I would love it. You have a great layout, I like the flow. There are great measures that you have taken with the curvature. I think it is too dense for the piece of property. Commissioner Allen is suggesting that I make that an amendment to lessen the density. I think that is pretty severe change. I think I would feel more secure not forwarding it, until there was a different density. But density is something that we all struggle with and talk about and it is a judgment call. This is a great place to develop, we need to develop here, it is infill, but just because it is infill, I don't think we need to sacrifice our other principles. I am leaning that way. Other principles being good civic design and responsibility towards the rest of the town that this impacts. I am not in favor of the density and I will probably vote against this. Clark: I have a question for Staff. The other RPZD across the street, what is its density? Pate: I think it is between 6-7 units per acre, if I remember correctly, Single family and two family. Clark: And what is the average slope on this piece of property. Pate: About 12%. Clark: Really? That's pretty steep. I know this to be a pretty wooded area, a pretty area and I had made some comments to myself when I looked at the waiver requests for the streets, a lot of waivers. And if the density could be diminished, reduced some, maybe not a full third, I would probably be more in favor of this. I am particularly concerned about the density to the north with the townhomes. So much multi family has me concerned as well. I'd like to hear comments from thy fellow commissioners before I make my final decision. Moving the access to the west, I am absolutely in favor of if this passes, it has to go that way. Trumbo: I have a question for Staff. On the Hillside Task Force, we talk about clustered development and I haven't seen these on this site. Are we clustering with this project? Is it a smart layout with the land? Pate: Staff feels so. If you look at the drawings, you will see that a lot of the homes are planned to work their way up the hill, utilizing slope as opposed to a mass grade to create one level surface and large retaining walls. Of course any development on this property will require stem walls but the Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 81 plan and the drawings they presented indicated that they are ready and willing to work up the slope. The utilization of the multi family and more attached dwelling units primarily along the street to allow for interior tree preservation is something that I think is a good effort. Specifically the multi family is primarily utilized along Happy Hollow. On the collector street directly adjacent to a collector street, we often times discourage lots having direct access onto a collector street. They have provided another means of access, a rear street or alley system, which would allow for no curb cuts directly onto Happy Hollow which is another step in the right direction. Again, as you mentioned, it is zoned four units per acre. You could have four, this is 5.9, and so it is two units an acre more. I will reference the land use table there. Within each planning area, it shows how many lots and acreages located within that, so they have looked at specific areas on the property to establish — some are higher, some are lowered with very large setbacks in planning area nine, for instance. I believe they have clustered their units. Ostner: As I recall and I respect that Mr. Pate, but as I recall clustering on our task force, on hillsides, I recall other towns basically getting more dense in the easy areas and nothing in the difficult areas. This is being developed tip to stem; there is a pretty big PA8 community green space which is a ravine and a very pretty area. For hillside clustering, this doesn't really fall into the way I understand those clusters. Clark: And where this is going to be developed RSF-4, there will be only 39 units on this development, so I think the density — I am concerned about it. Lack: As you know I am definitely a proponent of larger lots on hillsides. That is one thing we should talk about more and more with the Hillside Ordinance when it goes into effect. The thing that I see about the density in this project that makes me comfortable with it is that we do have the clustering. We do have the higher density areas and we do have protected green space in protective areas, in site line protective areas and in drainage and engineering protective areas. That is the key to me to see the additional density in a good central location where I would hope to see density. We are even within at 12% less than hillside, less than what we regulated. But the common green spaces that are provided with the clustering, makes the density more palatable to me as opposed to the four units per acre that the developer could provide on this lot by right, that could be single family without the additional green space, with the wider streets, and everything that would go into the traditional single family four units per acre lots could destroy a lot more of this hillside than what the developer has provided with this proposed plan. That is to just give clarification on my feeling and as I am a strong proponent of larger lots on hillside, that is where I get more comfortable with this development. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 82 Ostner: I would like to politely disagree. I think the larger lots would be a perfect fit here and I think when the marketing strategy changed from this strategy to a single family large lot strategy, I think we would see another good design. I don't think with that marketing strategy they would hit the minimums. I think with that marketing strategy you would see more preservation than usual. You might not get any more than you have now, but I think it would be significant and look very different. But it would require a complete shift. They are marketing this right now but I'm talking about what you are referring to is a shift in their business plan. That is not for me to say. The way the land lies, I believe it would be more fair and proper to the City as a land use issue for this density to not be developed. On restating the obvious, the 5.91 density units they have proposed per acre, two thirds of that comes just about comes to four, which is what there is by right. By looking at it and throwing out a third, I think four units per acre would be better. We just can go ahead and vote. We have a motion to forward this with a positive. Will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, R-PZD 05-1735 failed by a vote of 4-3-0. Pate: Mr. Attorney: Would there need to be a motion to deny currently the motion to forward with recommendation for this particular project has failed. Is it still before the Planning Commission? Whitaker: The motion simply fails. I'm not certain what the question is? Pate: Is the project still before the Planning Commission? Ostner: In my experience, no. Five are required to forward it and four were achieved, so the motion fails. The vote was 4-3 to forward. Whitaker: Forward with a recommendation to approve was the motion, right? That failed. You could certainly forward with a recommendation to deny, if someone wanted to make that motion. But as it stands now, it has simply failed. You couldn't get the five votes that your bylaws require and the law requires for zoning changes. Graves: Can we just move to forward it? Ostner: I think we just did and I think that is what failed. Graves: I think we forwarded it with a recommendation of approval and that is what failed. Can we forward it to the City Council with it in the record that we didn't recommend it? Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 83 Ostner: I believe the vote would be the same. It's almost automatic, their appeal to the City Council will keep them on the docket. Whitaker: It will go in a different fashion. Had it gone forward with the recommendation for approval vs. an appeal of your adverse decision. Ostner: So, that is that agenda item. PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT It- tTAi:nIktfrAi Happy Hollow Road Fayetteville, AR January 18, 2006 Prepared By: Bruce Kemmet P.E. Project Design Consultants, Inc. Project No: 2005028 130 MAIN ST • CAVE SPRINGS, AR • 72718 PHONE: 479-248-1161 • FAX: 479-248-1462 Table of Contents Tableof Contents.......................................................................................1 A. Name and Address of Landowner/Applicant and Representative ...........................1 B. Summary of Proposal..............................................................................I C. General Project Concept...........................................................................1 C.2. Site Plan.................................................................................2A D. Proposed Development Phasing and Time Frame...................................:.........2 E. Proposed Planning Areas Descriptions........................................................3 - 11 Planning Area I(PA-I)........................................................................3 Planning Area 2(PA-2).......................................................................4 Architectural Styles PA -1, 2, & 9 ......................................................4A -C Planning Area 3(PA-3).......................................................................5 Planning Area 4(PA-4).......................................................................6 Architectural Styles and Streetscapes PA -3 & 4 .......................................6A -C Planning Area 5(PA-5).......................................................................7 Planning Area 6(PA-6).......................................................................8 PlanningArea 7(PA-7).......................................................................9 Architectural Styles and Streetscapes PA -5 — 7 .......................................9A -B Planning Area 8(PA-8)......................................................................10 Planning Area 9(PA-9)......................................................................1 I F. Proposed Zoning and Development Standards.................................................12 G. Comparison Charts.................................................................................12 H. Description of Recreational Facilities...........................................................12 1. Reason for PZD Request...........................................................................12 J. Land Use, Traffic, Appearance and Signage....................................................13 K. Compliance with the Fayetteville General Plan 2020 ........................................13 L. Traffic Study........................................................................................13 M. Impacts on City Services..........................................................................14 N. "Statement of