HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6750 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc ID: 021640390007 Type: REL
Kind: ORDINANCE
Recorded: 06/24/2024 at 03:12:10 PM
Fee Amt: $45.00 Page 1 of 7
441 Washington County, AR
Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk
������ File
2024-00015655
k^Ns�y
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville,AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
Ordinance: 6750
File Number: 2024-26
REZONING-2024-0011: (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD LOCATIONS/EXPIRED PZDS,PP VARIES):
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 2024-0011 FOR
27.73 ACRES IN THE CLIFFSIDE PZD, WESTBROOK VILLAGE PHASE 2, AND PADDOCK ROAD
SUBDIVISION IN WARDS 1 AND 4 FROM PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS TO VARIOUS STANDARD
ZONING DISTRICTS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the
property shown on the map (Exhibit A) and the legal description (Exhibit B) both attached to the Planning
Department's Agenda Memo from Planned Zoning Districts to the following zoning districts:
• Cliffside PZD: RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban (18.67 acres) and R-A, Residential Agricultural (7.44
acres)
• Westbrook Village Phase 2: Residential Intermediate-Urban(1.42 acres)
• Paddock Road Subdivision:NC,Neighborhood Conservation(0.20 acres)
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the
City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
PASSED and APPROVED on May 21,2024
Approve Attest: ` ���y,;.TR`g1/,,,,
• ES
•
1/414/10 .-��FAYE}-[EvtLLE;
ioneld Jordan, a Kara Paxton,City Clerk Treasurer cif
'��9s•.RANS•.OJ�.��
This publication was paid for by the City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Amount Paid: $ i S SZ
Page 1
Washington County,AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
06/24/2024 03:12:10 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2024-00015655
Kyle Sylvester- Circuit Clerk
by _.;=y: _:..- ,, .....:....... .._.....
RZN-2024-0011
EXHIBITA
MffCTED PARCEL
Ib 761411 3"M
omoo• yK cuFFs,oF Pm
AIPBCTLO ►A11CV nu
I L
R nu
-w
� • 1nr onrrnnm
j M
J MC
LEGEND
Aw.d~ AWn*A" (R-A)
RMrM.- W4@ m dsw urbw (Po U)
M.pm,.m Ca..n.rv„ fNC,
CLIFFSIDE AND PADDOCK RD
LEGEND
R..00MW k*P,,00 M lXoar lh� u�
... PZD Bou,Ov7
� , %.a.a Pwow
WESTBROOK VILLAGE PHASE 2
M
rw
M
AW _ tlT/-0MRED PARCEL
U11LT/ F1dLRT
WESTBROOK VILLAGE Y
C�P 1
su
AFFECTED PARCELS
" F-1
RZN-2024-0011
Exhibit 'B' 2805 V
E
A
1444 f4 t!
Z
Sol in
, ek"B1rd
w d cf
•
TRACT ONE:
RpxQ
ALL OF TRACT ONE AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT OF SALEM VILLAGE P.U.D.,
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15 AT PAGE 70, BEING PART OF THE N W 114 OF THE SWIM OF
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A FOUND IRON PIN AT TI IE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT ONE;
THENCE S87028'49"E 198.16 FEET; THENCE. S02°3427"W 117.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS
S47034'27"W, 35.36 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; 73IENCE
N87'25'33"W 46.20 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 48.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS S66°03'25" W, 42.96 FEET,
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 44.43 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO
THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS S66601'47"W,
13.38 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 13.87 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE N87°28'49"W
51.48 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS N42028'49"W, 35.36 FEET, AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2'3 I'l I "E 142.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.70 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, BEING SUBJECT TO ANY
EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD OR FACT.
RZN-2024-0011
EXHIBI T B
TRACT TWO:
ALL OF TRACT TWO AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL. PLAT OF SALEM VILLAGE P.U.D.,
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15 AT PAGE 70, BEING PART OF THE N W 1 /4 OF THE S W I A OF
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 2; THENCE N87°28'49"W 152.99
FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGI IT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 15.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS N42°27' I 1 "W, 21.22 FEET, AN A RC DISTANCE
OF 23.58 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NO2°34'27"E 6.23 FEET TO A FOUND IRON
PIN; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 51.00 FEET, A LONG
CHORD THAT BEARS N08056'20"W, 20.36 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 20.50 FEET TO A
FOUND IRON PIN; 111F.NCE N20°27'08"W 109.75 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE
ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT
BEARS N36002'02"E, 41.69 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE. OF 49.29 FEET "I'O A FOUND IRON PIN;
THENCE S870'28'49"F. 70.64 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TOTHE
RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS S61 °04'04"E, 13.34
FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE; OF 13.83 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIUS OF 48.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS S61 °02'26"E,.42.66 FEE]., AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 44.21 FEET; THENCE S87°25'33"E 46.19 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE
ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A LONG CHORD TIiAT
BEARS S42025'33"E, 35.36 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.27; THENCE S02°34'27"W 127.00
FEET TO THE. POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.72 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, BEING
SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD OR FACT.
RZ N-2024-0011
EXHIBI T B
k R ci
1169
-1 S
Proposed NC
Parent Tract: (Warranty Deed)
Lot], Paddock Subdit ision, Fayetteville, as per the plat of said Subdivision on flle In the
office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Of eto Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas.
RZN-2024-0011
EXHIBI T B
I Li
00
V)
G
E Pepi
1
Lots 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118, Timber Trails Subdivision, Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas as shown on plat record "23A" at pagc 55
Subject to recorded instruments, covenants, rights of way and easements.
and
Part of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a found iron pin at the Northwest Corner of said NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; thence along the north
line of said NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 S87°07'09E 1,322.49 feet to the Northeast Corner of said NE 1/4 of the SW
1/4; thence along the east line of said NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 S02°49'15 W 938 39 feet to the point of
beginning; thence continuing along said east line S02°49'15'W 50 00 feet to the south line of the North 30
acres of said NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; thence along said south line N87°07'09'W 50.00 feet thence departing
said south line NO2°49'15"E 50 00 feet thence S87°07'09'E 50.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing
2,500 square feet or 0.06 acres, more or less. Subject to any easements, covenants or restrictions of record
or fact.
Also known as Lot 119 in the proposed Timber Trails Subdivision.
RZN-2024-0011
EXHIBI T B
000126,144610Q�1
Lots 1-111 of Timber Trails Subdivision, Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas as shown on Plat
Record "23A" at Page 255.
Subject to easements, right-of-ways, and protective covenants of record, if any. Subject to all prior
mineral reservations and oil and gas leaks, if any.
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
MEETING OF MAY 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
2024-26
TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council
THRU: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff
Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director
Jessica Masters, Development Review Manager
FROM: Donna Wonsower, Planner
SUBJECT: RZN-2024-0011: Rezone (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD LOCATIONS/ EXPIRED PZDS, PP
VARIES): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for VARIOUS PROPERTIES
LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FAYETTEVILLE in WARDS 1, 2, AND 4. The
properties are zoned as PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS and contain approximately
90.65 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to various standard zoning
districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of a request to rezone the subject
property as described and shown in the attached Exhibits `A' and `B'.
BACKGROUND:
The subject properties consist of five Planned Zoning Districts (PZDs) that are located throughout the City
limits of Fayetteville. Properties are a mix of fully undeveloped properties, partially developed neighborhoods
and/or commercial blocks with sections of undeveloped lots, or part of a larger PZD that has been almost
entirely rezoned. The original zoning of these properties, before they became PZDs, ranged from R-A,
Residential -Agricultural to 1-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Prior to 2014, Fayetteville's PZD
standards required all construction permits to be secured within a specific time frame. If permits were not
obtained, then the development rights became null and void. As a result, many of these properties have PZDs
which have expired.
Additionally, because planned zoning districts are customized, they are inherently more complicated than the
City's standard zoning districts. Many were established before many of the city's current development
regulations, such as the landscape and tree preservation code, were passed, leading to complex zoning
regulations that are hundreds of pages long and which are generally outdated. As such, staff propose to
rezone the properties to various zoning districts as shown in Table 1 in attached exhibits.
Request: City Planning staff requests to rezone the properties from the expired PZD designation to one or
more zoning districts as shown in the attached exhibits. Proposed zoning districts include UT, Urban
Thoroughfare; CS, Community Services; RI-U, Residential Intermediate Urban; NC, Neighborhood
Conservation; and R-A, Residential Agricultural.
Public Comment: Staff sent letters in late February to notify all affected property owners of the staff -initiated
rezoning and provide opportunities for initial feedback. A second round of letters was sent with full public notice
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
in March. Over this time frame, staff have received numerous inquiries and comments which are summarized
in a table in the staff report.
Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning districts are compatible with the surrounding land uses. When
determining proposed zoning districts, staff evaluated three primary factors. First was consideration for
permitted and conditional uses within the expired PZDs to determine the nature and intensity of the previous
entitlements. Second, where developed or platted, staff prioritized the minimization of nonconformances.
Lastly, staff identified zoning districts which are compatible with surrounding land uses to the greatest extent
possible. The resulting proposals and findings are as follows:
Park West: Staff recommends rezoning the remaining Park West PZD to a combination of UT and CS.
Staff finds the rezoning is consistent with the existing development patterns and recent proposals. All
other parcels of the original Park West PZD have been rezoned since the PZD's expiration, with
entitlement including, most recently, multifamily residential development. Other developments originally
included within the PZD boundaries include an existing retirement community known as Grand Village at
Clear Creek directly west and the Fellowship Baptist Church directly north. Other portions of the Park
West PZD to the north and northwest have been rezoned to a mix of CS, UT, and Neighborhood
Services -General (NS-G) but have not yet been developed. Further, there is existing UT zoning located
across Hwy 112 at the previous 112 Drive -In -Theatre, which was recently approved for a mixed -use
development titled "The Aronson." Staff finds that a split rezoning of CS and UT would be compatible in
this area given the existing and planned developments. As proposed, limiting UT to a smaller portion of
the property abutting Hwy 112 can restrict more intensive uses to the areas adjacent to the major
thoroughfare, with more limited uses permitted adjacent to residential developments.