Commitments".....................................................................14 O. Conceptual Description of the Dev. Standards, Conditions and Guidelines ...............16 P. Fulfills the Intent/Purpose of the PZD Ordinance..............................................17 Requestfor Waivers....................................................................................18 Street Cross Sections.................................................................:.................19 Cover sheet from Plan Set with General Provisions................................................20 Zoning and Development Standards by Planning Area............................................21 Master Development Plan...............................................................................22 Overall Planning Areas and Tree Canopy with Architectural Styles and Streetscapes.........................................................................23 Grading and Tree Preservation Plan..................................................................24 Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Project 2005028 January 18, 2006 A. Name and Address of Applicant The applicant and owner of the 5 parcels of land included in the proposal is Bob Schmitt of Hometown Properties, Inc. Hometown Properties, Inc. 1747 N. College Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72703 The Engineer representative for the applicant is N. Arthur Scott, P.E. of Project Design Consultants, Inc. of Cave Springs AR. PDCI, Inc. 130 N. Main Street Cave Springs, AR 72718 479-248-1161 B. Summary of Proposal • The Paddock Community is designed to provide a variety of affordable housing in a modem development integrated into the natural landscape and terrain of the area. • Carefully situated into the natural surroundings, the Paddock Community offers a mixed use of residential housing and open space in nine different proposed planning areas organized in a manner to maintain a single family home environment in an "in -fill" situation avoiding urban sprawl. C. General Project Concept 1. Street and Lot Layout. • The proposed street and lot layout has gone through several iterations as a result of close collaboration with staff. The end product proposes the following size streets and slopes. These narrower street cross sections are requested to reduce the amount of cut and removal of existing trees on site. The applicant requests approval of these reduced standards. • Paddock Road, 12.3% from Station 0+50 to Station 5+30. (Lot 1 to Lot 34) • Acacia Drive, 12.4% from Station 0+50 to Station 3+00 (Lot 50 to Lot 9) and 14.7% from Station 3+00 to Station 5+10. (Lot 9 to Lot 7). • Alleys are proposed with 20' wide right of way and 16' wide pavement for rear access to the lots facing Happy Hollow Road and between the multi family PA -5 and single family PA -2 for rear access to PA -5. PDC, Inc. Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Pro,,,ect 2005028 January 18, 2006 2. Site Plan Attached on next page 3. Buffer Areas — No buffer areas are required due to the residential nature of the development. 4. Tree Preservation Areas — Two Lots (59 & 60) of permanent tree preservation area are proposed where there are drainage ravines. Lots 7-24 will have covenants that only allow tree disturbance in the building envelope area outside the building setbacks and at the front of the lots. 5. Storm Water Detention and Drainage — Since this terrain is mountainous in nature and heavily wooded, use of the existing terrain for detention is recommended for this development. The site receives a significant amount of runoff from the property to the west that is conveyed in two drainage ravines from west to east. The larger of the two ravines is being preserved as mentioned in item 4 above. The second runs approximately through the middle of the property. This shall be captured in the storm water management pipe network and conveyed to an existing 50" x 68" CMP culvert under Happy Hollow Road. The increase in the post developed flows is minimal and the proposed natural detention area will reduce post developed runoff rates to or below pre developed runoff rates. The Final Storm Water Management Report is to be complete prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 6. Undisturbed Natural Area — Undisturbed area will be in Lots 59 and 60. Lot 59 is will leave undisturbed in place an existing heavily wooded ravine that serves as a natural wildlife area and corridor. Lot 60 is also a heavily wooded ravine that will be left natural with the exception of the utility easements and retaining wall along Happy Hollow Road. 7. Existing and Proposed Utility Connections and Extensions - Sanitary sewer may be extended to the proposed sewer for the Timber Trails Subdivision across Happy Hollow. This will gravity flow to a proposed lift station which lifts the sewage to a manhole located on the north end of Ray Avenue. The other option is to extend sewer 980 feet to the south into an existing manhole in the west lane of Happy Hollow Road. The existing water line along Happy Hollow is a 2-1/4 line. An 8" water line is proposed to be installed along the east side of Happy Hollow Road with the Timber Trails Subdivision. This development proposes to connect to that 8" line in three different locations. 8. Development and Architectural Design Standards — Refer to Sections E and F below. 9. Building Elevations — Refer to Section F below. D. Proposed Development Phasing & Time Frame. The development is proposed to be completed in one phase and to follow the standard 1 year for permitting and start of construction with a 1 year extension. PDC, Inc. pp ! HilH r DAgt)65-Iql I S yLLCCSS-✓u'O • 5ijp9 Aa DL}NX'AHy CIXb) • &Cd 'SB P yqn 5P5 P 3m ..AlfnNLfEM4'FR$ I � <566 aa'� 6 V < ••�. ATL )lJD1 I. hA)E/TCIH14 £. 4.9 lrkll yl:n A' $$ s ggpp4 c vml NO2°96'07 `L'"..� . __— _ .I - °n 111 452.81' tb 8 a 8 / '� a a 6�gsI N ! #£9pYCT� F • / i u} t\. �__ m a I ]°O.Siimv-m.v—_ G f ,y�y 8p '1 66 p9pP {}pZI z I / • 2p '� tl f [• p i ' . ,m+ia%4-mbar 1Y �b� •� i 3��ba� i i m i / /� 2 1• n 4 u.. I ISI mm I II LLY oYN q fWF ].LMWI= [ ID b � I Ly m 1 m �.I a p i �= 4E 4 �� I I / / SwW F .i tlI PN.:b NYw MV I wi g tl ,07 .O I OF)/i •.' ppgg ff m $ ]aw•c �4₹ ilffl •! / /E�j Ff� I I IaI R� InIRI _.,•Sd_•.—_._ 9 6 Wp• / /!r 4n L J 11—,m. u� ' omr�°c " 1a H 9F} la • • / fF4 • •n —_t¢ w -mm Gm•wr m- r«ww m __ J p F Fr I/• / w t /' 5•r I. ET is Iw ypy _ •p n .•G} ii'M y6'i 19}F�pY 9SI /_�_I_aa• mpa Y:YI�y '�/ Ts NprYsxqyP HtlI n-.N\we J pdXLG �, b'm /4��-pNd yIY .C a Y I II -. YI is it /` I �LL± �I �_� I / O {I�I ITII�Qm I��I `.� �V 555GC�/- y Y .. _ K g 5S(.L b� wp{ •.rIM mV ± d .] �Tr f!l 1I1 m I'Ia.} Ir'Y" I •. �`t a M1 rip 9 ..i_ �/ '" IY` RFC '{A I S _ — — um.suale p e e Y YY 7 I T e I C u / Ch / j ° J I i s _I sw w7]II . n. LO6)q I+ e yL ^ this l•�` oL _ nGi r) Iri ii N I6 °MK �+ tl Y] H Z •''J{ PAN `I11'1� [ T 11Y __ �VwNw wV Ifl li I']} ep3 p[] 8 yy..' s+ L JLL� 11]I n I .•{ �\ pp t p J l I �Y I it tV]~W Mw mw I a., w P }°6$.•L J iii }{ .3(�' { Y L J I ]nu m _ GI A W In 16 - e' l .01rwlSNn I d 1I66 i .p (f }005 WM1 _w tl 5cli is 3 �I ] I F6 IG vl tlHm R i 1,'9 m b ua ly '3 �� F 19 fj I FN' I� E J fr 1 py fl y— «��— aw M1 n F la BBp { as E pL �: pA6 p �• _--..+— Wes as — -_ [ wW _ P l�sisl� ee₹ pgpgp li'��bll}�a� a Oft'\Y L--� ..t ZT2 uv I �__ru ® f5 I I IN a III a pw}G g e �tEbE b� PH p8 i S (V1ltou ._ �eI rl� 11 _ __ GPWYF9 1p'YZ Iafy9•9 ���99yya �t� �aiypIY ` _ s6• U 6 I ,•6���)�/ a I ..�. ' mot}. IAO Ulm _[ll I: y LLF B M}wl{ N B } Y•- ®�� Il3— mm YU l W.�W Il fWwNw wV a� x :ap GB�iA 9 �q �, __ •u•wsr[ utn 'mac • _]9li_ Ii I� �e I $ PI `I• 1 p 1 el u F�PPc �t�liX<Lep 6L #—��� i .J *\ \ ,3tl'$J� g8yy Ii]FI— LLp' �Y YI vy I {. 5( r a•r«}r�wmfu L t ImIWM1 i �C FQ' YPYY₹ Fp Qpl E•5i.$P� Qp i i GI 'm"bN JI �el\ '' R`r,N '1 1I "4'. I9I NRm I .'k 6[B I �uu 6p1.. _ i•pNKW �w d S a� m rt1 I' I ���Cr.1 �dl�l DIY • Y�r wY I6 .�I. �[ [ gg mwua or glossal I / r me mm . wv a__V y1 jx_ /L� 1 and So. ipw f 6i p a ]i b.............. �✓iai ":I}n mu•u� Y ° \ w `[� ' 46]YYRp �N F .y u•: .W wV :.d •6 X. ll . jlla e4-wwm}—LL•� _ •VIM'w a" �pY �� k P\T�� .f][.' i" t. If �.. :t.�lYt k Sm ..:.n_.e A .ik •I 4 '. • HH P •:• Sfll°R'2 n .LFin.�g-n i m 3 VgSiAFFi x.tai3._:w41 . +«]yy...........:.CI- w I ^ r. 1 ` • ] O u ' . ¢iF^flri/ �}6LL iim n..B I ♦: $�apd r mruG� A_~nu r[ _ u• `['i Y. I I.I �° -r` —t— I I I �,�[. I u 6AA,Y° • �� 66�� I I I �I ! � !n i3' � G A wLV c �' sl. •7v2'' .{ �1' •¶ t.r. i. N �/p EN9 �_ "•�7^'IFp�l��'Tmll �'r�NIE f��'�$� IIF �E js TIl LNG' a -j +i"�Ihs (�al_��3F� ."II �_ tl� �{�Ym�IagLro'I���e RpY M };�I oRs e'1 3333P11p d! me 1� IL mu 9 I I iu 19 !BmN LI} .. I t '"� I. �(o 'j I4' n ,I dd Y i1 w j69! E�•111 1JJIm umappp LIry� SI'�J�e��o}--I•_as avrn ... I,VI''� Rz — -- — -- _•[•rrrr••ww•urrw •Wrlr..•..r.rrW..rr.• I �- m '«wN•w.m. � x« O �1' n/ _ ] \ os is j ~ a PARCEL p,j it pp I� La' D�^rt'•< 6-0< ox Q i +•.Y t� t-OI[ w 4E c vcll Mi§ d jayqqy A . yq� i19 ..._��.....nw^v C.l ,,,T+s __ � i—+ �.p • Tro2nI41 I) 3!�Y ,.9tln A ! .^ 1 I9 �i 1-.,,6 l ouzh y9 -pp _ �a ri .. � ��,�,� �; I- I„ 111 �° 18 � ids' R OY°W W yIII ] :,i1 v iI®h I�/y}�� �iX.mati till Y�pq:1L!!ui.; � :: I �6�A I/V 1 C �Gi§ i�I ' ry,'Byy� ( 11 \�, / . --1 _-"'-- �!.�`Ir!.-F :nl s Y I R YY eYe6Yeaa GiGYYi YYY YY�� 9 9b 9V ea ifi cc sere cccc xx RpII1�p `Sy'6 6. eiilcf j9S1'� GCG GGGG •1I�BPO•fI � IQ4110 .I II'l l'l o•In 3sY.€�€ 3Sy & 14 R c'�m::j. j 1 5caF �iF s° I V • e J z �woryp A ° m?m N F m S y, ppp999 L5t� Tg I9q @@} Y � 2 A z y^3 �' R Till 8 NNYYO 1T Ij} I (QOI RBCB I� I �I �' `� III m P M •',;. \: • F.,..._ ___a� N� rn 1 • T �� S O 1 < 0 T !C z g s mp g vpi �4z ;a m yNy y N fl NOI .UyI '•rF �m O�ECT a QQ Fsf 'L /'\ ngi/F;'•..... n O Z I/S1Nd� m 3 13� �go� $Ef Caa ao'_ol0 o f Nrz 9 3 n 3 Z 2 g ,,......,.„.... �•a Yuyil.`r.