Cliffside: Staff recommends rezoning the Cliffside PZD to a combination of RI-U and R-A. The approved
PZD included approval for 15 single-family homes and 48 two-family homes. All residential lots were
approved with front and rear setbacks of 20 feet. Single-family dwellings were approved with side
setbacks of 8 feet on all side property lines, and two-family dwellings were approved to utilize a zero -lot
line along a shared common wall. Lot sizes range from approximately 3,500 square feet to 10,600
square feet, with only three parcels meeting minimum lot standards for the RSF-4 zoning that predated
the PZD. Six of the eight parcels that remain undeveloped have street frontage of approximately 16 feet
to 22 feet, with the remaining corner lots having street frontages of nearly 200 feet. Because RI-U has a
minimum lot width of 18 feet for residential uses, it is one of the few districts that would allow the platted
lots to conform with existing zoning requirements. RI-U would remain primarily residential in nature with
limited conditional non-residential uses. While RI-U has no density limitations, staff finds that the zoning
is unlikely to result in development that is out of scale with the surroundings as most parcels are small
and do not have sufficient width to permit additional subdivision of land. While RI-U permits up to three
and four family dwellings by right, staff finds this is not likely due to the existing platting and
infrastructure. Further, most parcels are encumbered by utility or drainage easements. Staff proposes to
rezone the entire Cliffside development rather than solely the undeveloped parcels in order to create
consistent zoning entitlements and reduce administrative difficulty for staff and current/future property
owners. Staff proposes to rezone the areas designated as common areas and tree preservation lots by
the approved PZD as Residential Agricultural, R-A, in order to maintain these areas as communal green
space. Staff also proposes to rezone parcel 765-26323-000 (Lot 119) as R-A, as this lot is owned by the
City of Fayetteville. R-A allows Use Unit 3: Public Protection and Utility Facilities by right, which would
facilitate the lot's intended purpose.
Springwoods: Staff recommends rezoning the undeveloped portions of the Springwoods PZD to a
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
combination of UT, CS, and RI-U. Due to the overall scale of the PZD acreage, staff is not
recommending a full rezoning of the Springwoods PZD at this time, choosing instead to focus on those
properties that are either undeveloped or currently under development. Undeveloped lots are spread
throughout the PZD in three primary sections further described below. Lot 1 of the Springwoods CPZD
was replatted as the Meadow Field Commercial Subdivision in 2006. Lots 1-2, 5-9 & 12 of Meadow Field
remain undeveloped and zoning entitlement for these parcels has since expired. Lot 6A of the original
Springwoods CPZD and a portion of PID 765-26552-000 (The Pines at Springwoods Horizontal Property
Regime) also remain undeveloped.
Given the proximity of these parcels to the Wilson Springs Creek Preserve, staff finds that the original
zoning of 1-1 would be incompatible. However, staff notes the remaining parcels within the Meadow Field
Commercial Subdivision and Lot 6A abut an 1-49 entrance and exit and have the capacity to serve
residents throughout the City with large commercial uses. As such, staff evaluated a mix of CS and UT
to restore commercial and development rights. Both CS and UT allow a wide mix of residential and
commercial uses, creating the opportunity for mixed -use developments rather than solely commercial
uses. Staff initially recommended CS on parcels 765-23604-000, 765-25746-000, and 765-25745-000 as
these parcels are adjacent to residential uses and could provide a transition to the higher intensity uses
permitted by the UT district. Since the initial recommendation of CS, staff has consulted extensively with
the property owner of parcels 765-25746-000 and 765-25745-000, who requested the City propose UT,
a zoning district that would permit Use Unit 17: Transportation Trades and Services by right rather than
CS. Staff analyzed the request and finds that since that the original PZD included this use unit by right
and surrounding parcels have been extensively developed with auto -oriented developments, the
inclusion of a district which permits Use Unit 17 by right is likely to be compatible in these locations. Staff
finds UT, Urban Thoroughfare would be consistent for the requested parcels.
The Pines at Springwoods has been almost entirely developed with four -family dwellings in a form -based
style. A single buildable portion of the parcel remains and staff finds that RI-U would best facilitate similar
development given the limited development area and the consistent development of four -family
dwellings.
Westbrook Village Phase 2: Staff recommends rezoning the Westbrook Village Phase 2 PZD to RI-U.
The property was originally platted as part of the Salem Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) in
1997, most of which has since been rezoned to RSF-4. The original PUD designated these parcels as
mixed -use village centers. A revised PZD was approved in 2006 that revised the permitted uses to either
strictly single-family residential or green space. All but one parcel designated for development have
since been constructed with single-family homes, and staff recommends rezoning to RI-U to bring these
parcels to a standard zoning district. RI-U has a minimum lot width of 18 feet for residential uses, which
would allow the existing lots to conform with existing zoning requirements. Internal parcels here have
approximately 20 feet of street frontage. Given existing development patterns and lot sizes, staff finds
the uses permitted in RI-U are not likely to create development that is out of sync on the remaining
undeveloped parcel.
Paddock Road Subdivision: Staff recommends rezoning the Paddock Road Subdivision PZD to NC. This
parcel has been developed and has not expired; however, all other parcels within the original PZD have
been rezoned in the years since its passage. As a result of this and the complexity of the Paddock Road
Subdivision PZD, staff recommends this parcel be rezoned to NC. The parcels to the immediate west
and south were successfully rezoned to NC, Neighborhood Conservation in 2014 and the rezoning of the
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
remaining parcel would fully eliminate the remaining RPZD, creating consistent zoning entitlements and
reducing administrative difficulty for staff and current/future property owners. The existing parcel meets
bulk and area as well as the minimum buildable street frontage required by the NC zoning. As the parcel
is already constructed with a residence, staff finds a rezoning is unlikely to result in development that is
inconsistent with the surrounding parcels.
Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning districts are compatible with the Future Land Use Map, which
vary from property to property (see Table 2). Staff finds that the recommended zoning districts are generally
compatible with goals to encourage infill and discourage suburban sprawl, create compact, complete and
connected development, provide opportunities for attainable housing, and grow a livable transportation
network. Additionally, rezoning the remaining parcels will eliminate many planned zoning districts, simplifying
the zoning regulations and bringing these areas into conformance with current zoning standards.
Park West: Staff finds that rezoning the remaining Park West PZD to a combination of UT and CS is
consistent with long-range planning goals. The CS and UT zoning districts will restore development
rights and could allow for a mixed -use development in close proximity to a Tier 2 Center, as defined in
City Plan 2040's Growth Concept Map. Similarly, the property's Future Land Use Map designation of City
Neighborhood Area encourages "complete, compact and connected neighborhoods... intended to serve
the residents of Fayetteville, rather than a regional population", which is complemented by both the CS
and UT zoning districts. The expired PZD included a mixed -use district, commercial, condominiums, and
a preserve/botanical/detention area. Staff finds that the reduced uses permitted by the CS district would
be compatible adjacent to existing and proposed residential developments to the west with UT abutting
the highway. Staff further finds that the additional pedestrian -oriented requirements of the form -based
CS and UT zoning districts generally align the City's 2040 Growth Plan, which calls for all centers to be
"mixed -use nodes that are pedestrian friendly areas served by current or future transit."
Cliffside: Staff finds that the split zoning of RI-U and R-A will bring the overall neighborhood into standard
zoning districts that will simplify future city reviews, allow for infill, protect existing open space, and
permit the city -owned parcel to be utilized for Use Unit 3: Public Protection and Utility Facilities. These
units have a moderate infill score of 6-7, though staff notes that only eight parcels within the
neighborhood remain undeveloped. The affected parcels are between '/z and % of a mile from three Tier
Centers: a Tier 2 Center located at the S. Crossover Rd. and E. Huntsville Rd. intersection, a Tier 3
Center located at the S. Crossover Rd. and E. Peppervine Dr. intersection, and a Tier 3 Center located
at the E. Huntsville Rd. and S. Happy Hollow Rd. intersection.
Springwoods: Staff finds that rezoning the undeveloped lots in the Springwoods PZD to a combination of
UT, CS, and RI-U will restore development rights and could allow for a mixed -use development in
proximity to a Tier 2 Center, and that the proposed zoning districts generally align with previously
permitted uses. Lot 6A is designated as Urban Center on the Future Land Use Map, which includes "the
most intense and dense development patterns within Fayetteville and allows for the tallest and greatest
variety of buildings." Undeveloped parcels within the Meadow Field Commercial Subdivision (lots 1-2, 5-
9 & 12) and parcel 765-26552-000 (The Pines at Springwoods Horizontal Property Regime) are
designated as City Neighborhood Areas, which encourage "complete, compact and connected
neighborhoods and are intended to serve the residents of Fayetteville, rather than a regional population."
The affected parcels are between '/4 to 3/4 of a mile from a Tier 2 Center located adjacent to the N. Hwy
112 and W. Truckers Dr. intersection. Staff finds that the additional pedestrian -oriented requirements of
the form -based CS and UT zoning districts generally align with the City's 2040 Growth Plan, which calls
for all centers to be "mixed -use nodes that are pedestrian -friendly areas served by current or future
transit," a development style that would be facilitated by the proposed zoning districts.
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Staff initially recommended CS on parcels 765-23604-000, 765-25746-000, and 765-25745-000 as these
parcels are abutting residential uses and could provide a transition to the higher intensity uses permitted
by the UT district. Since the initial recommendation of CS, staff has consulted extensively with the
property owner of parcels 765-25746-000 and 765-25745-000, who requested that staff propose UT, a
zoning district that would permit Use Unit 17: Transportation Trades and Services by right rather than
CS. Staff analyzed the request and finds that given that the original PZD included this use unit by right
and that surrounding parcels have been extensively developed with automobile -oriented uses, auto -
oriented uses are likely to be compatible in these locations. Additionally, given the presence of the
Wilson Springs Preserve and limited access from N. Shiloh Dr., staff finds that the only residential areas
with easy access to potential future commercial developments are likely the neighborhood abutting W.
Moore Ln. As such, staff finds most of the commercial developments will likely serve Fayetteville as a
whole and that UT would be compatible in this case.
The Pines at Springwoods have been almost entirely developed with four -family dwellings in a form -
based style. A single buildable portion of the parcel remains, and staff finds that RI-U would best
facilitate similar development given the limited development area and consistent development of four -
family dwellings.
Westbrook Village Phase 2: Staff finds that the RI-U zoning district substantially aligns with previously
permitted bulk and area requirements as well as land uses of the previously approved PZD. Many
parcels are less than 30 feet in width, and RI-U would allow these narrower parcels to remain conforming
while restoring development rights on the undeveloped parcel. The affected parcels are approximately'/2
of a mile south of a Tier 3 Center located north of the N. Rupple Rd. and W. Country Meadows St.
intersection, and approximately 3/4 of a mile north of a Tier 2 Center located at the N. Rupple Rd. and W.
Mount Comfort Rd. intersection.
Paddock Rd. Subdivision: Staff finds that rezoning this sole remaining parcel of the Paddock Road
Subdivision to NC will eliminate complex requirements that may run counter to existing tree preservation
and landscape requirements. While this PZD has not expired, it was approved during the adoption of the
original HHOD and included several self-imposed tree preservation requirements. Today, site
development standards are sufficiently addressed within current tree preservation codes and grading
ordinances. The NC zoning district will permit development of a medium density similar to the expired
PZD, allowing effective use of the existing infrastructure if the site is ever redeveloped. The affected
parcel is between '/2 and 3/4 of a mile from three Tier Centers: a Tier 2 Center located at the S. Crossover
Rd. and E. Huntsville Rd. intersection, a Tier 3 Center located at the S. Crossover Rd. and E.
Peppervine Dr. intersection, and a Tier 3 Center located at the E. Huntsville Rd. and S. Happy Hollow
Rd. intersection.
CITY PLAN 2040 INFILL MATRIX: City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix score is summarized in Table 2 in Exhibit C.
DISCUSSION:
The rezoning was originally heard at the March 25, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, where a vote of 4-3-0
tabled the item to the April 8, 2024, meeting. Several commissioners cited the size of the request and the fact
that it is a City -initiated project as reasoning for tabling the item for additional Commissioner and resident time
to review the proposal. There was limited discussion regarding the need for rezoning the properties and what
options were available. Commissioners Garlock, Gulley, and Holcomb voted against tabling the item, citing the
straightforward nature of the request, staff recommendations, and the need for the properties to be rezoned.
One member of the public spoke, requesting confirmation of the proposed zoning for Lot 6A in Springwoods
and expressing support for the proposed CS zoning. Staff confirmed the proposed CS zoning for this parcel at
the meeting.
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
At the April 8, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, all portions of the request were ultimately forwarded to
City Council with a recommendation of approval as recommended by staff. At the beginning of the item
discussion, Commissioner Payne motioned to divide the question and to consider the Springwoods PZD
separately. Commissioner Werner seconded, and the question was divided by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Payne expressed hesitation regarding allowing housing in Meadow Field Commercial
Subdivision Lots 5-9 & 12 (previously part of Springwoods Lot 1) considering the intensity of adjacent uses.
Commissioner Brink cited an adjacent rezoning that included a Bill of Assurance limiting permitting uses in UT
as a concern. There was discussion regarding potential alternative zoning districts and clarification requested
on staff's reasoning. Staff noted that UT permits a wide range of uses, including use unit 17, which would
permit developments similar to the large number of adjacent auto lots while requiring additional design
standards and pedestrian -oriented uses, whereas 1-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, would allow
even more intensive uses which are generally not subject to heightened design standards. There was also
discussion about the process for future development plans and what the Commission should consider
regarding connectivity and compact neighborhoods.
Commissioner Payne motioned to amend the proposed zoning for Meadow Field Commercial Subdivision Lots
5-9 & 12 to revert to 1-1, the previous zoning district. Commissioner Brink seconded the motion, which failed on
a vote of 2-6-0 with only Commissioners Payne and Brink voting in favor. Commissioner Garlock, McGetrick
and Madden cited compatibility with long range plans, higher design standards, increased flexibility, lack of
public comment opposed to the request, staff recommendations, and the uses permitted in UT versus 1-1 as
reasons for their vote to deny the revision to 1-1. After the motion failed, Commissioner Werner made a motion
to reconsider the zoning for Springwoods, which passed on a vote of 6-2-0. There was then some discussion
regarding staff's recommendations for Meadow Field Commercial Subdivision Lots 1 & 2, which staff noted had
been initially recommended for CS but revised to UT at the property owner's request. Staff noted that an
evaluation of UT found this zoning was also compatible with the adjacent properties. A subsequent motion to
forward the Springwoods rezoning to City Council as recommended by staff with a recommendation of
approval was made by Commissioner Garlock and seconded by Commissioner Gulley, which passed 7-1-0,
with Commissioner Payne voting against.
Commissioner Garlock then motioned to forward the remainder of the rezone to City Council as proposed by
staff with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Castin seconded. There was no additional discussion,
and the motion was unanimously approved.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
NA
ATTACHMENTS: SRF (#3), Exhibit A (#4), Exhibit B (#5), Exhibit C (#6), Planning Commission Staff Report
(#7), City Attorney Memo & Amended Ordinance #8
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
Legislation Text
File #: 2024-26
RZN-2024-0011: Rezone (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD LOCATIONS/ EXPIRED PZDS, PP
VARIES): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for VARIOUS PROPERTIES LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FAYETTEVILLE in WARDS 1, 2, AND 4. The properties are
zoned as PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS and contain approximately 90.65 acres. The request is
to rezone the properties to various standard zoning districts.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN
2024-0011 FOR 27.73 ACRES IN THE CLIFFSIDE PZD, WESTBROOK VILLAGE PHASE 2, AND
PADDOCK ROAD SUBDIVISION IN WARDS 1 AND 4 FROM PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
TO VARIOUS STANDARD ZONING DISTRICTS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone
classification of the property shown on the map (Exhibit A) and the legal description (Exhibit B) both
attached to the Planning Department's Agenda Memo from Planned Zoning Districts to the following
zoning districts:
• Cliffside PZD: RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban (18.67 acres) and R-A, Residential
Agricultural (7.44 acres)
• Westbrook Village Phase 2: Residential Intermediate -Urban (1.42 acres)
• Paddock Road Subdivision: NC, Neighborhood Conservation (0.20 acres)
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning
map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
Page 1
Jonathan Curth
Submitted By
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2024-26
Item ID
5/7/2024
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
4/19/2024 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (630)
Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
RZN 2024-0011: Rezone (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD LOCATIONS/ EXPIRED PZDS, PP VARIES): Submitted by CITY
PLANNING STAFF for VARIOUS PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FAYETTEVILLE in WARDS 1, 2,
AND 4. The properties are zoned as PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS and contain approximately 90.65 acres. The
request is to rezone the properties to various standard zoning districts.
Account Number
Project Number
Budgeted Item? No
Does item have a direct cost? No
Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No
Budget Impact:
Total Amended Budget
Expenses (Actual+Encum)
Available Budget
Item Cost
Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget
Fund
Project Title
V20221130
Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Change Order Number:
Original Contract Number:
Comments:
Approval Date:
RZN-2024-0011
EXHIBIT C
TABLE 1
EXPIRED PZDs TO BE REZONED
PZD Name
Ward
Location
PZD
Approval
Year
Prior Zoning
District
Proposed
Zoning
Acreage
Park West
2
N. Hwy 112
2006
R-A & RSF4
UT
CS
23.70 (UT)
15.71 CS
Cliffside (AKA
Timber Trails)
1
S. Pinyon Pt., S. Ray Ave.,
S. Woodsprings Dr., & E.
Peppervine Dr.
2004
RSF-4
RI-U
R-A
18.67 (RI-U)
7.44 (R-A)
Springwoods
2
W. Truckers Dr., W.
Chicory P1., W. Foxglove
Dr., and W. Pinehills Dr.
2003
1-1
UT
CS
RI-U
17.05 (UT)
6.09 (CS)
0.37 RI-U
Westbrook Village
Phase 2
4
W. Clabber Creek Blvd.
and N. Salem Rd.
2007
RSF-4
RI-U
1.42
Paddock Road
Subdivision
1
27 S. Happy Hollow Rd.
2005
RSF-4
NC
0.20
CITY PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2040 Future Land Use Plan varies by
property. Please see Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
FUTURE LAND USE/ZONING COMPARISON
PZD Name
Future Land Use
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Infill Score
Overlay Districts
Park West
City Neighborhood
CS & UT
2-5
Weighted 6
Enduring Green Network
Cliffside (AKA Timber
Trails)
Residential
Neighborhood
RI-U & R-A
6-7
Weighted 8
Enduring Green Network
Springwoods
Urban Center & City
Neighborhood
CS & UT
3-7
Weighted 8
Enduring Green Network,
1-540 Overlay District
Westbrook Village
Phase 2
Residential
Neighborhood
RI-U
4-5
Weighted 5.5
Enduring Green Network
Paddock Road
Subdivision
Residential
Neighborhood
NC
6-7
Wei hted 6
Enduring Green Network
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
TABLE 3
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PZD Name
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Fire and Police*
Response Goal in Minutes:
Engine: 6 / Ladder: 8
Tree
Preservation+
(Proposed
Zonings)
Park West
8" (N. Truckers Dr.)
8" (N. Hwy. 112)
Floodplain,
Station #8
15% (UT)
6" (N. Hwy. 112)
48" (South Property
Protected
3 Minute Response
20% (CS)
36" (N. Hwy. 112 &
Line)
Stream
South Property Line
Hydric Soils
Cliffside (AKA
8" (S. Happy Hollow
8" (S. Happy
Floodplain,
Station #3
15% (RI-U)
Timber Trails)
Rd.)
Hollow Rd.)
Protected
2 Minute Response
25% (R-A)
6" & 8" (Throughout
8" (Throughout
Stream, Hydric
Neighborhood)
Neighborhood)
Soils
Springwoods
8" (W. Truckers Dr.)
8" (W. Truckers Dr.)
Hydric Soils
Station #8
15% (UT)
8" (W. Foxglove Dr.)
8" (Lot 1)
3 Minute Response
20% (CS)
12" (N. Shiloh Dr:)
8" (W. Pinehills Dr.)
15% (RI-U)
8" (W. Moore Ln.)
48" (Lot 6A)
8" (W. Pinehills Dr.)
Westbrook
8" (N. Salem Rd.)