\♦ ctiiijj /ort7i }NOAa R! Yr�L- ; moz r, 'kip .n a+. m m ≥ g S Paddock PZD Project 2005028 Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 E. Proposed Planning Areas. • This development is proposed to offer three types of residential living (in 8 different Planning Areas) including conventional single family homes; tong, narrow, two story style single family homes; and town homes. The town homes are proposed along Happy Hollow Road and adjacent to the park land to the north. PLANNED AREA I (PA -I) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (A) PURPOSE: AREA 115 DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT A LOW DENSITY. ARCH. STYLE IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 4A,4B & 4C. (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT I CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 8 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE 5 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS: LOT AREA MINIMUM 6,700 sq ft MIN. LOT WIDTH AT R/W 66 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 6,700 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR 20ft 8ft 25ft Lot 19 Side Setback on the west side is 25 ft (F) MAX HEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 40% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS.: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 3.50 MAX NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 15 PDC, Inc. 3 Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Project 2005028 January 18, 2006 PLANNED AREA 2 (PA -2) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (A) PURPOSE: AREA I IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT A LOW DENSITY. ARCH. STYLE IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 4A,4B & 4C. (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT I CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 8 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY.: UNITS/ACRE I 6 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS: LOT AREA MINIMUM 6,119 sq ft MIN. LOT WIDTH AT R/W 66 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 6,119 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR 4311 811 1011 Lot 6 is 1511 Front Setback along west property line Lot 2 is 1511 Side Setback along alley (F) MAXHEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 40% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 1.15 MAX NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 5 PDC, Inc. 4 Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Project 2005028 January 18, 2006 PLANNED AREA 3 (PA -3) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (A) PURPOSE: AREA 3 IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE SMALLER TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT MODERATE DENSITY, WITH LESS YARD SPACE. ARCH. STYLE AND STREETSCAPES IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 6A, 6B & 6C (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT 1 CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 8 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE 11 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS.• LOT AREA MINIMUM 3,400sg ft MIN, LOT WIDTH AT R/W 31 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 3,400 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR 20ft 4ft 15ft Front Setback is from Happy Hollow Street side Rear Setback is on west side of lots (F) MAXHEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 0.32 MAX NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 3 PDC, Inc. Paddock PZD Project 2005028 PLANNED AREA 4 (PA -4) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 (A) PURPOSE: AREA 4 IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE SMALLER TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT MODERATE DENSITY, WITH LESS YARD SPACE. ARCH. STYLE AND STREETSCAPES IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 6A, 6B & 6C (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT 1 CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 8 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE 12 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS: LOT AREA MINIMUM 3,l00sg ft MIN. LOT WIDTH AT EASEMENT 31 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 3,100 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR I5ft 4ft 15ft (F) NIAX HEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 55% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 0.54 MAX NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 6 PDC, Inc. 1 I • .1 •1 • J. I. I'. .1 Cf •. ' �ILNH•~L a it . I + a f jc f a o S z 0. vn LFI IR � a Ln w 7 O = ui -4z 5 LL J z II CD 6C Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 Paddock PZD Project 2005028 PLANNED AREA 5 (PA -5) MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING (A) PURPOSE: AREA 5 IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE MULTI -FAMILY TOWN HOMES WITH A MODERATE DENSITY WITH SOME SHARED YARD/PARKING SPACE ARCH. STYLE AND STREETSCAPES IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 9A & 9B (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT I CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 26 MULTI -FAMILY Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE j 13 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS.• LOT AREA MINIMUM 2,000 sq ft MIN. LOT WIDTH AT R/W 23 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 2,000 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR loft* 4ft** 10ft * Front Setback is 15 feet on the west side of Lot 34. ** Refers to building side that is detached. Setback is 0 feet where attached Lot 46 Side Setback shall be 15 feet on the east side (F) MAX HEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 95% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 1.07 MAX NUMBER OFDWELLINGS: 13 PDC, Inc. 7 Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Prgject 2005028 January 18, 2006 PLANNED AREA 6 (PA -6) MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING (A) PURPOSE: AREA 6 IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE MULTI -FAMILY TOWN HOMES WITH A MODERATE DENSITY WITH SOME SHARED YARD/PARKING SPACE ARCH. STYLE AND STREETSCAPES IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 9A & 9B (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT I CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 26 MULTI -FAMILY Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE 12 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS: LOT AREA MINIMUM 2,875 sq ft MIN. LOT WIDTH AT R/W 25 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 2,875 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR 2011 4 ft* 2011 * Refers to building side that is detached. Setback is 0 feet where attached (F) MAX HEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 65% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 0.25 MAX NUMBER OF DWELLINGS:: 3 PDC, Inc. 8 Paddock PZD Prqiect 2005028 PLANNED AREA 7 (PA -7) MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 (A) PURPOSE: AREA 7 IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE MULTI -FAMILY TOWN HOMES WITH A MODERATE DENSITY WITH SOME SHARED YARD/PARKING SPACE ARCH. STYLE AND STREETSCAPES IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 9A & 9B (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT 1 CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 26 MULTI -FAMILY Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE 12 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS: LOT AREA MINIMUM 2,400 sq ft MIN. LOT WIDTH AT R/W 23 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 2,400 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR 20 ft* 4ft** 15ft Front Setback is 15 ft along Acacia. ** Refers to building side that is detached. Setback is 0 feet where attached Front Setback is from Happy Hollow Road side Rear Setback is on west side of lots (F) MAX HEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 76% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 0.82 MAX NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 9 PDC, Inc. 9 t °i Ilr r •,. •_, a,:X v:`P v�-5..I•rl: r ;i �e�� J J�IJ ,r.. - r': ter• �,3.-i>.,r mow."---tc � • • i I ' 4 •♦ ra' iw ,.. MY } ir•-w.In•r a l�,r �� .(' 1 r te^ • a : r ti�yr.r-L'"�. • \• =.•.I , •-rya.-.. (r.'~ .. ri• 4 aY.y: i ''..C.. LI :S.X. .r.��'r.. `•1'Ij,4 : :• ( . Ll' r . 4..J a✓ , e w I Pr S yl .'• W}') .y,'...r l.♦ i ' t'r' �� ••r T. r �W n•,' r L. ITS " T "• r `N/•r•(h �.. rf AJ-l'V- i +1rl.. rti•e.ir,Y•a*r,� -ul (\ ,'�L_♦ J r:y :r +•! C. �r 11,1` 4.r 1) • f -. 1 V 1 rye •1 it• J )\ .1.t .(f r r I Y .hn r!! Ya! ., I.:.iVt •_.1`J. �� wr(1 T""iWY•fT'w��. �a M♦ r• r •YII•Z tc l 1 .. YJ•Y .1 • .. 1 ] 7Y:T���-i_' ; �. .tar I ,. T1F_w .• r -•.•y v _ Y .a -C•r� J\ I -J•.-� 4`L�yT�4 (,1 -..rut.. - 111 1 • ia.�wl. 1 Til "i IL�W �i f 1 r:,1jl.•�J' t. 'A�^��a't.l w�•;jlt 1../ �}�t�41ri�% 'r{ti.tF. `r(•,.1�'\n(•1] \` `♦r •..• , Y 1 f ,1. .+1F. rK,' Ir w�•o �r 47 - p r lrr r', n l .. ••'1`v....\�l 1L, !y{ t F1 i•�i y.ni. �f 1 ♦1 r~Or.� 5i ''•1' ..� ' M Y ,ili�.'i!�� �-�, t'...'3�L/1"1'L w ..{.{I ICJ ir' c/t♦VorV a,•Qr.• • .1 I • • • te• a_. L:.. I ' • •i _ - . ...-�_ __ - J.. . -:.c•_70.-: r. IYY I •.GrY • _ _ •_ M1t. �v �tj-yr:=:i:�. 'T; / 4 • \ , apt. • 'W 1. ,.�rf Jr: •n fi5 .P-•Yxfv. i• ••n a♦ YY- �•1 l♦r J.• 1 -. ti n . r. as..xy�h^ti�nfrY au; crTtItt ' a 111"�rL�1�� SL ♦� V i l VY ( 1rJ JrC. r'( r a T C V H. WV, =z z 0 JQy d t, �_ pare j, ° o r; —._ t c� 9B Paddock PZD Project 2005028 Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 PLANNED AREA 8 (PA -8) COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE/COMMON AREA (A) PURPOSE: AREA 8 IS DESIGNED FOR COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE AREA AND TO ENCOURAGE THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY THROUGH THE USE OF THESE NATURAL AREAS ALLOWING SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION. (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT 1 CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT Conditional Uses UNIT 4 CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE NO UNITS ALLOWED INTENSITY: 0 NO PERMITTED STRUCTURES ACRES: 1.20 LOTS: 59-0.52 AC 60- 0.27 AC 61- 0.16 AC 62-0.22 AC PDC, Inc. 10 Paddock PZD Proicct 2005028. PLANNED AREA 9 (PA -9) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 (A) PURPOSE: AREA 9 IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT A LOW DENSITY. ARCH. STYLE IN SKETCHES ON PAGES 4A,4B & 4C. (B) USES: Permitted Uses UNIT I CITY WIDE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 8 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Conditional Uses UNIT 2 CITY WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATIONS (C)DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE 5 or less (D) BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS: LOT AREA MINIMUM 8,900 sq ft MIN. LOT WIDTH AT R/W 66 ft LAND AREA PER DWELLING 8,900 sq ft (E) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT SIDE REAR 20ft 8ft 65ft Rear setback area is for tree preservation easement area (F) MAX HEIGHT: 35 FEET BUILDING AREA: THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 30% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA MATERIALS: Brick, Driv-it(Stucco), Hardy Panel, Hardy Board, Cedar shake siding and Asphalt shingle roofing to be used in different proportions to allow for slightly different looks on individual homes. ACRES: 0.92 MAX NUMBER OF DWELLINGS:: 4 PDC, Inc. Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Project 2005028 January 18, 2006 F. Proposed Zoning and Development Standards. • Zoning and Development Standards are listed below and in Section E. • Building Elevations are attached in the planning area at the back of this booklet. • Each lot shall be stepped by use of stem walls to avoid retaining walls at lot lines. G. Comparison Chart. Standards PA -t PA -2 PA -3 PA -4 PA -5 PA -6 PA -7 PA -9 RSF-4 Density 5 6 11 12 13 12 12 5 4 Min. Lot Width 66 66 31 31 23 25 23 66 70 Min. Lot Area 6700 6119 3400 3100 2000 2875 2400 8900 8000 Land Area/Dwelling 6700 6119 3400 3100 2000 2875 2400 8900 8000 Max. Building Height 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 None Front Setback 20 43 20 15 102 20 _ 20 20 25 Rear Setback 25 10 15 15 10 20 15 65 20 Side Setback 8 8 4 4 43 43 45 8 8 Max. Lot Coverage 40% 40% 50% 55% 95% 65% 76% 30% 40% 1. Subject to existing utility easement. 