15" (N. Salem Rd.)
Floodplain
Station #8
15% (RI-U)
Village
8" (Alley)
10" (N.
4 Minute Response
Phase 2
2" & 6" (W. Clabber
Westminster Dr.)
Creek Blvd.)
8" (Alley)
Paddock
8" (E. Paddock Loop)
8" (S. Happy
NA
Station #3
20% (NC)
Road Sub.
8" (Alley 49)
Hollow Rd.)
2 Minute Response
8" (S. Happy Hollow
Rd.
*Police did not comment on the proposed rezonings
+ All PZDs have a required tree preservation of 25%.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PZD Name
Public Comment
Cliffside (AKA Timber
One phone inquiry requesting additional information on the proposed zoning districts.
Trails)
One email inquiry requesting additional information.
Paddock Road
No Comments Received
Subdivision
Westbrook Village
One inquiry regarding extent of proposal and expressing general support for proposed
Ph.2
rezoning.
One inquiry regarding proposed zoning / future plans and expressing general concerns
about flooding and drainage within the neighborhood, particularly to the south of the
proposed rezoning area.
Springwoods
PID 765-25746-000 & PID 765-25745-000 (Lots 1 & 2): Extensive email and phone
conversations with staff regarding expiration of PZD, rezoning process, and staff
request.
Owner preference in favor of request with change to U .
PID 765-23604-000 (Lot 6A): Email / phone conversation with ownership team. Owner
support of staff -proposed rezoning
PID 765-25752-000& 765-25756-000 (Lots 8 & 12): Slight concern about CS and UT,
but owner may be looking at doing some form of warehouse use.
PID 765-26552-000 (Pines at Springwood): Phone Inquiry from the POA board president
clarifying the scope of the request. Caller expressed general support for the rezoning,
acknowledging that RI-U aligns with what has been constructed in the neighborhood
Iread .
Park West
Phone Inquiry from property owners: Minimal concern about split zoning of UT and CS
Fs potentialrevelopme9Wcould work in both districts, general support of request.
Owners are also working through other development issues such as easement and
ROW acquisitions.
LEGEND
(See comments for details)
TEXT = Neither support nor opposition to request expressed
TEXT = Comment in support
TEXT = Comment in opposition
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
ARKANSAS
TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission
THRU: Jessie Masters, Development Review Manager
FROM: Donna Wonsower, Planner
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2024 (UPDATED WITH MEETING RESULTS)
SUBJECT: RZN 2024-0011: Rezone (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD LOCATIONS/
EXPIRED PZDS, PP VARIES): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for
VARIOUS PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF
FAYETTEVILLE. The properties are zoned as PLANNED ZONING
DISTRICTS and contain approximately 90.65 acres. The request is to
rezone the properties to various standard zoning districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends RZN 2024-0011 be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of
approval.
MARCH 25, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
At the March 25, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the item was tabled to provide additional
time for the Planning Commission to review staff's proposal more fully. No changes have been
made to the proposal in the interim.
BACKGROUND:
The subject properties consist of five Planned Zoning Districts (PZDs) that are located throughout
the City limits of Fayetteville. Properties are a mix of fully undeveloped properties, partially
developed neighborhoods and/or commercial blocks with sections of undeveloped lots, or part of
a larger PZD that has been almost entirely rezoned. The original zoning of these properties, before
they became PZDs, range from R-A, Residential -Agricultural to 1-1, Heavy Commercial and Light
Industrial. Prior to 2014, Fayetteville's PZD standards required all construction permits to be
secured within a specific timeframe. If permits were not obtained, then the development rights
were null and void. As a result, many of these properties are zoned PZD but since construction
was not fully completed within a specific allotted timeframe, the planned zoning district has
expired.
Additionally, because planned zoning districts are customized, they are inherently more
complicated than the city's standard zoning districts. Many were established before many of the
city's current development regulations such as the landscape and tree preservation code were
passed, leading to complex zoning regulations that are hundreds of pages long and which are
generally outdated. As such, staff propose to rezone the properties to various zoning districts as
shown in Table 1.
Request: City Planning staff requests to rezone the properties from the expired PZD designation
to one or more zoning districts as shown in Table 1.
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street Planni?V,Cb4�tV��iekille-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701 April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 1 of 52
Public Comment: Staff sent letters in late February to notify all affected property owners of the
staff -initiated rezoning and provide opportunities for initial feedback. A second round of letters
was sent with full public notice in March. Over this timeframe, staff have received numerous
inquiries and comments which are summarized in a table in the attachments.
TABLE 1
EXPIRED PZDs TO BE REZONED
PZD Name
Ward
Location
PZD
Approval
Year
Prior Zoning
District
Proposed
Zoning
Acreage
Park West
2
N. Hwy 112
2006
R-A & RSF4
UT
CS
23.70 (UT)
15.71 CS
Cliffside (AKA
Timber Trails)
1
S. Pinyon Pt., S. Ray Ave.,
S. Woodsprings Dr., & E.
Peppervine Dr.
2004
RSF-4
RI-U
R-A
18.67 (RI-U)
7.44 (R-A)
Springwoods
2
W. Truckers Dr., W.
Chicory PI., W. Foxglove
Dr., and W. Pinehills Dr.
2003
1-1
UT
CS
RI-U
17.05 (UT)
6.09 (CS)
0.37 RI-U
Westbrook Village
Phase 2
4
W. Clabber Creek Blvd.
and N. Salem Rd.
2007
RSF-4
RI-U
1.42
Paddock Road
Subdivision
1
27 S. Happy Hollow Rd.
2005
RSF-4
NC
0.20
CITY PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2040 Future Land Use Plan varies by
property. Please see Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
FUTURE LAND USE/ZONING COMPARISON
PZD Name
Future Land Use
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Infill Score
Overlay Districts
Park West
City Neighborhood
CS & UT
2-5
Weighted 6
Enduring Green Network
Cliffside (AKA Timber
Trails)
Residential
Neighborhood
RI-U & R-A
6-7
Weighted 8
Enduring Green Network
Springwoods
Urban Center & City
Neighborhood
CS & UT
3-7
Weighted 8
Enduring Green Network,
1-540 Overlay District
Westbrook Village
Phase 2
Residential
Neighborhood
RI-U
4-5
Weighted 5.5
Enduring Green Network
Paddock Road
Subdivision
Residential
Neighborhood
NC
6-7
Weighted 6
Enduring Green Network
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 2 of 52
TABLE 3
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PZD Name
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Fire and Police*
Response Goal in Minutes:
Engine: 6 / Ladder: 8
Tree
Preservation+
(Proposed
Zonings)
Park West
8" (N. Truckers Dr.)
8" (N. Hwy. 112)
Floodplain,
Station #8
15% (UT)
6" (N. Hwy. 112)
48" (South Property
Protected
3 Minute Response
20% (CS)
36" (N. Hwy. 112 &
Line)
Stream
South Property Line
Hydric Soils
Cliffside (AKA
8" (S. Happy Hollow
8" (S. Happy
Floodplain,
Station #3
15% (RI-U)
Timber Trails)
Rd.)
Hollow Rd.)
Protected
2 Minute Response
25% (R-A)
6" & 8" (Throughout
8" (Throughout
Stream, Hydric
Neighborhood)
Neighborhood)
Soils
Springwoods
8" (W. Truckers Dr.)
8" (W. Truckers Dr.)
Hydric Soils
Station #8
15% (UT)
8" (W. Foxglove Dr.)
8" (Lot 1)
3 Minute Response
20% (CS)
12" (N. Shiloh Dr:)
8" (W. Pinehills Dr.)
15% (RI-U)
8" (W. Moore Ln.)
48" (Lot 6A)
8" (W. Pinehills Dr.)
Westbrook
8" (N. Salem Rd.)
15" (N. Salem Rd.)
Floodplain
Station #8
15% (RI-U)
Village
8" (Alley)
10" (N.
4 Minute Response
Phase 2
2" & 6" (W. Clabber
Westminster Dr.)
Creek Blvd.)
8" (Alley)
Paddock
8" (E. Paddock Loop)
8" (S. Happy
NA
Station #3
20% (NC)
Road Sub.
8" (Alley 49)
Hollow Rd.)
2 Minute Response
8" (S. Happy Hollow
Rd.
*Police did not comment on the proposed rezonings
+ All PZDs have a required tree preservation of 25%.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends RZN 2024-0011 be forwarded to City Council with a
recommendation of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required
(Date: April 8, 2024 O Tabled
Motion:
Second:
ote:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
YES
® Forwarded O Denied
SEE FOLLOWING PAGE
Required YES
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 3 of 52
MOTION #1 MOTION #2 MOTION #3 MOTION #4 MOTION #5
Motion to forward Springwoods
Motion to forward
Spto rezoning
g
Motion to forward
Motion to divide the
with a recommendation of
approval, revising Meadowfield
City Council as
remainder to City Council
as recommended by staff
question to consider
Commercial Subdivision lots 5-9
Motion to
recommended by staff with
of
Springwoods separately
& 12 to 1-1, Light Industrial
reconsider
a recommendation of
a provalcommendation
pp
approval
FIRST
PAYNE
PAYNE
WERNER
GARLOCK
GARLOCK
SECOND
WERNER
BRINK
GARLOCK
GULLEY
CASTIN
VOTE
8-0-0
2-6-0
6-2-0
7-1-0
8-0-0
RECORD
All commissioners voted
'The following commissioners
`The following
*The following
All commissioners voted
in favor
voted against the motion:
commissioners
commissioners voted
in favor
voted against the
against the motion:
1. CASTIN
motion:
2. GARLOCK
1. PAYNE
3. WERNER
1. PAYNE
4. GULLEY
2. BRINK
5. MADDEN
6. MCGETRICK
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: Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning districts are compatible with
the surrounding land uses. Staff evaluated permitted and conditional uses
within the expired PZDs to determine the nature and intensity of the
previously approved PZDs. Where developed or platted, staff evaluated the
properties and proposed zoning districts that avoid or minimize
nonconformance. For others, staff proposes zoning districts which are
compatible with surrounding land uses to the greatest extents possible. See
below for specific evaluations.
Park West: Staff recommends rezoning the remaining Park West PZD
to a combination of UT and CS. Staff finds the rezoning is consistent
with the existing development patterns, including those currently in
the development pipeline. All other parcels of the original Park West
PZD have since been rezoned with a wide mix of uses, including the
most recent rezoning for parcel 765-15830-007 to RMF-18 directly
west, proposed to be developed with a multi -family residential
development. Other developments originally included within the PZD
boundaries include an existing retirement community known as
Grand Village at Clear Creek directly west and the Fellowship Baptist
Church directly north. Other portions of the Park West PZD to the
north and northwest have been rezoned to a mix of CS, UT, and
Neighborhood Services -General (NS-G) but have not yet been
developed. Further, existing UT is located across Hwy 112 at the 112
Drive -In -Theatre location, which was recently approved for a mixed -
use development titled "The Aronson."
Staff finds that a split rezoning of CS and UT would be compatible in
this area given the existing and planned multifamily developments
and existing commercial uses. Limiting UT to a smaller portion of the
property abutting Hwy 112 would restrict more intensive uses to the
areas adjacent to the major thoroughfare, with more limited uses
permitted adjacent to residential developments.
Cliffside: Staff recommends rezoning the Cliffside PZD to a
combination of RI-U and R-A. The approved PZD included approval
for 15 single-family homes and 48 two-family homes. All residential
lots were approved with front and rear setbacks of 20 feet. Single-
family dwellings were approved with side setbacks of 8 feet on all side
property lines, and two-family dwellings were approved to utilize a
zero -lot line along a shared common wall. Lot sizes range from
approximately 3,500 square feet to 10,600 square feet, with only three
parcels meeting lot minimum requirements for the previous RSF-4
zoning. Six of the eight parcels that remain unbuilt have street
frontage of approximately 16 feet to 22 feet, with the remaining corner
lots having street frontages of nearly 200 feet. Because RI-U has a
minimum lot width of 18 feet for residential uses, it is one of the few
districts that would allow the existing lots to conform with existing
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 4 of 52
zoning requirements. RI-U would remain primarily residential in
nature with a small number of conditional non-residential uses. While
RI-U has no density limitations, staff finds that the zoning is unlikely
to result in development that is out of scale with the surroundings as
most parcels are small and do not have sufficient width to permit
additional subdivision of land. Additionally, while RI-U permits up to
three and four family dwellings by right, staff finds this is not likely to
lead to development that is incompatible given the existing
development patterns of the neighborhood. Further, most parcels are
encumbered by utility or drainage easements. Staff proposes to
rezone the entire Cliffside development rather than solely the
undeveloped parcels in order to create consistent zoning
entitlements and reduce administrative difficulty for staff and
current/future property owners. Additionally, staff proposes to rezone
the areas designated as common areas and tree preservation lots by
the approved PZD as Residential Agricultural, R-A, in order to
maintain these areas as communal green space. Staff also proposes
to rezone PID 765-26323-000 (Lot 119) as R-A, as this lot is owned by
the City of Fayetteville. R-A allows Use Unit 3: Public Protection and
Utility Facilities by right, which would facilitate the lot's intended
purpose.
• Springwoods: Staff recommends rezoning the undeveloped portions
of the Springwoods PZD to a combination of UT, CS, and RI-U. Due to
the overall scale of the PZD acreage, staff is not recommending a full
rezoning of the Springwoods PZD at this time, choosing instead to
focus on those properties that are either undeveloped or currently
under development. Undeveloped lots are spread throughout the PZD
in three primary sections further described below. Lot 1 of the
Springwoods CPZD was replatted as the Meadow Field Commercial
Subdivision in 2006. Lots 1-2, 5-9 & 12 of Meadow Field remain
undeveloped and zoning entitlement for these parcels has since
expired. Lot 6A of the original Springwoods CPZD and a portion of
PID 765-26552-000 (The Pines at Springwoods Horizontal Property
Regime) also remain undeveloped.
Given the proximity of these parcels to the Wilson Springs Creek
Preserve, staff finds that the original zoning of 1-1 would be
incompatible. However, staff notes the remaining parcels within the
Meadow Field Commercial Subdivision and Lot 6A abut an 1-49
entrance and exit and have the capacity to serve residents throughout
the city with large commercial uses. As such, staff evaluated a mix of
CS and UT to restore commercial and development rights. Both CS
and UT allow a wide mix of residential and commercial uses, creating
the opportunity for mixed -use developments rather than solely
commercial uses.
Staff initially recommended CS on parcels 765-23604-000, 765-25746-
000 and 765-25745-000 as these parcels are abutting residential uses
and could provide a transition to the higher intensity uses permitted
by the UT district. Since the initial recommendation of CS, staff has
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 5 of 52
consulted extensively with the property owner of PID 765-25746-000
and 765-25745-000, who requested the city propose UT, a zoning
district that would permit Use Unit 17: Transportation Trades and
Services by right rather than CS. Staff analyzed the request and finds
that since that the original PZD included this use unit by right and
surrounding parcels have been extensively developed with auto -
oriented developments, the inclusion of a district which permits Use
Unit 17 by right is likely to be compatible in these locations. Staff finds
UT, Urban Thoroughfare would be consistent for the requested
parcels.
The Pines at Springwoods has been almost entirely developed with
four -family dwellings in a form -based style. A single buildable portion
of the parcel remains and staff finds that RI-U would best facilitate
development in a similar style given limited development area and the
consistent development of four -family dwellings.
Westbrook Village Phase 2: Staff recommends rezoning the
Westbrook Village Phase 2 PZD to RI-U. The property was originally
platted as part of the Salem Village Planned Unit Development (PUD)
in 1997, most of which has since been rezoned to RSF-4. The original
PUD designated these parcels as mixed -use village centers. A revised
PZD was approved in 2006 that revised the permitted uses to either
strictly single-family residential or greenspace. All but one parcel
designated for development have since been constructed with single-
family homes, and staff recommends rezoning to RI-U to bring these
parcels to a standard zoning district. RI-U has a minimum lot width of
18 feet for residential uses, which would allow the existing lots to
conform with existing zoning requirements. Internal parcels here
have approximately 20 feet of street frontage. Given existing
development patterns and existing lot sizes, staff finds the uses
permitted in RI-U are not likely to create development that is out of
sync on the remaining undeveloped parcel.
Paddock Road Subdivision: Staff recommends rezoning the Paddock
Road Subdivision PZD to NC. This parcel has been developed and has
not expired; however, all other parcels within the original PZD have
been rezoned in the years since its passage. Because of this and the
complexity of the Paddock Road Subdivision PZD, staff recommends
this parcel be rezoned to NC, Neighborhood Conservation. The
parcels to the immediate west and south were successfully rezoned
to NC, Neighborhood Conservation in 2014 and the rezoning of the
remaining parcel would fully eliminate the remaining RPZD, creating
consistent zoning entitlements and reducing administrative difficulty
for staff and current/future property owners. The existing parcel
meets bulk and area as well as minimum buildable street frontages
required by the NC zoning. As the parcel is already constructed with
a residence, staff finds a rezoning is unlikely to result in development
that is inconsistent with the surrounding parcels.
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 6 of 52
Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zonings are compatible with the
Future Land Use Map, which vary from property to property (see Table 2).
Staff finds that the recommended zoning districts are generally compatible
with goals to encourage infill and discourage suburban sprawl, create
compact, complete and connected development, provide opportunities for
attainable housing, and grow a livable transportation networks. Additionally,
rezoning the remaining parcels will eliminate many planned zoning districts,
simplifying the zoning regulations and bringing these areas into
conformance with current zoning standards.
Park West: Staff finds that rezoning the remaining Park West PZD to
a combination of UT and CS will restore development rights and could
allow for a mixed -use development in close proximity to a Tier 2
Center, and that the proposed zoning districts generally align with
previously permitted uses. City Neighborhood Areas, encourage
"complete, compact and connected neighborhoods and are intended
to serve the residents of Fayetteville, rather than a regional
population." The expired PZD included a mixed -use district,
commercial, condominiums, and a preserve/botanical/detention area.
Staff finds that the reduced uses permitted by the CS district would
be compatible adjacent to existing and proposed residential
developments to the west with UT abutting the highway. Staff further
finds that the additional pedestrian -oriented requirements of the
form -based CS / UT zoning districts generally align the city 2040
Growth Plan, which calls for all centers to be "mixed -use nodes that
are pedestrian friendly areas served by current or future transit." The
parcel is approximately 800 feet north of a Tier 2 Center located
adjacent to the N. Hwy 112 and W. Truckers Dr. intersection.
Cliffside: Staff finds that the split zoning of RI-U and R-A will bring the
overall neighborhood into standard zoning districts that will simplify
future city reviews, allow for infill, protect existing open space, and
permit the city -owned parcel to be utilized for Use Unit 3: Public
Protection and Utility Facilities. These units have a moderate infill
score of 6-7, though staff notes that only eight parcels within the
neighborhood remain undeveloped. The affected parcels are between
1/2 and % of a mile from three Tier Centers: a Tier 2 Center located at
the S. Crossover Rd. and E. Huntsville Rd. intersection, a Tier 3 Center
located at the S. Crossover Rd. and E. Peppervine Dr. intersection,
and a Tier 3 Center located at the E. Huntsville Rd. and S. Happy
Hollow Rd. intersection.
Springwoods: Staff finds that rezoning the undeveloped lots in the
Springwoods PZD to a combination of UT, CS, and RI-U will restore
development rights and could allow for a mixed -use development in
close proximity to a Tier 2 Center, and that the proposed zoning
districts generally align with previously permitted uses. Lot 6A is
designated as Urban Center on the Future Land Use Map, which
includes "the most intense and dense development patterns within
the city and allow for the tallest and greatest variety of buildings."
Undeveloped parcels within the Meadow Field Commercial
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 7 of 52
Subdivision (lots 1-2, 5-9 & 12) and PID 765-26552-000 (The Pines at
Springwoods Horizontal Property Regime) are designated as City
Neighborhood Areas, which encourage "complete, compact and
connected neighborhoods and are intended to serve the residents of
Fayetteville, rather than a regional population." The affected parcels
are between approximately '/4 to % of a mile from a Tier 2 Center
located adjacent to the N. Hwy 112 and W. Truckers Dr. intersection.