2. Front setback is 15' along west side. 3. Front setback for Lot 50 is 15' along Acacia Drive. 4. Rear setback is designated for tree preservation area. 5. Refers to building side that is detached. Setback is 0 feet where attached. Overall proposed density for the development is 5.94 units per acre. H. Description of the Recreational Facilities. o There are no proposed recreation facilities within this development. • The property to the north is city park land reserved for nature recreational purposes such as nature trails. • In lieu funds are required for park lands fees for this development and the developer has offered paved parking with decorative stone columns and lighting to the Parks Department along the southern boundary of the park land immediately north of this site. t. Reason For PZD Request. • To provide a variety of affordable housing in a modem development integrated into the natural landscape and terrain of the area. • The development offers a mixed use of residential housing in an "in -fill" situation avoiding urban sprawl. PDC, Inc. 12 Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Project 2005028 January 18, 2006 J. Land Use, Traffic, Appearance, and Signage. • The proposed development Land Use relationship is addressed in Section K. below. • Traffic shall be increased by approximately 580 trips per day on Happy Hollow Road. Happy Hollow Road is being improved along the property frontage with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm sewer to accommodate the additional traffic. The capacity for two- lane portion of Happy Hollow Road is approximately 9000 ADT. The estimated peak traffic count on this road is approximately 3000 ADT at the completion of this development. o The appearance of the development is designed to maintain continuity of the natural landscape and terrain of the area by the use of narrower roads and alleys and preserving at least 30% of the existing tree canopy. • The development will follow all signage requirements for an RSF-4 zoning district. K. Compliance with the Fayetteville General Plan 2020. • The proposed development is in compliance with the General Plan 2020. • It creates a sense of place and provides for future connectivity with adjacent neighborhoods. • It strengthens the emergence of increased use of adjacent park lands through cooperation with the Parks and Recreation Department. • To promote use of this park land, the developer has offered to the Parks Department 15 paved parking stalls along the south property line of the park land with stone columns along the parking perimeter to house decorative parking lights to blend in with the natural surroundings of the park. • It revitalizes the area by providing a variety of affordable housing in a modem development integrated into the natural landscape and terrain of the area. Questionable properties on site are proposed to be cleaned up with this development. • The natural environment is enhanced though maximum effort of tree preservation and by the use of narrower roads and alleys and preserving approximately 30% of the existing tree canopy. L. Traffic Study. • We consulted with staff and it was determined that a traffic study was not warranted for this development. • Preliminary trip generation estimates are 10 trips per day per unit, totaling 580 additional trips on Happy Hollow Road. • The capacity for the two-lane portion of Happy Hollow Road is approximately 9000 ADT. o The estimated current peak traffic count on this road is approximately 3000 ADT. PDC. Inc. 13 Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Prpject 2005028 January 18, 2006 M. Impacts on City Services. • The existing water and sewer capacity is more than adequate for the proposed subdivision and impact to the infrastructure and capacity will be negligible. o There are two possible places to provide sewer service to the site; the most feasible route is to extend gravity sewer to the proposed sewer for the Timber Trails Subdivision across Happy Hollow. This will gravity flow to a proposed temporary lift station which lifts the sewage to a manhole located on the north end of Ray Avenue. The other option is to extend sewer 980 feet to the south into an existing manhole in the west lane of Happy Hollow Road. • The existing water line along Happy Hollow is a 2-1/4 line. An 8" water line is proposed to be installed along the east side of Happy Hollow Road with the Timber Trails Subdivision. • This development proposes to connect to that 8" line in three different locations. • The developer is coordinating with the adjacent developer for Timber Trails to provide the street crossings of the water and sewer so that the new street improvements are not required to be cut when this project is approved for construction. • The developer shall coordinate with Solid Waste Division to ensure the private access easement is adequate for service trucks. N. "Statement Of Commitments" 1. Dedication. o The property to be dedicated to the City of Fayetteville includes all proposed street and alley right of way per the Master Street Plan. Required drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated to the city and the water and sewer improvements within the easements. • No park land is required to be dedicated due to the size, however, the appropriate park land fees shall be assessed against the development and paid at the required time. 2. On and Off Site Improvements. • The proposed subdivision includes on -site city streets and alleys. • Happy Hollow Road will also be improved from the centerline of the street creating a 28 foot wide street. The opposite side of the street is to be improved as part of the Timber Trails Subdivision under construction. • Additional right of way is being dedicated along Happy Hollow Road (35' from centerline of road) which is currently listed as a collector on the Master Street Plan. 3. Natural Resources and Environmental Sensitive Areas. o The site has a large percentage of tree canopy and the developer has committed to maintaining a minimum of 30% of the existing tree canopy. The covenants for the PDC, Inc. 14 Paddock PZD Project 2005028 Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 property will require that in PA -1 and PA -9 each lot shall only disturb trees in the building envelope area. There are no known natural or manmade hazards on the site. A wetlands determination will be sent to the Corps of Engineers and notification of development sent to Fish and Wildlife to determine potential Endangered Species and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be submitted to ADEQ at the appropriate time. 4. Project Phasing Restrictions. • The development is planned to be constructed in only one phase. 5. Fire Protection. • Fire hydrants are to be placed a minimum of 500 feet from each other in the subdivision. Additional Fire hydrants are proposed to be installed along Happy Hollow Road as part of the Timber Trails Subdivision. • The nearest fire station is approximately 5 miles from the site. 6. Other commitments imposed by the City. • No additional commitments have been imposed by the City to date. 7. Parks/Trails/Open Space Commitments. No public park land is proposed within the development due to the proximity of the park land immediately north of the site and the size of the site. There is open/green space proposed in four different areas described as Planning Area 8. Park land in lieu fees are to be assessed and paid as required. To promote use of this park land, the developer has offered to the Parks Department 15 paved parking stalls along the south property line of the park land with stone columns along the parking perimeter to house decorative parking lights to blend in with the natural surroundings of the park. 8. Proposed Preliminary Building Elevation. • Included in the Planning Area Development Standards are examples of the proposed single family homes and town homes building elevations. PDC, Inc. 15 Paddock PZD Prp;ect 2005028 Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 O. Conceptual Description of the Development Standards, Conditions and Review Guidelines. a) Screening and Landscaping — Natural buffer areas of Tree Preservation area are proposed as screening to adjacent parcels to the west and south. The park land to the north will serve as a natural buffer as well. The property to the east is an approved PZD, Timber Trails, consisting of single family and two family homes. The development proposes at least one tree per lot along street right of ways and two separate tree islands in Acacia Drive to break up the look of a street as looking to the west on the street. b) Traffic and Circulation — The proposed street network provides future access to the west and to the south and two access points along Happy Hollow Road. Traffic islands are proposed within Acacia Drive for traffic calming and landscaping. Alleys are proposed site for access to the northern portion of the site and for rear access for the lots along Happy Hollow Road. Reduced right of way and street widths are proposed as shown in the attachments. c) Parking Standards — Not applicable except for off street parking requirements for single family homes and town homes. No parking is recommended in the proposed streets since they are only 23 feet wide except within Acacia Drive where the landscape islands are proposed. d) Perimeter Fencing — Privacy fencing is not proposed for this site due to the existing tree cover and the steep terrain. e) Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of Acacia Drive and on one side of the other proposed streets (4' wide) and along Happy Hollow Road (6' wide). f) Street Lights are proposed at 300 foot intervals as specified by the City of Fayetteville. g) Water is proposed to be an 8" looped water line to connect into an 8" line to be installed along the west side of Happy Hollow Road as part of the Timber Trails Subdivision. h) Sewer is proposed to be an 8" gravity sewer line to connect into the proposed 8" gravity sewer line in Timber Trails Subdivision. The sewage in Timber Trails will gravity flow to the southeast corner of the site where it will be lifted via a temporary lift station to an existing manhole at the north end of Ray Avenue near Happy Hollow Elementary School. The receiving line has sufficient capacity for both developments. When the property east of Timber Trails Subdivision is developed an 8' gravity sewer line will be required to extend to the existing 10" line along Hwy. 265 at which time the lift station can be decommissioned. Streets and Drainage — The streets were described in Section C.I. Since this terrain is mountainous in nature and heavily wooded, natural detention using existing terrain combined with an outflow structure is recommended nor required for this development. The site receives a significant amount of runoff