Staff finds that the additional pedestrian -oriented requirements of the
form -based CS / UT zoning districts generally align with the City 2040
Growth Plan, which calls for all centers to be "mixed -use nodes that
are pedestrian friendly areas served by current or future transit," a
development style that would be facilitated by the proposed zoning
districts.
Staff initially recommended CS on parcels 765-23604-000, 765-25746-
000 and 765-25745-000 as these parcels are abutting residential uses
and could provide a transition to the higher intensity uses permitted
by the UT district, which could be located on the remaining lots near
or abutting 1-49. Since the initial recommendation of CS, staff has
consulted extensively with the property owner of PID 765-25746-000
and 765-25745-000, who requested the city propose UT, a zoning
district that would permit Use Unit 17: Transportation Trades and
Services by right rather than CS. Staff analyzed the request and finds
that given that the original PZD included this use unit by right and that
surrounding parcels have been extensively developed with
automobile -oriented uses, auto -oriented uses are likely to be
compatible in these locations. Additionally, given the presence of the
Wilson Springs Preserve and limited access off N. Shiloh Dr., an
existing one-way access road, staff finds that the only residential
areas with easy access to future developments commercial
developments are likely the neighborhood abutting W. Moore Ln. As
such, staff finds most of the commercial developments will likely
serve the city as a whole and that UT would be compatible in this case.
The Pines at Springwoods has been almost entirely developed with
four -family dwellings in a form -based style. A single buildable portion
of the parcel remains, and staff finds that RI-U would best facilitate
development in a similar style given the limited development area and
consistent development of four -family dwellings.
Westbrook Villaqe Phase 2: Staff finds that the RI-U zoning district
substantially aligns with previously permitted bulk and area
requirements as well as land uses of the previously approved PZD.
Many parcels are less than 30 feet in width, and RI-U would allow
these narrower parcels to remain conforming while restoring
development rights on the undeveloped parcel. The affected parcels
are approximately'/2 of a mile south from a Tier 3 Center located north
of the N. Rupple Rd. and W. Country Meadows St. intersection, and
approximately 3/4 of a mile north of a Tier 2 Center located at the N.
Rupple Rd. and W. Mount Comfort Rd. intersection.
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 8 of 52
Paddock Rd. Subdivision: Staff finds that rezoning this sole
remaining parcel of the Paddock Road Subdivision to NC will
eliminate complex requirements that may run counter to existing tree
preservation and landscape requirements. While this PZD has not
expired, it was approved during the adoption of the original HHOD
and included several self-imposed tree preservation requirements.
Today, site development standards are sufficiently addressed within
current tree preservation codes and grading ordinances. The NC
zoning district will permit development of a median density similar to
the expired PZD, allowing an effective use of the existing
infrastructure if the site is ever redeveloped. The affected parcel is
between '/2 and % of a mile from three Tier Centers: a Tier 2 Center
located at the S. Crossover Rd. and E. Huntsville Rd. intersection, a
Tier 3 Center located at the S. Crossover Rd. and E. Peppervine Dr.
intersection, and a Tier 3 Center located at the E. Huntsville Rd. and
S. Happy Hollow Rd. intersection.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: In staff's opinion, the recommended zoning districts are justified at this time
as the properties are currently within either an expired PZD with no
development rights or a PZD with outdated and complex requirements. This
is a necessary measure to ensure and protect the rights of the existing
property owners. Further, staff's recommendations are in line with the
current surrounding land uses and the Future Land Use Map.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: Rezoning the properties will not likely increase traffic danger or congestion.
The proposed rezoning districts are substantially compatible with existing
development patterns and/or previously approved entitlements. Staff finds
that the grounds for these entitlements, including no appreciable increase in
traffic congestion or danger, still stand.
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: Rezoning the properties will not substantially increase the potential
population density or load on public services. The proposed rezoning
districts are substantially compatible with the existing development patterns
and uses permitted under the expired PZDs, and existing utility and street
infrastructure is present for all properties in this report. Police, Fire, and
Fayetteville School District have expressed no objections to the proposal.
5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 9 of 52
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
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
■ City Attorney Memo- Expired PZDs
■ PZD Ordinances
o ORD 4434 Excerpts (2002)
o ORD 5675 Excerpts (2014)
■ Request Letter
■ Public Comment
o Public Comment Summary Table
o Written Public Comments
■ Maps
o Citywide Overall Map
o Comparison Maps
o Close-up Maps
o Current Land Use Maps
o Future Land Use Map
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 10 of 52
41
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
TO: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Coordinator
Jessica Masters, Development Review Manager
CC: Blake Pennington, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Hannah Hungate, Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: November 13, 2023
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Jodi Batker
Paralegal
RE: Properties that have not yet been rezoned after their old PZDs with
zoning/development rights have expired
Properties such as the Park West PZD which rezoned almost 140 acres, but
was never developed and now has no development rights, should be rezoned by
the City to its original zoning. This would mean that all un-zoned remnants of
the 140 acre Park West PZD should be returned to R-A.
R-A has always been used when annexing in new, un-zoned property. It is
a proper initial zoning. It is also quite proper when a rezoning away from R-A
which occurred in the Park West PZD failed due to lack of timely development. I
know Planning looked at many of these expired old PZD's with initial
development rights and requested and received rezoning approvals by the City
Council.
It is now time to finish the job so no expired PZD property remains in
undevelopable limbo. A simple return to the previous zoning is logical. A
property owner then may seek rezoning to another appropriate zoning which
may be approved by the City Council upon the owner's application.
It is not appropriate to allow any property with old PZD expired zoning
with no development rights to remain anywhere in Fayetteville.
1
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Paqe 11 of 52
41
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
TO: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Coordinator
Jessica Masters, Development Review Manager
CC: Blake Pennington, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Hannah Hungate, Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: November 13, 2023
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Jodi Batker
Paralegal
RE: Properties that have not yet been rezoned after their old PZDs with
zoning/development rights have expired
Properties such as the Park West PZD which rezoned almost 140 acres, but
was never developed and now has no development rights, should be rezoned by
the City to its original zoning. This would mean that all un-zoned remnants of
the 140 acre Park West PZD should be returned to R-A.
R-A has always been used when annexing in new, un-zoned property. It is
a proper initial zoning. It is also quite proper when a rezoning away from R-A
which occurred in the Park West PZD failed due to lack of timely development. I
know Planning looked at many of these expired old PZD's with initial
development rights and requested and received rezoning approvals by the City
Council.
It is now time to finish the job so no expired PZD property remains in
undevelopable limbo. A simple return to the previous zoning is logical. A
property owner then may seek rezoning to another appropriate zoning which
may be approved by the City Council upon the owner's application.
It is not appropriate to allow any property with old PZD expired zoning
with no development rights to remain anywhere in Fayetteville.
1
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Paqe 12 of 52
41
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
TO: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Coordinator
Jessica Masters, Development Review Manager
CC: Blake Pennington, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Hannah Hungate, Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: November 15, 2023
RE: "Expired Planned Zoning District Exhibit"
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Jodi Batker
Paralegal
Thank you for providing me a copy of your "Expired Planned Zoning
District Exhibit." However, one of these has not and will not "expire." When the
PZD Ordinance was amended on April 1, 2014 by Ordinance No. 5675 to become
a normal rezoning decision by severing the construction rights from the rezoning
decision, PZD rezonings like all other zoning decisions became permanent.
Final Plats, Large Scale Developments, and other development authorizing
decisions do have time limitations and can expire if not developed. The original
PZD joined the rezoning with development rights which led to a time limitation
for the entire PZD including its zoning component. This unification of a
rezoning and development entitlement into a single decision caused a major
problem when a PZD was challenged in Court. The Judge decided not to use
rezoning's normal "arbitrary and capricious" test which grants great discretion
to the City Council. (The City Council has never had one of its rezoning
decisions reversed in Court this century.) The Court instead used the land
development test in which gives the Judge or jury great discretion to decide for
themselves the rezoning issue.
The U.D.C. was amended so that new PZDs would become pure rezoning
issues which ensured the proper "arbitrary and capricious" test would protect
the City Council's rezoning decision. That amendment also removed the time
limited component of development rights so that PZDs like all other rezonings
became permanent (at least until future City Council amendment)-
1
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Paqe 13 of 52
The title of the 2014 Ordinance stated the amendment was "TO CLEARLY
SEPARATE THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS..." The Planning Department's Agenda Memo
recommending the 2014 amendment to make a PZD exclusively a rezoning
decision states: "One final change is to amend the modification requirements and
remove PZD revocation... Revocation of a PZD is unnecessary in staff's opinion,
because the zoning decision by the City Council should not expire. Once a
property is rezoned the zoning remains until a zoning amendment is made by
the City Council. This is the case for all other zoning amendments."
Any PZD approved after April 2014 should have been a purely rezoning
issue without the construction rights of a development approval. Accordingly,
any PZD so adopted will not expire which includes the Underwood (R-PZD-20-
7093) erroneously listed on your exhibit as expired. Any future development on
this property would have to comply with the current PZD requirements or seek
rezoning from the City Council.
The remnants of the Park West PZD can be rezoned to its original R-A
zoning district or whatever the City Council deems appropriate. The
Springwoods PZD is an unusual situation. This land was purchased by the City
in the 1980's and zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to
encourage Texas Instruments to locate in Fayetteville. When that did not
happen, the Administration and City Council around 2002-2003 sought to sell
this land while preserving a substantial area around Wilson Springs for
conservation. Some parcels have been developed and the conservation area
dedicated. Remnant parcels should be rezoned to R-A or other compatible
zoning rather than spot zoned back to the incompatible I-1. Again, the City
Council needs to promptly make its legislative decision on what the preferred
zoning should be.
All City Council rezoning decisions will be accorded great deference by
the Courts if challenged. I also do not believe that these decisions to rezone
remnants of expired PZDs could be successfully challenged as takings even
under the Private Property Protection Act since none would actually be down -
zonings or zonings providing fewer or less valuable development rights as were
in existence in April of 2014.