from the property to the west that is conveyed in two drainage ravines from west to east. The larger of the two ravines is being preserved as mentioned in item 4 above. The second runs approximately through the middle of the property. This shall be captured in the storm water management pipe network and conveyed to an existing 50" x 68" CMP culvert under Happy Hollow Road. The Final Storm Water Management Report is to be complete prior to the Planning Commission meeting. i) Construction of Non Residential Facilities — No non residential facilities are proposed for this site nor will they be included in the allowed uses for the PZD. PDC, Inc. 16 Paddock PZD Prpject 2005028 Bruce Kemmet, P.E. January 18, 2006 j) Tree Preservation — As mentioned above, a minimum 30% Tree Preservation area (sum of permanent and temporary) shall be maintained on this development. k) Commercial Design Standards — No commercial uses are proposed for this PZD. I) Proposed Signage — No signage is proposed for this PZD. m) View Protection — There does not appear to be a view protection issue for this PZD. n) Revocations — There are no known revocations for this development. o) Covenants, Trusts, and Homeowner Associations — Covenants and Restrictions for the PZD have not yet been completed for the subdivision. P. Fulfills The Intent/Purpose of the PZD Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the PZD Ordinance is fulfilled through: • Design a community with a small percentage of low density multi -family with a large percentage of single family housing and avoiding urban sprawl. • Multi -family housing is carefully integrated into the single family housing through the use of similar building materials, vehicle rear access, and smaller front building setbacks promoting a sense of community. • The development is designed to maintain continuity of the natural landscape and terrain of the area by the use of narrower roads and alleys and preserving approximately 30% of the existing trees. • One area of permanent tree preservation area is proposed for the southwest corner of the property where a drainage ravine bisects the southwest comer of the site. This area will also be preserved as a natural wildlife corridor. • Encourages increased use of the Sequoia Arkansas Land Heritage Commission park land by providing 15 paved parking spaces for the park land and paved access along the north property line of the proposed development. • Limits access to Happy Hollow Road by the use of rear access off of streets and alleys for lots along Paddock Road and Happy Hollow Road. • Single Family and Multi -family uses are allowed in Section 162 of the Unified Land Development Code. • Proposed conditional use of Home Occupation is allowed in the same section with Planning Commission approval. PDC, Inc. 17 Paddock PZD Bruce Kemmet, P.E. Project 2005028 January 18, 2006 e S. Waiver Requests The developer requests waivers of the following minimum street standards due to the hilly and wooded terrain and in an effort to reduce the impact to the existing hillside by reducing grading and tree removal. Waiver of the minimum street grades of 10% and 15% for a maximum of 300 feet in hilly terrain. • Paddock Road, 12.3% from Station 0+50 to Station 5+30. (Lot I to Lot 34). • Acacia Drive, 12.4% from Station 0+50 to Station 3+00 (Lot 50 to Lot 9) and 14.7% from Station 3+00 to Station 5+10. (Lot 9 to Lot 7). 2. Waiver of the street intersection minimum grades requiring 4% for 100 feet and allowing grades of 5.4% at the Happy Hollow Street and Acacia Drive intersection, 10.26% at Acacia Drive and Street IC, and 12.97% at Street 3 and Street IC. 3. Waiver of the minimum street and right of way widths to allow the following street sections: • 27' wide right of way, 24' wide street, and a 4' wide sidewalk on one side for Paddock Road, Streets I A, I B, 2, and 3. • 33' wide right of way, 24' wide street, and a 4' wide sidewalk on each side for Acacia Drive except for the area with the landscape islands. 4. Waiver of the minimum residential street radius of 150 feet. Request a minimum 50 feet radius on Paddock Road at the intersection of lB and 75 feet radius for Street lA where it intersects Streets 2 and 3. 5. Waiver of regulation 172.04A prohibiting backing vehicles into public right of way and allowing perpendicular parking on the north side of Paddock Road for the park land to the north. PDC, Inc. 18 I. . 33'-O' 4' SIDEWALK 15:1 ii5moto� -s--esiiiliii�i. 24" COMPACTED SUB 7* CLASS 7 (AHTD) GRADE CRUSHED STONE BASE TO 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR TYPICAL PAVING SECTION N.T.S. NOTL I. ALL MATERIALS µD COMPACTING TO BE PER OTY OF FAYETTENUE STAHOARDS 2 C'MTERUNE GRADES TO BE 0.24 FEET BELOW TOP OF CURB. 28'-0' 6' 24COMPACTED SUB T CLASS 7 (AHTD) GRADE CRUSHED STONE BASE TO 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR TYPICAL PAVING SECTION N.T.S. NOTL 1. ALL MATERIALS µD COMPACTING TO BE PER OTY OF FAYETTENLLE STANDARDS 2. CFNTERUNE GRADES TO BE 0.24 FEET BELOW TOP OF CURB. 19 B 821,1"F�39 �� �'S I.�i- j JaJl'nFQ�[Sq� l3 i A < N Cp6l �'>-Iy~ y -�% CPOp 902 $ yyNN y 3 xZ3v `2 g J�F1Yy.f yQy fiqq iY6Y6 �55 _ 3m390 rfynN qy ^°�� F uPm3 3 m2"N'I„", O A�SpF 2 m2Rn2'DPu<� p.g 1°TYY Z� (1 m 09�yCOYJi �i T mCYZ- TiO IIZ1w OG'•^�11Z31 Y = OYZ c, n mp F!=il =�YIC �2� FCy{ z 53 af• �]S.{� i.. ❑zSC� pp oc u�A rmoc Y2y iSG m n r pz imZ 3 m 9Qm 3y m q Nvm9uzi 025 Bm�C Gzp 2 y =T O yN zTcz� v3 241N 'j'� 9$ EC2y b CC C O O JC qmp Yp P� 3^'JIgmq p IGT y r zngo° YOyp2OO p To 3 L" Z A3 pp O T -{N x� nl mmz8 ZT vn ep_ O < T y .i {Sp�":3. a SQFq�F �• 2 O z 33 33q1 m�z Ll �oA9Tn zCm YmAV VZA �21� 0pppm OT 'aeon CJ N�9@<z zn` 9 m ;ea fi m 2� OY32 n63�YD�3(t3}yZ>O SS 9 -0-Y1> W FG yN� �x> Ivy v0 o ggtjmx r 5�➢nlVy K�$j�rLl `Illy ^v p 0�np uo Zp �G�m ,�'-v T tltl3333 3 q2 a� QCC �'�Qppg�q m YOfp9G� 21ii 52 G- 2n 3 F,4iy ACC OZ y Vpn3 pm MOm vvllN 13'l�l 0 i3._.OIA l°JO T gz- �O= M O 3mmm 'a .y-4 Yz0 O =C pF zs�o �v�!' Z v�nlD Z PzL m(l FY'>�nC] C y 2cBp N`G2 p Os l"I' P3 mP2 mmY m9 pI3vT ry C) q� iso3Nib a22G5®3® {2-A3a 'C, 3lq"� �O EAe��"o Py "x'06 9 D;v RI .3. r qc yiYP O 3]^�++ I{y�.� $ OfpT +1O �zo 4 pPn z ny O>37Cb FRP S 4q �yoa ONTUC� Tm 1lnn N_oi vc ' 3�mnl�p �m.-s _ 55q NfiRY�n3₹ {gyp yypp .' fnp� Zym A�Nvo m iP L'�'}yPy�4 3 m ypL ZY £34 p➢z �omgyi m M$Q y�ym e>� S �� zI•m{'11 c G�a An BF, �fi�,G c y� Pp �+ Q pp0BFsYFq,�0 Milli � qv p.EBE - pV Y NmZm I9 (L qY Ir j Ill 4 z+ m .. pfa mN l%i CCC$(C$FP [j ylAprm N Y0� 5`O F 'el9illl �ro 2 _}l1O z 6�ig a { ° q -2g oa ll" m TI rFil Rq Sfd 6 a2 � Ca��Me• •Fs®R I I I n Vr,. NO2°46'07"E"- 239.05! N020441014E 452.81'. ili — O V IlI' I = _WH HHH A - I r,_ � -_�, '"I � 1 1I 1 i � 1 yY • I ! f ! I, --3- ii i 502°4639"W 3fi8.72 502°46'39 _ _ __ ffSSn�l • -l.E � TIMBER TRAILS SUB. i r i� 1 1 -- _ � ... .. -.. iii .� °�� ]"s •1�2 Lynn �ZYfyC yz �➢ a,:31T11 pl C ✓ P1l p A s 5 C) rn m a a g o3 CT €voce ss I }.r rnA n0 D Op p n 1 R 3 S Q� FS � 3S,y: m T C O a§ x v a A A ni 84£ '7 F'a9 fi s y$� o, ,` i _ N o _= T �12?z P8g 0 b oQ l.,a O rnrr� C.) .Z7 a v o n g I N p N O mi irnz \/ O Pi h y Vi V •J ° 1--1 `9 NI .. m Y S!NdI /� Z� (n R4nES ¢egE a�' S i. _°..1 ,e ti.w€Ct§,ep6f Ai. Ze_c Sx nn- in2 I p� SCC idtsf'fA poi °dt G.•s E ZiW 1C^{1 nio a5C]O]Ri .�2i°�2R AJ m"i txxa E {.'a �pRi ���tr%(ifi'ii\ " o _ ;Fii pe,fa wo %{{3iio >n>.n�ti§Vy �. [n ce IYi �'x Pe^n •'J 2 Fpe ffM1' --'n t S M1 S a�e a^-� `a- i cgs s' { A 1 1fr` . i s z o®g q §gip gS _ p 1_c fi� o l Js I. qt W2 iSpE'�(I , cP .2 nm w p n •' £ivj x 5rC% 2P$i 3515 'C d3 �]'P! a " P.,'. `@ YN�6^yp2 xt P�J t 3 n A£v P�Y �C E . 5 ` n p, aRa.. t: 4d 'q 9 a p#c ®5 " c ° 6RaL] '_Wta /l tl [r R 4nfa ] n x v ♦ n x S �•xy° a °r L� P£C $°ap5A'f d P e9> i •no'i ytC qFi �M1 Bega AB % s° ' tCE^i S;Si ar. Rn t9 ^d�tFF gy xa -t:a F.'iSPit �C@R.°S 24 Ca`e r{a p^x t n {... PS tE S 4 rn.a•£3 ri ce3 Leo y'^�dL FF `�o SG £.' t'^c992` y<� ct.. ip i Ri.'f j ii Lo y4A zif F " aCn 9;6 n - S i P !li 3ii^., OG C. . na£ca RR. yefi ii nG n0P d{^ p } P n]c W x'<i AAAR ata L:: FnF RAA F' a !Shen c'."•6u Sa x S�� Safp°a Edno A �mF .: tlit 1.2 ,:2a g' ai 5.v PGAR a a3%s ,t afox a 6 '�a ; n .: ni d• PaFn kA ]a tl .'xa - RC'+r 88 m • d�Et. ppa� '4 n_ atltet_ .1 P is Y 2 F B i 5P p gY Pyj 0 ^ ?p 86 i� p� ppP 6 35₹P 8 p yks99 e1 ass P Y°yy S • F Cuff f A 44 ° 452.81' 239.05' NO2° 'Ol'E X53 3Ri£�& 3I3y i iP O n�J n I q fpa `]pnp�'Fv €n�" [L 'cG6 ] YL YpaE 3{T{O I I 1 3pm m n a p 3 63<�ao �y - 5• ?'W `ea 2 tZ/{ C n 2 to 3 — _ _- _ m D _ v2aE I YC y H€�€fx � -L � __ __ __ __ __ TI -I TD I ^rn o fl Du n n.r 3 T N 0 so z ocin r c ! oc n c r- 3AO ,r 3mn r i O ° 3m 3m 31.*E Zinc, I3� II �nc a, D� •�J -( __bEW m-< L< i �n �ii j -.S02°46'39W S. —,�--_---- — , �,�, APPY HOLLOW ROAD G .• r — -- .-tom— - -- { 0 _. M1°�, qo $ , 1 Ii a -TIMBERTRAILS {� d NJ O C! g ~ 1i '° z $ O a N m 11,1 �, +U • , ^I A. e Yv Yr 'p VII i • Q Y o S y 2 9�D v n T c ai _il yr S y Z TD O O •ATt,�mrr x •-i{�„io..W ,{ —1~ ,. m y} zp T= Q D ,--a Z T 07� 'n Fvv '' r 1 I' Yl /r a O W ti y • , fI Z ] \� �/, �p I m S1Nd „ 1h•,A z Ali 'r.. r�i' . r p b. 1 JI .. ... .. �V .L ..Y _ rte" _ a I I+ r • i I V • • 2 n u G w u y G Q�� CYJ I((� y J M1 n O y�I 4y y{I [ 5Y 9 �! E '\Y M •�y 3gg F G n 3 n of n y d ' / '11i1iI ♦l\`; \J• 1 1♦ -(N. ♦♦. ♦♦ I\, "r I - .,+ yjm Yy -ZV P N I, } \ JI `pCE pap y+p Cp 1 _ 1 ,\\`♦ `\ • �� \\ ♦ I:l ♦I 1 �'ly �.♦l nOa -•'l�; `;♦„ \"; `: `: 4l ` 3 IYn pp Sj p p ./// Il,ll \\ Z I ♦� ♦\♦„ \,\\ ♦. \ �f��y��♦ lY a 1-y, p 4ayy y� R6 [1 //'i-I1�\1`\\1\� Y - Z `�\� `�♦♦„P�„ \ \., 4 I[V-'--2 lb Y C"y Q4 i 11♦n\T•., 1 -�.Ll ♦♦♦♦l ♦♦„\♦,♦• ♦ _ , Z qa cA - fEa FI a 4y.11 II \\1l \1 , r ♦`�\`\♦:♦♦.\♦`Q♦ q \ Yy l` nM1v B �.'r� Q9 a (yl " 11, 11\\\1♦ D L -� I�\'T%♦♦\♦``♦\\♦, \\♦ - I rb:� p p ���' N nK ap IY�I, 11. Ir .♦♦l♦ ♦ � I �/TlD�`TT.♦i�1•� I•MI .O }i111 n\.I Y, LL isgn 2 a g .rI II \♦\1 `' q /il lii.`ll �.\\\'.♦,\♦, \\„♦.,♦ `4 \mD \p '.. W. y 4C IQ}j 111.1 . �LO ki " /v�ID \��\ `�� \ \♦♦ ♦\ I y Y T T: I! IYY I IY H , n3 �\ \: "♦ � �w � '^ u. J'• n Ixfla �6 './.jam `: `:"\`: ♦\♦�:` ' � .. K Aga s g E Ily ul \I1`l: \I \Y,`,: �/� iil l✓\< ♦\,♦♦\�\ �\♦♦„♦`= I. < ` y�� a :tE�/ „ ♦ ,♦ ♦ ♦ r��}�'JJj��� .�� 111 ujp n � '�li:� ��,Yf l\_/_- -",I ,♦ \`♦.\1♦♦l `:::\ ♦ti a \ I +IY g mmr g 'an�6� � ��. Lj1% p¢ O ?1FFFQ¢$331 ,1 u1VI' I j`\.il` `\``\♦.. ��NpO�J'� A{\/ 1T1:49: ti no D UI u. }5�dPB �I `♦♦♦ `\Ll d'7 \!t i',Y4 �j�y ��� 3m�' I'!. Z � YJ Iw $q $ s lR $Iyal Q • (� �1` ♦ DWsli. /�Z UIC D\1'`\`♦I•��. =]V "�♦�_' I z93 Mq� DI` I , .I q g9tlE5 VI 3 .. �4 y9zm y}\ \ 1 JJj .SCi pp3 rIl n I' ypP r>i �ik�i♦`♦�` ., ,.r �_ Mi y.^n��J11 _...])))111 Y G` K .rl i�ilmm •1`�.♦` ♦ ♦ I < I � l � 1\11 i1 I ) Q 111 \ \` /I 11111 11`\ ♦1'. \.- `..141 ..t �„� �' E � �tl6� � ♦ r �_ I, '1"I I 1 ,I♦. �}��F �1 v I _'� W4 l '. 4`� �qq T T ♦ T Tom- a�4 .�_ N ' Y `y .{ J l/ • ,V35{ I 'ia' I --t ; q�IY\�, c—i --c Q •c-- T \pJls.•4"i � L I\ � ."- ♦ - \ ; I�.O -- / ' i i�' i'ii i' jd � '_ ♦\4 7 _ � - w y � _ Aal� fJ '♦ ,� / I 111 III fld66il Oai \ \ .41 - - �T G ♦ ../ -, /II;li \Iii\. pj♦♦ ``\` -`� l J.I i - 1'I- P _. p I - - I I - I - I • - ni 3 p�n�g S Q% OFsf p TNp fTl sPm (V xa�l^Y 00 s� T=C .n .0 'i 'o'bz. 