2
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Page 14 of 52
ORD 4434 Excerpts
ORDINANCE NO. �t3Lt
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE TO ESTABLISH A
PROCESS FOR THE EVALUATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, flexible guidelines for the review of specific development plans are desirable;
and,
WHEREAS, informed land use decisions can guide development more effectively in the best
interest of the health, safety and welfare of the city; and
WHEREAS, developments that are compatible with the surrounding area, harmonious with
the character of the neighborhood, do not have a negative effect upon the future development of the
area and create a stable environment are desirable; and
WHEREAS, the development and zoning review process shall be enhanced when review
and approval of development and zoning are addressed simultaneously;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations is amended by inserting § 161.22 District PZD Planned
Zoning District, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a pan hereof.
Section 2. That Chapter 166 Development is amended by inserting § 166.18 Planned Zoning District
Developments, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 3. That Chapter 163 Use Conditions, Section §163.21 Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses
Within Residential Districts of the Code of Fayetteville is hereby repealed.
Section 4. That Chapter 159: Fees, Section § 159.01 Fees/Schedule, subsection (13)(3) is amended by adding
a fee for Planned Zoning District applications as follows:
§159.01 Fees/Schedule
A. Fees
B. Fee Schedule
3. Development
Planned Zonin District
Non-residential
$/,125
Residential:
10 units/lots or less
$525
25 unitsAols or less
$725
25 unitsAots or more
$1,115
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 15 of 52
Planned Zoning District. A zoning district that allows for comprehensively planned
developments for either single -use or mixed -use and permits development and zoning review as a
simultaneous process.
Private Open Space. The outdoor living area directly adjoining a dwelling unit or building,
intended for the private enjoyment of the residents or occupants of the dwelling unit or building and
defined in such a manner that its boundaries are evident.
Public Open Space. Open space, including but not limited to, any park, lake, stream, playground
,or natural area, commonly open to the public.
Recreational Structures. Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, or
attached to something having a fixed location on the ground that has a primary use that is recreation in
nature. Among other things, recreational structures include tennis courts, basketball courts, swimming
pools and jogging trails.
Section 6. That § 166.05 (A) Requirement is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
§166.05 Large Scale Development
A. Requirement. The development of a lot or parcel larger than one acre or development of
a Planned Zoning District must be processed in accordance with the requirements for a large-scale
development.
Section 7. That § 166.60 Planned Unit Development of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby
repealed.
PASSED and APPROVED this the 19th day of November, 2002.
APPROVE
A.
DAN COODY, Mayor
AT
13 _
ATHER WOODRUFF, City C1 y1
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 16 of 52
•
EXHIBIT "A"
To be inserted in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations.
§161.22 District PZD 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 of the planning of the land surrounding the PZD and
cooperation between the City and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the
renewal of existing deteriorating areas.
7. Open Space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other
common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development
regulations.
8. Natural Features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and
amenities.
9. General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious
developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan.
10. Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic
location, topography, size or shape.
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.
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 17 of 52
EXHIBIT "B"
To be inserted in Chapter 166: Development.
§166.18 Planned Zoning District Developments
A. Applicability. To be considered for a planned zoning district, the applicant shall meet all of the
following criteria:
1. Location. Eligible properties include those located within the city limits.
2. Ownership. Eligible applicants for preliminary plan review shall be a landowner of record or an
authorized agent. The approved development plan shall be binding on all subsequent owners of the
land until revised or modified.
3. Size There shall be no minimum tract size for a PZD application.
B. Application. The initial application for a PZD shall include the following items:
1. Application. Complete application form to request a PZD.
2. Copies. Copies of a development plan in accordance with the submission requirements on the
project application form. Copies of a preliminary plat if a subdivision of land is proposed in
accordance with the preliminary plat application form
3. Fee. Applicant shall pay all required filing fees for a planned zoning district as set forth in Chapter '
159 Fees of the UDO. If a subdivision of land is proposed, a fee for the preliminary plat shall also
be paid.
C. Review and Approval Procedures.
1. Pre -application meeting. Before submitting an application the landowner or authorized agent
shall confer with the Planning Division in order to become familiar with the development review
process. The staff shall inform the applicant of any perceived problems that may arise. A further
purpose of the pre -application meeting is to make sure the applicant has, or will be able to, submit
the necessary information for filing the application. The intent of this conference is to provide
guidance to the applicant prior to incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys
and other data required in a preliminary plan.
2. Planning Commission. All planned zoning district applications shall follow the procedures for
large scale development as set forth in § 166.05 Large Scale Development. If a subdivision of land
is proposed, the applicant shall obtain subdivision approval as set forth in 166.01 Subdivision
Approval.
3. City Council. If the development plan is approved by the Planning Commission, it shall be
forwarded to the City Council for review. The City Council may grant or deny as submitted, or as
they may so amend, defer for requested changes or more information, or return the application to
the Planning Commission for further study. The applicant shall not modify to a design other than
that reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to City Council review. The City Council may
direct Planning Commission to reconsider specific aspects of the plan. If the development plan is
approved, an ordinance shall be prepared which incorporates the plan and conditions.
4. Appeals. Appeals from the action of the Planning Commission shall be in accordance with
Chapter 155 Appeals of the UDO.
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 18 of 52
•
Paving Width
(No On -Street Parkine)
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.
(9). All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private streets
within a PZD.
(10.) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street.
(11). 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
IS. 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.
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
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 19 of 52
•
construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial structures is substantially greater
than the rate at which common open spaces and public recreational facilities have been
constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease
to approve any additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may
also issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke
those previously issued.
2. Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent to the
landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to appear before the
Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the
PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for
disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the
appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted.
3. Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those portions for
which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and effective development.
After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the City Council shall expunge such
record as established above and shall authorize continued issuance of building permits.
F. Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations
1. Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and be
responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads, parking
areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building, lighting,
security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city encourages the
creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other nonprofit organizations
implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts and covenants. All legal
instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such open space,
recreation areas and communally -owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to
legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of
the open areas. The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning
Commission together with the filing of the final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with
the preliminary plan or at least in a preliminary form.
2. Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the developer
shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee that will govern
the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to, the following:
1. The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are
granted.
2. Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer.
3. The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changing needs.
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Paqe 20 of 52
ORD 5675 Excerpts
��IAIII�NN����YIVIN�IWI�NIN�WV�WII
Doc ID: 015677290005 Type: REL
Kind: ORDINANCE
Recorded: 04/11/2014 at 09:07:54 AM
Fee Amt: $35.00 Pape 1 of 6
baehinpton County, AR
Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk
Fi1e2014-00008557
ORDINANCF, NO.5675
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND § 161.32 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT
AND § 166.06 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT OF THE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CLEARLY SEPARATE THE. 7.ONING AND
DFVE,LOPMF.NT APPROVALS FOR PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS AND
TO SIMPLIFY AND REDUCE CURRENT REGULATIONS AND TO ENACT
AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE
WHEREAS, the Planned Zoning District ordinance was established to allow concurrent
processing of zoning and development plans; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission may grant approval of
development applications; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville City Council may approve and enact zoning
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville desires to establish clear boundaries in the
development and zoning review process of a Planned Zoning District request; and
WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code's regulations should be clarified, simplified
and shortened whenever possible and feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby repeals
§ 161.32 Planned Zoning District in its entirety and enacts a replacement § 161.32 Planned
Zoning District as shown in Exhibit "A."
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby repeals §
166.06 Planned Zoning District in its entirety and enacts a replacement § 166.06 Planned
Zoning District as shown in Exhibit `B."
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Page 21 of 52
Page 2
Ordinance No. 5675
Section 3. EMERGENCY CLAUSE.. That the City Council of the City of Fayette -Ville,
Arkansas hereby determines that the need to immediately resolve the issue of how Planned
Zoning Districts should be applied for and handled as a zoning issue is necessary for the public
peace, health and safety. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby declares an emergency exists such that this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from the date of its passage.
PASSED and APPROVED this I' day of April, 2014.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
By: .- --$y: �►- ll s�
ELD J , MAayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
���� • G1 i Y
' FA.YETTEVIC f E t x!='
ti-A Nc
`
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 22 of 52
EXHIBIT "A"
161.32 Planned Zoning District
and cooperation between the city and private
developers in the urbanization of new lands
(A) Applicability. To be considered for a Planned
and in the renewal of existing deteriorating
Zoning District, the applicant shall meet all of the
areas.
following criteria:
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and
(1) Location. Any property located within the
suitably located open space, recreation
city limits is eligible for a Planned Zoning
areas and other common facilities that would
District Upon City Council approval, an
not otherwise be required under
owner or developer of a specific piece of
conventional land development regulations,
property located within the City's designated
planning area may be authorized to submit a
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement
Planned Zoning District application in
and minimal disruption of existing natural
conjunction with an annexation request, but
features and amenities.
final approval of the PZD will not be effective
until said property is annexed into the City of
(9) Future Land Use Plan. Comprehensive and
Fayetteville.
innovative planning and design of mixed use
yet harmonious developments consistent
(2) Size. There shall be no minimum or
with the guiding policies of the Future Land
maximum tract size for a PZD application.
Use Plan.
(B) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites
District is to permit and encourage
characterized by special features of
comprehensively planned zoning and
geographic location, topography, size or
developments whose purpose is redevelopment,
shape.
economic development, cultural enrichment or to
provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned
(11) Recognized zoning consideration. Whether
development and to permit the concurrent
any other recognized zoning consideration
processing of zoning and development. The City
would be violated in this PZD.
Council may consider any of the following factors
in review of a Planned Zoning District application.
(C) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the
Planned Zoning District by the City Council in
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the
accordance with the requirements of this chapter
distribution of land uses, in the density of
and Chapter 154, Amendments.
development and in other matters typically
regulated in zoning districts-
(1) Each rezoning parcel shall be described as a
separate district, with distinct boundaries and
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility
specific design and zoning standards. Each
with the surrounding land uses.
district shall be assigned a project number or
label, along with the designation "PZD'. The
(3) Namrony. Providing for an orderly and
rezoning shall include the adoption of zoning
creative arrangement of land uses that are
standards and a specific master plan.
harmonious and beneficial to the community.
(2) All uses identified within §162 Use Units of
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing
the Unified Development Code may be
types, employment opportunities or
allowed as permissible uses or conditional
commercial or industrial services, or any
uses, unless otherwise specified, subject to
combination thereof, to achieve variety and
City Council approval of the Planned Zoning
integration of economic and redevelopment
District request -
opportunities.