'L { Q 3 ' l J O ----mn m I 'S -ul y a C 0 Fi i. \ 'ne ou.�e< n1, '11 > .� q� l 4 v,'vl {- c_v. ' ` ]. +._ V 4S.*r�.. "!. •. O 9 k 1 �/` y((•�/( r 1�1 � f ti? u: ; lO� o� T� ilvV.lU� r , (�V • 1. �•�� 0.. 1. ;4.:rNi�l �Il ry'1�\•it •'•. 6•' 1- • -I • • '.. ii .it♦ ti• "1 _ C 1 1 � fl � � • •^ , fi �1 I t • • 1 YfGJ �d 1 �� t• .l 1 J r,• • � � � l • 'r• • {{u Ctll •-p• ✓ ) Q. l ,.� it 1! 4��• r 1 C�• l q �rr+ M> R't 'y{��,w}. i N v / � ^� �R�Sf�:.,��11 '�!•. o •t�t71. °I;,i S��fa ) J V<n )� : j '{^1 •••.,,111111 yl� .Fl ,� u r r� w VA u". Ly\.� YA c r� <t• i• I/1 CFc 'J Jj�./y o 1 11 .G 1 q, a .i) V , y .x '! D' I YY Y • ^ _ " ti . : _ i`SA{11 ji 1 i 1 � • • D � 1 �'r� e� � 1 m. I • !n � � ♦ {lly(Vy tt Y Y ; 'U rA�l c. I': -'�� - �•. .ny �t)�. _uV. • i D t • W OTC ul. T 'a r r fkw •.• 'I,t d •, x _ •' } 1 K C � dt0 1� '!� ,vv ��y: Ir 1 � .. > �i a • y '•: °` to, �.� +i n't�� o • 1. �. ; r. tJ R �W 1 I C•`�tt xF`� In. •11 • 1 xr 1 14A• y l 1 ��4�i i 1 agq1�'p ° �l tIRSi ryry (� `1 •y I• +,• e n ' li�(nV'[pf Yn�O<ilN! 1�eY �� •. • L �L��,� ry•��� •I LLLL � Y •1 ° .n t � • �jt (• L,1� u.. 'iY '•cr< ©: '° iI ♦ 1 t J O �' 1 IV 1 �5- A S1��• 'u •• Il• ie �, i > � � If �y k - o co , H(1K• jt[�I Jfy :AD • N �, V ' A, 1 J t l 1 • 1© J• S� �N •.1� lot�'•4 • • 1 • i u< li.� ' - �� r y Iv.I F.! 1L n 4S _.., • Y '.Y p i SCa•h. 1 f A .� , l� • F' a 1:.• - - 9 1. _ '— 6 L t 1 .1{. . . 1,. - • • • y •y P • 11 r '• 1 1 b 1 Flo • • • tr .l • o lI 1 1c r:'r )ll �J _ -+T •F � n � V ''� ° �' ru't+w ] t 1 In A •� r r � 4 ° ,.f urns �� •n .J 1g J". .. f , '1 N �� � � � i ��! �' G�D♦ 11 ���' �qt 1�' w.J. yj� �Y'v 1 �t^ O g ��� m � "^ •.-•. '/i ��� ��rqq � f 4 If�l..•0• ''b , �•'• o N • �u , Ip [ { •i. c • 111 •Y. •• r ' 'S:L" V j e:.J•yI ..Aly 0` •a l!` ] U u _ ^ •'}•• Y r O O O O - _ •/4� iTr•rl'H���+. .•'lam • .,•?I•i • n{it ili'SbC� Pr•.il{B:l.•••1Yf:�clu.L•InQ�CiMs �+.0 •!]•'M•]iiTJt44�•...In "C1`il"l•W> [�.�•� J• I✓S ry M` • 1 .i(, • •• 4ill.l yall •u • ti1:111Y 1 i•'.•11' i�A. [v 1 �] � '.e C- - ; ___ ST• •;fl J n r✓ /-K./♦u• . l 1 1 •}f t�h ,•7S ��✓•.•f". • [�ytl i.. •S [Ifl�fr ,)g .•. �LLf •S 4,•° l 1 yyl�il 4�`<�..-C J"Ni 1Cl. S e 1 [ f �l ''� ���+-a L �� f • ••' 1%yyi"�{�h�,7�1�1•il. ���hT3�1�'�jr tlI � c n F __ c CI N V ri (1 `U'O � vl p a r r r Sf, r n< " " o is "1= FIr___II �t•-:n; T r Hii 1 'i ' `G. •1[i o N N t� •.J } Ltl Vr is ! Z _ I J� 1NJ Y n ___________ti-'f 0 PN W N . $PVP im H Sm�Cgq m� IMF A .a.5 ILII hAL ii I III!!!!!! !!!!l _ Giver aa¢iJ Fie v/.v,p l.. \ t {v. ._rf us a .. 1 . Yfl �Ial-L- l a• s .�°. =.� i � �+'� CaNi ill' I I� II 11 1 ea e ✓ ° hu lawlz ql4 4 ' - `i 1 wliI- J iJY'Y u5Fv er .a .nr vm- 4 1 uIi.«t ♦!04/ a \ lS?.JII 1. X11 �.. x ' 1 1 • iins �tfg I Y� 1 4♦ nY. 1 ♦ 1 1 n i tl \. "1' =I Ml !\I3 �i`•G!` 1 i\a f��l 1 1 I ���1 11CC1 / •1rl jlyyP ry.��e `. -• > G5^dY 1 .a a \at .: .. C' -fl fILI 1= r _ �� x r. Sia E/ POji lvr `Ir',f I\L N �,}\I ,�y,� 1�1 J\ {}( f1' f! A{rMH1 rx mot' ��i :4 , 'v T 'I li ♦ r .rn rt— sn�+�tr 5 t• -v > L+� �-. re . X93• �i :♦v - . 8 IY `- IOW dLrr rty .rJ4'r-.(TFe �+t� 'A ] p-ivI 'I1 �}t� > 1�Y4.tl'b'iJ \, 11 -r{\t. tr i ll .J Y4 P� ♦Iln ..1 y��_ \ 1 �e r _Lil Ti ll{ 1 . -4'f • V\{ f 1 P ea'� x{ ipi)44 )�.f /� % LG' i �� a l _� \'\ p •• h ' t �1. �L. x11 II �WJY i L Y ♦ / � �• .[e-- v,.{j1. 1'52 4 •�'=mt \1 \a;�` i 1� l+ K�' � -�r f �}K�' .I n�� i a '4f6�1�' ` 1r•\�._"j �• \16 at i Ali. 1S 1'� ql` I1� i 1 I�sI�i7i 1-'14\SSSI ] ��\�i " ft -°')♦! 1 .yl` I/'1 .v a ��l� =`_�..w:V\�I �\° •.\\`i\ y��_i ; .).\i ♦Y:I \.1 [fix e: rv♦.1/S♦1� M.'�� �. I�♦ ra.A,\4) y Ci I •_n _ �.. ° .I !�: t• �. A'� 1 `; b+'1�i r 1+a1 .1= q '�4.`2 � � `"t�Pl 6 f f 5I . pi, ♦y i I •111.. p ,.rte JI s VIX•( �pc __yam—� i _r�i(•�-_�5�1AAvA'«A=5 Y'�n : �1 II`�« A- 3 4 �I ♦ J..� �ye" I I ) p C_ II / - "� i� �t.Jiil �A s.. i� - 3� ♦ r - �_ �. i fir j ) I �} Y'` / I°�IVr 5,1 I. f � t le..♦{{W 1 (���t�(. Ir I. I • .� `�� • 11 Z.. t}� �I I � � a 1 I ,♦ •-IL. x. i=mil I iN 1 ), �/ )`\•��\:\�.�fll�'!,.� .4:''..., d IFFn I� e� eYt I P III tIl CNti W#.yuv pCY I's.'.y IYx �Iil"�.•. �]. r _ _. — L it g V .-- I I Zi ♦. e T . • a. nia.. . RPO *4 r r n E �gF'pe II a' a•S i i ; ddady'ed+d " dg;Ee i e! id t da aW ig b! if ��a idad®°d3d i aifl-4 ;a ! 3 9 !19§�d,x�on f t x dEE ; eF g[a + AR as ii j ii • dd° .d g E i i . •d i 9 t� 1111111 aEa l aR a Id6 Gi •d ^ O x 1 a ox iE ldp cat l, dd E Sd ay",aa� � et(a Ir > �� 1 17+ Yd tl1 a 6p { jA ay sa dt� 1 °� ;H; 1 °64 pia E a 4Ra Id S� A° 1 �a o r9 Li . �,'+ t i +9 • g F 86 ` ,e• Saa S Q 2 • d gg� d ii ae • dd# 69Ap5 ; 4 a'ia z ; 1 I jI . T, 11, !-. II 13 t, . 1 t�N II • L �(. 1, Ili tjl (lii il ' y-i' v `F '+f VGII 11 i4 I$ �t3Vi } 1 v 1- S y16i b G I ....1 I ` , t:rin t.{ ire' ii a �z° n / i :Ili:i:t .YCIY -ri � vi�-C+�rj 4Vlc ) if r �ry ♦ n �;tp :S�H{�' NYl:.5'!S• }_ •b+vCl ♦ 'i. vyy.,.�g4•,viw.3#zf i3^"lip, 4�i�3J�1 �t.• TJ i!a �.1vY 'd T.I�S°ir t tlil �'nw xw,,n ffi1-�•« P • •t:it � H�11\Y o� ,•`i'^'m..tVvl'�>ffiY a.:r'.'�iE41�•'•y�a4it�'1�a1'�;..� �' .Y�s5�u1. to < I+•«+._waaaa®airma�a ,r •.11:: l' 1 �i .e :*t'��-'l�`aS=�'.��ai • °YE .a SR�i /N p��•+il^[1�Jy, • ::!!:t:aa: I. ::::::i 111111i .. li ij' i'AiYr 6I'I1 •• ::. . , . -1I ; .• 1' 1- •iie•• I. . . • t es i. aC 4 �aeoaoeeee W 9 0) ECT OF a W 02 a T � Q sr ? m -n ��0@ r m jJj�I H N C CGJ• N .. 11vC .- M G^p m a F F • 'l Z O In $ W �� 1 ft o s o Z D S 2 N O fl YOi /v (� �1 dam+ /�...ccvrrFS, O m O O •: i m .A I�PIrt tiPN. = vl as 03 y vm t 4 la: m z %� s I s1Ndy 4rwb4, aLob-Ol, TayeVIKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: January 5, 2006 Updated January 16, 20/06 UPDATED FEB 08, 2006 PC Meeting of January 09, 2006 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District (PADDOCK ROAD S/D, 526): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at SW CORNER PADDOCK LANE AND HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The request is for 58 dwelling lots, of which 33 are detached and 25 are attached townhomes. Property Owner: HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT Property Owner: NORMA OSBURN Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN Findings: Property Description: This site is located on the southeast edge of Mount Sequoyah, along the west side of Happy Hollow Road and south of Paddock Lane. The site is heavily wooded and steep. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Mount Sequoyah Preserve RSF-4 South Scattered single family dwellings RSF-4 East Timber Trails (Cliffside) — R-PZD at 4.25 units/acre R-PZD West Largely undeveloped residential property RSF-4 Proposal: The applicant requests a rezoning and Master Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a mixed -use project on the property. The proposal includes a maximum of 58 dwelling units within the proposed subdivision. The development will consist of 33 single family detached dwelling units on both large lots, comparable to the RSF-4 zoning district, and narrow lots to allow urban densities. A total 25 lots will allow for townhome development. The overall density is 5.91 units per acre. This development would create a unique R-PZD combining single-family detached and multiple family townhomes, and would be in the immediate vicinity of the Happy Hollow Elementary School and Mount Sequoyah Preserve. The applicant has attempted to modify the street alignment to reduce the number of streets that follow the slope of the land to reduce the incline and visibility of the streets. K: IReports120061PC Reporrs101-09-061R-/'ZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) CC REV/SED.DOC The applicant has attempted to transition between the detached and attached units, attempting to place the more dense development near the adjacent Collector Street, parkland and in areas with less tree canopy. The Planned Zoning District contains a total nine Planning Areas. Each Planning Area has its own specific density (maximum number of dwellings units allowed), depending upon the desired effect. For reasons of zoning, each Planning Area also has to have established bulk and area criteria, setbacks, height, etc. The information is provided both in a booklet form, which describes the intent of each Planning Area along with a drawing of the overall Planning Area boundaries, and by way of the larger plat, which gives more engineered information. The applicant requests approval of both the zoning, given the proposed Master Development Plan, statement of commitments, and development standards, but also approval of the preliminary plat which would allow the immediate review of construction plans. Process: The purpose of the subject request is for a rezoning and development approval. Approval of the Residential Planned Zoning District would effectively rezone the property based on the engineered plans and information provided. Bulk and area criteria: While usually provided within the staff report, zoning criteria for each Planning Area has been provided in duplicate by the applicant. The project booklet provided gives the zoning criteria in detail, as do the Master Development Plans. Please reference this provided material for more information. Water & Sewer: Water lines and sewer lines are currently being made available in the vicinity with the development of Timber Trails R-PZD directly to the east. Public water and sewer lines will be extended to serve the proposed development and will be designed and constructed in accordance with city specifications to serve the development. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: East: Happy Hollow Road (Collector Street), to be improved by the City of Fayetteville & Crossover Road (Principal Arterial) South: Huntsville Road (Principal Arterial) Traffic: Access to the site is provided from Crossover Road and Happy Hollow Road to the east and Huntsville Road to the south. There are at this time no roads constructed which would give access to the property to the west, over Mount Sequoyah. The intersection of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Road is planned to be realigned and signalized by the City of Fayetteville in the near future. A traffic study was not recommended for the proposed development. Interior to the project, public and private streets and alleys are proposed. The applicant has proposed several cross sections for the streets within the development which would require waivers of the current street standards. Staff requested that all proposed street sections and be enlarged from a 23' wide street to 24'; this has been done on the plat, though the street stub -out to the south is shown as a 23' wide street. This will need to be modified with construction plans. A 24' wide street would not only be in compliance with the width of a Residential Street, but making the street stub -outs this width will make it possible for future developments to extend these streets without requesting waivers or constructing odd transitions in width. The applicant proposes both alleys and private access easements for rear access and entry to many of the K: IReponsl20061PC Reports101-09-06IR-P7.D 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) CC REV/SED.DOC townhome lots. Pedestrian circulation has also been addressed with sidewalks on either one or both sides of the proposed streets. Street Improvements: Staff recommends the following improvements: Improve Happy Hollow Road to include a 14' wide street section from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drains and a 6 -foot sidewalk at the Master Street Plan right- of-way. • Dedication of right-of-way in conformance with the Master Street Plan for all interior streets and Happy Hollow Road. • The construction of 15 parking spaces and a landscape island north of Paddock Road to serve as parking for the Mount Sequoyah Park. Tree Preservation: The property is primarily wooded and located on a hillside. There are several existing easements on the property, including a I00' electric easement, which impedes development of the property. The applicant has attempted to work around the natural features, trees and drainage, as well as the easements on the property by clustering development to the north and cast. Four large areas have been designated as tree preservation/common area and additional area has been shown to be preserved and protected by covenants to be filed with the Final Plat. The tree preservation lots will be owned and maintained by the Property Owner's Association. A Tree Preservation Plan has been submitted for this development. The applicant proposes to exceed the expected minimum percent canopy requirements, which is 25% in property zoned PZD, by preserving no less than 30% of the existing canopy through the development of the infrastructure and disturbance within proposed utility easements. More detailed comments from the Urban Forester are included in the attached staff report. Parks: The Parks and Recreation Board recommends money in lieu of park land dedication. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to provide parking for the park land north of the subject property. More detailed comments from the Parks Planner are included in the attached staff report. Public Comment: Staff has received several inquiries from adjacent property owners. Any written comments from adjacent property owners will be submitted to the Planning Commission. Additional Information: The applicant submitted the proposed Planned Zoning District application to the Planning Division on September 15, 2005. It was reviewed at the Technical Plat meeting of October 19, 2005, after which staff has held several meetings with the applicant and his representative(s) to further discuss the waivers requested, street alignment and tree preservation. The item was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on December 29, 2005 and forwarded to the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Residential Planned Zoning District for Paddock Road Subdivision (R-PZD 05-1735) with the following conditions: K:IReporls1200&IPC ReporlsWI-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdirision) CC REVISF.D.DOC Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination a waiver request from the minimum street grade requirements of 10% and 15% for a maximum of 300' in hilly terrain to allow the following: i. Paddock Road — 12.3% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 5+30 ii. Acacia Drive — 12.4% from Sta 0+50 to Sta 3+00 and 14.7% from Sta 3+00 to Sta 5+10 After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 2. Planning Commission determination a waiver request from minimum street grade of 4% for 100' from an intersection to allow the following: i. Happy Hollow Road and Acacia Drive — 5.4% ii. Acacia Drive and Street 1C — 10.26% iii. Street IC and Street 3— 12.97% After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) A waiver request of minimum residential street radius of 150'. The applicant requests the following minimum radii: i. Paddock Road and Street 1 B —50' ii. Street IA and Street 2— 75' iii. Street IA and Street 3-75' After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recommends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 4. A waiver request from minimum street standards for the width of Paddock Road and Acacia Drive. Staff recommends that the applicant modify the southern stub -out from 23' street width to a minimum 24' street width. Additionally, the street width on either side of the proposed landscape islands located within the principal east -west street shall be a minimum 20', which may require the increase of right-of-way or reduction of the width of the landscape islands. Planning Commission determination of appropriate street alignment. Staff recommends that the stub -out to the west be realigned either to the north or south so that it does not terminate adjacent to two property owners. This will potentially create problems should either property owner desire to develop and require the dedication of the other's property, for right-of-way. CITY COUNCIL AMENDED (02-07-06). THE WEST STREET STUB -OUT SHALL BE RELOCATED TO THE NORTH TO ALLOW COMPLETE STREET K: IReports110061PC Repons101-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) CC RE,VISED.DOC CONSTRUCTION TO THE ADJACENT (NORTH) PROPERTY OWNER'S EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. 6. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of parking regulations described in Ch. 172.04A which prohibits backing vehicles into public right-of-way to allowing perpendicular (90°) parking north of Paddock Road for the Mount Sequoyah Preserve park land. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver finding that the proposed parking on Paddock Road will not create a dangerous traffic situation. Access to those lots on Paddock Road will be provided by an access easement leaving the street relatively clear of residential vehicular movements and Paddock Road will not be a through street. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 7. Planning Commission determination of street improvements, to include the following: a. Installation of a 14' wide street from centerline of Happy Hollow Road, including 14' pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains, and a 6' sidewalk. b. The construction of 15 parking spaces and a landscape island north of Paddock Road to serve as parking for the Mount Sequoyah Park. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 8. Dedication of right-of-way in conformance with the Master Street Plan and/or approved waivers for street standards for all interior streets and 35' right-of-way from centerline of Happy Hollow Road. 9. Structures located on lots adjacent to Happy Hollow Road shall be constructed to face Happy Hollow Road. 10. Any landscape island shall be exclusive of the right-of-way, owned, and maintained by the Property Owner's Association. 11. Zoning and development criteria shall be enforced as approved by the City Council as currently referenced in the attached zoning criteria. 12. Future development shall comply with at least the minimum design standards for development in the Unified Development Code with exceptions listed herein, including but not limited to landscaping, parking, access, street design, stormwater detention, etc. Buildings proposed shall be reviewed to ensure appropriate architectural compatibility, compliance with commercial design standards, and/or conformance with the architectural standards and concepts provided with the subject submittal. 13. Parks fees in the amount of $32,190 for 58 single-family units shall be paid prior to issuance of the final plat. 14. Conditions included in the Tree Preservation Report prepared for this Planning Commission meeting are hereby included in the official conditions of approval for the Paddock Road Subdivision. K:1Repons110(161PC Reports101-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) CC REVISED. DOC 15. The ordinance does not allow for Tree Preservation Easements on residential lots used for single family use. Restrictions within the Tree Preservation Easements identified on the plat shall be established in the covenants and regulated by the Property Owners Association. 16. All signage within each Phase of the Master Development Plan shall be permitted in accordance with the current sign regulations at the time of development. The development comply with the RSF-4 zoning district requirements which would allow a moderate amount of signage, such as a subdivision sign, if so desired. 17. Compliance with federal, state and local regulations regarding the development of any wetlands is required. 18. All development shall meet applicable building codes and other ordinances of the City of Fayetteville. 19. The applicant shall install signs at each street stub -out to indicate the future extension of said street prior to the application of signatures on the final plat. 20. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building setbacks. 21. Buildings shall be constructed generally as depicted in the building elevations in the booklet with the materials specified. Standard Conditions of Approval: 22. The applicant shall be granted one (1) year from the date of Planning Commission approval to receive all permits necessary for development of the Phase with a one (1) year extension available. 23. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 24. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required public improvements are required to be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. 25. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code, and shall be subject to signage requirements for residential multi- family development. This shall be reflected in the booklets and on the plats. K:IRcports120061PC Reports107-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) CC REVISEDDOC 26. 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). 27. 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. 28. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Commission Action: Required YES O Approved ✓ Denied O Tabled Meeting Date: January 09, 2006 Motion: Lack Second: Myres Vote: 4-3-0 with Commissioners Ostner,'Allen, and Clark voting no. Comments: The Motion was to approve findine in favor of conditions 1. 2.3.4.6. and 7. Also finding on Condition 5 that the western stub -out should be moved north such that the southern right-of-way line was adjacent to the southern property line of the northern property. The vote failed for lack of five affirmative votes. Main concerns were with regard to the affects of the proposed density on this hillside. The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature Date K:1Reporisl2(R)61PC Reporls101-U9-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Sub/irision) CC REVISED.DOC CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES City Council Action: ✓ Approved Cl Denied O Tabled Vote: 8-0-0 Meeting Date: February 07, 2006 Comments: APPROVED AS AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", stated in this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this rezoning/master development plan item. By Date K:IRepor s120061PC Reportsi01-09-061R-PZD 05-1735 (Paddock Road Subdivision) CC REV/SED.DOC From: Clarice Pearman To: GIS; Pate, Jeremy Date: 2/13/06 2:31 PM Subject: Ords. 4826, 4828, 4829, 4830 Jeremy, Attached are the ordinances passed by City Council, February 7, 2006. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Erin Emis, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal 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: /ti e� " was inserted in the regular editions on 9e_6-, /S, 2 iDCo PO# ** Publication Charge: $ 3s7.7t 2 Subscribed and sworn to _ day of otary Public My Commission Expires: me this " Please do not pay from Affidavit. An invoice will be sent. Sharlene D. Williams Notary Public State of Arkansas My ommission Expires October 18, 2014 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700 n—.wn..G NV. Wi0 ORDINANCE DESTABLISHINGO,CAL A RESOUTHWEST VNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 05- PADDOCK ROAD, LOCATED SOUTHWESTHE INTERSECTION OF PADDOCK ROAD AND PY HOLLOW ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXI- ELY 9.77 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AYR -n. Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as fol- Iows: From RSF4. Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre, to R-PZD 05-1735 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 develop- ment plan, development standards, and conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropri- ate end approved by the City Council. Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the require- ments of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of Me City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect Me zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of February, 2006. APPROVED: EXHIBIT'A' R-PZD 05.1735 PART OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, R CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS BEING MORE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A FOUND IRON PIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 S02046.39W 20O0 FEE] TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PADDOCK ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE NB7°07'09W 15.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PAD. DOCK ROAD AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD AND THE POIN1 OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S02 -46.39V 368.72 FEET THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S87°0649E 15.00 FEET TO A FOUNC IRON PIN ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE i. S02°46'39W 303.19 FEET TO A FOUND IRON: PIN; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE N87°06'50W 627.69 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2°4607'E 239.05 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2°4401 -E 452.81 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4: THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S87°07'09E 460.10 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE 502°4916w 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID PADDOCK ROAD: THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE S87°07'09'8 152.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 9.77 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD OR FACT' EXHIBIT'S' R-PZD 05-1735 CONDITIONS OF. APPROVAL AS AMENDED. AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Planning Commission determination a waiver request from the minimum street grade require - 'rents 01 10% and 15% for a maximum of 300' in hilly terrain to allow the following: I. Paddock Road - 12.3% from Sta 0+50 to Sra 5+30 u. Acacia Drive -.12.4% from Sta0+50 to Sta 3+00 and 14.7% from Sta 3+00 to Ste 5+10 After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff rocan- mends approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-06) 2. Planning Commission determination a waiver request from minimum street grade of 4% for 100' from an intersection to allow the following: Happy Hollow Road and Acacia Drive - 5.4% Ii.' Acacia Drive and Street 1C - 10.26% Iii, Street 1C and Street 3- 1297% After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recom- me nds approval of the requested waivers of typical street standards. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02.07-08) 3. A waiver,request of minimum residential street radius of 150'. The applicant requests the follow - inn minim,m 1 Paddock Road and Street 1 B - 50' il. Street IA and Street 2 - 75 Street lA and Street 3—]5' After significant review and coordination between the developer and City Engineering, staff recom- mends approval of Me requested waivers of typical street standards CRY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR.(02-07.OB) 4. A waiveerequest from minimum street standards for the width of Paddock Road and Acacia Drive. Staff recommends that the applicant modify the southern stub -out from 23' street width to a minimum 24' street width. Additionally, the street width on either side of the proposed landscape islands locat- ed within the principal east -west street shall be a minimum 20', which may require the increase of right-of-way or reduction of the width of the landscape islands. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02.07-08) 5. Planning Commission determination of appropriate street alignment. Staff recommends that the swbout to the west be realigned either to the nosh or south so that it does not terminate adjacent to two property owners. This will potentially create problems should either property owner desire to develop and require the dedication of the other's property for right-of-way CITY COUNCIL AMENDED, (02-07-08). THE WEST STREET STUB -OUT SMALL BE RELOCATED TO THE NORTH TO Auflrcnun. n -- __ g noun of Paddock Road for the Mount Sequoyah Preserve park land. Staff recommends approvalrof the requested waiver finding that Me proposed parking on Paddock Road wilt not create a danger- o us traffic situation. Access to those lots on Paddock Rdad will be provided by an access easement Waving the street relatively clear of residentiai'vehicular;m veroents and Fyaddoek Read wN not be a through street. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02-07-00) 7. Planning Commission determination of street improvements, to include Me following: a. Installation of a 14' wide street from centerline of Happy Hollow Road, Including 14' pavement, - curb, gutter. storm drains, and a 6' sidewalk. b. The construction of 15 parking spaces and a landscape island north of Paddock Road to serve as parking for the Mount Sequoyah Park. CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN FAVOR (02.07-08) 8. Dedication of right-of-way in conformance with the Master Street Plan and/or, approved waivers for Street standards for all interior streets and -35'. right-of-way from centerline of Happy Hollow Road. 9. Structures located an lots adjacent to Happy Hollow Road shall be constructed to face Happy Hollow Road, 10. Any landscape island shall be exclusive of Me right-of-way, owned and maintained by the Property Owner's Association, 11. Zoning and development criteria shall be enforced as approved by the City Council as current- ly referenced in the attached zoning criteria. 12. Future development shall comply with at least the minimum design standards for development in the Unified Development Code with exceptions listed herein, including but not limited to land- scaping, parking, access, street design, stormwater detention, etc. Buildings proposed shall be reviewed to ensure appropriate architectural compatibility, compliance with commercial design stan- dards, and/or conformance with the architectural standards and concepts provided with the subject submittal. 13. Parks fees in the amount of $32,190 for 58 single-family units shall be paid prior to issuance of Me final plat. 14. Conditions included in the Tree Preservation Report prepared for this Planning Commission meeting are hereby included in the official conditions of approval for Me Paddock Road Subdivision. 15. The ordinance does not allow for Tree Preservation Easements on residential lots used for single family use. Restrictions within the Tree Preservation Easements identified on the plat shall be estab- lished in the covenants and regulated by Me Property Owners Association. 16. All signage within each Phase of Me Master Development Plan shall be permitted in accordance with the current sign regulations at the time of development. The development comply with the RSF- 4 zoning district requirements which would allow a moderate amount aunt of signage, such as a subdivi- sion sign. if so desired. 17. Compliance with federal, state and local regulations regarding the development of any wetlands is required. . 18. All development shall meet applicable building codes and other ordinances of the City of Fayetteville. 19. The applicant shall install signs at each street stub -out to indicate the future extension of said street prior to the application of signatures on the final plat. 20. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building setbacks. 21. Buildings shall be constructed generally as depicted in the building elevations in the booklet with the materials specified. na Standard Conditleof Approval: 22. The applicant shall be granted one (1) year from the date of Planning Commission approval to receive all permits necessary for development of the Phase with a one (1) year extension available. 23. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submit- ted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property, Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan -Planned Zoning District by. the City Council shall also be binding. 24. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required public improvements are required to be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Once 'approval is gained,' a guarantee is to be issued (bondletter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. 25. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code, and shall be subject to signage requirements for residential multi -family development. This shall be reflected in the booklets and on the plats. 26. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the appli- cant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO. Cox Communications), 27. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grad- ing, 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 improve- ments shall comply with City§ current requirements. 28. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any and disturbance. c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. d. Project Disk with all final revisions e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of cred- it ts' bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvemento guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed. not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificntn I .f n,_, n, °...:.