(3) Residential density. Residential densities
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a
shall be determined on the basis of the
negative effect upon the future development
following considerations:
of the area;
(a) The densities of surrounding
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and
development;
planning of the land surrounding the PZD
CD161:1
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 23 of 52
(b) the densities allowed under the current
zoning;
(c) the urban development goals and other
policies of the city's Future Land Use
Plan;
(d) the topography and character of the
natural environment; and
(e) the impact of a given density on the
specific site and adjacent properties.
(4) Building setback, There shall be no minimum
building setback except as may be
determined by the Planning Commission and
City Council during review of the zoning plan
based on the uses within the development
and the proximity of the development to
existing or prospective development on
adjacent properties. Greater setbacks may
be established by the Planning Commission
or City Council when it is deemed necessary
to provide adequate separation from
adjacent properties.
(5) Building height. There shall be no maximum
building height except as may be determined
by the Planning Commission and City
Council during the review of the zoning plan
based on the uses within the development
and the proximity of the development to
existing or prospective development on
adjacent properties. A lesser height may be
established by the Planning Commission or
City Council when it is deemed necessary to
provide adequate light and air to adjacent
property and to protect the visual quality of
the community.
(6) Building area. The Planning Commission
and City Council shall review specific
proposed lot coverages which generally
correspond to the guidelines for lot coverage
in the respective residential, office,
commercial or industrial district which most
depicts said development scheme.
(Ord. No. 4434, §1 (Ex. A). 11-19-02; Ord. 4717, 7-5-05,
Ord. 4764, 09-20-05, Ord 4783, 10-18-05; Ord. 5312, 4-20-
10)
161.33-161.99 Reserved
(Ord. 4930, 10-03-06 repealed and re -adopted the entire
chapter
CD1612
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 24 of 52
EXHIBIT "B"
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD)
(A) General Requirements.
(1) A development application may be
concurrently processed with a rezoning
application through the PZD process and
may be conditionally approved, subject to
City Council approval of the Planned Zoning
District zoning standards.
(2) Development plans submitted with a PZD
may include more restrictive development
regulations than that which are included in
other sections of the UDC, but standards
shall not be established that fall below these
minimum standards.
(B) Modifcations to development plan.
(1) Minor Modifications. Minor modifications to
an approved PZD development plan shall
follow the criteria established for the specific
development category.
(2) Major Modifications. Major modifications to
an approved PZD development plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission in a
form which compares the approved
submission with the desired changes.
(C) Construction of community amenities. Unless
otherwise approved by the Planning Commission,
community amenities offered as part of a PZD
development plan shall be constructed with the
first phase of development.
(Ord. 4717, 7-5-05; Ord. 4779, 10-18-05; Ord. 4919, 9-05-
06; Ord. 5104, 1-15-08)
CD166:1
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 25 of 52
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Jordan, City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
From: Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner
Date: February 28, 2014
Subject: ADM 13-4602 (UDC Amendment: Chapter 161.32 Planned Zoning District and Chapter 166.06
Planned Zoning District)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Planned Zoning District
(PZD) regulations. The amendments are significant; however, it is staffs opinion that the PZD remains a
valuable tool to retain the ability for the Council to see a zoning and development item processed concurrently.
The Council makes important legislative decisions related to coning: building height, setbacks from adjacent
properties, permitted and conditional uses, ctc. A PZD proposal is a unique custom zoning district, allowing the
City Council to review and approve or deny the proposal with neighborhood, staff and applicant input.
BACKGROUND
The City of Fayettevillc adopted the Planned Zoning District (PZD) ordinance in November 2002 by Ordinance
No. 4434. The PZD ordinance replaced the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process that had been in place for
several decades. Planned Zoning Districts and Planned Unit Developments are but two names used to identify
master development plan processes, which are employed by municipalities across the nation.
The primary reasons that the PZD ordinance was adopted was to allow customized zoning districts for unique
development, to allow concurrent processing of zoning and development plans, and to provide the City Council
with an opportunity to make policy decisions related to land use. Under the PUD ordinance, these policy
decisions were built into the ordinance and were approved by the Planning Commission. This was very different
from a rezoning request where the Planning Commission makes only a recommendation on the zoning
amendment and the City Council makes the final legislative zoning decision. The PZD process reestablished the
Council's role in master development plan zoning decisions and provided a streamlined review process for the
development community.
In 2012, after the approval of a Planned Zoning District, a lawsuit was filed challenging the City's PZD
ordinance. In response to this action, the City Attorney requested Planning Staff amend portions of the Unified
Development Code to clearly separate the zoning and development standards in the ordinance.
PROPOSAL
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Page 26 of 52
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Staffs primary goal with these code amendments is to group all of the "zoning" standards in Chapter 161,
Zoning Regulations, and all "development" standards in Chapter 166, Development. Currently, terminology
associated with "zoning" and "development" crosses into both chapters, creating confusion in the code and in
the decision making process. The end result should be a PZD process that includes a pure zoning decision by
the City Council and a separate development plan decision by the Planning Commission. This process already
exists for similar applications. Large scale developments and preliminary plats only require Planning
Commission approval and zoning decisions are made by the City Council after a recommendation by the
Planning Commission.
A second goal is to streamline Chapters 161.32 and 166.08. Currently, 161.32 outlines many of the findings for
a PZD which is appropriate. However, it also includes categories and standards for residential, commercial, and
industrial PZD's. These groups are all based on the primary land use, and ultimately provide only a name for
the type of PZD, but little else. The remaining standards are related to compatibility with surrounding
properties, which is a finding already under 161.32(B). Staff is proposing to remove all of 161.32(C), (D), and
(E).
Chapter 166.06 Planned Zoning District is currently over nine pages long. The largest part of this code is
dedicated to items found in the PZD application — essentially instructions. This includes instructions to submit
copies of the PZD plan, to complete a PZD application and pay the required tiling fees listed in Chapter 159.
Similar requirements exist for all types of applications (large scale developments, lot splits, etc.), however, this
is the only application type with instructions listed in the ordinance. Staff is proposing to eliminate all such
items from Chapter 166.
Staff is also recommending that the allowance for private streets within PZD's be removed. Currently all private
streets must be constructed to the same standards as public streets, so there is no cost savings to the developer.
However, the long term maintenance responsibility is given to a limited number of property owners within the
development, most of which don't realize that they are financially responsible for the street. This does not
preclude the use of private drives such as those found within multi -family developments.
Staff is proposing to remove all references to covenants, trusts and homeowner associations. These terms and
regulations all deal with private agreements between private property owners. The City does not enforce private
party agreements.
One final change is to amend the modification requirements and remove PZD revocation. The Unified
Development Code already provides regulations for modifications for both development plans and zoning
regulations. Modifications to development plans may be minor or major and can be approved by planning staff
or the Planning Commission respectively. A development plan that is part of a PZD action should not have
different standards. A request to vary the zoning standards should be brought before the Board of Adjustment,
which is the requirement for all zoning variances. Significant changes to a PZD zoning code would likely
require a new zoning action by the City Council.
Revocation of a PZD is unnecessary in staffs opinion, because the zoning decision by the City Council should
not expire. Once a property is rezoned the zoning remains until a zoning amendment is made by the City
Council. This is the case for all other zoning amendments. However, the development approval should expire,
as prodded by Chapter 166.20. Should a development plan proposed as part of a PZD expire, then the applicant
would have to resubmit the development plan through the appropriate process and receive a new approval. For a
large property, the applicant can process the zoning request for the entire property and only submit a
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 27 of 52
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS
development application for the first phase of development. Separate development applications would be
submitted for each subsequent phase.
Changes to the Unified Development Code are shown in "ea and highlight in the attached document.
DISCUSSION
On February 24, 2014 the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the City Council with a
recommendation of approval with a vote of 6-0-1 with Commission Chesser voting `no'.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD-S)
Paqe 28 of 52
AftCITY OF
_ FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
CITY -INITIATED REZONING (PZDS)
February 21, 2024
Re: City -Initiated Rezoning of Planned Zoning Districts
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
City staff recently completed a review of existing Planned Zoning Districts throughout the city and identified
properties that would benefit from a rezoning due to outdated/expired zoning entitlement, including
properties in Cliffside Subdivision, Paddock Road Subdivision, Westbrook Village II, Springwoods, and Park
West. City staff will be initiating a rezoning to confirm land use rights, clean up City records, and bring these
properties into consistency with City Plan 2040, Fayetteville's comprehensive land use plan.
For background, these parcels are zoned under a "Planned Zoning District (PZD)." This designation
established custom zoning and development standards for these properties to allow for more specific
permitted uses, setbacks, lot sizes, and other requirements with the approval of the Planning Commission
and City Council. However, prior to changes to this ordinance in 2014, this zoning approval was tied to a
development plan and was set to expire if all needed permits were not received in a timely manner. Due to
the outdated nature of the existing zoning entitlement, this could create difficulties for any future
construction, major renovations, efforts to revise property lines, subdivide parcels, or request other permits
that require review of City's zoning code. In order to avoid those issues, staff is recommending that the
property be rezoned to one of the City's standard zoning districts.
Staff has analyzed each PZD to determine what types of land uses, lot sizes, setbacks, and building heights
were originally permitted in each district, and compared that with current land uses on the property or in the
immediate vicinity. Staff used this information as well as comparisons with the City's Future Land Use map
to identify recommendations for which of the city's existing zoning districts would be the best fit for each
parcel. Those recommendations will be first heard by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2024, and
will ultimately go to the City Council for final consideration.
If you have any questions, or would like more information about staff's recommendations, please feel free
to contact me directly at (479) 575-8239. You may also reach out to the main City of Fayetteville Planning
office at (479) 575-8267.
Sincerely,
Jessie Masters, AICP
Development Review Manager
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 29 of 52
EXHIBIT
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PZD Name
Public Comment
Cliffside (AKA Timber
One phone inquiry requesting additional information on the proposed zoning districts.
Trails)
One email inquiry requesting additional information.
Paddock Road
No Comments Received
Subdivision
Westbrook Village
One inquiry regarding extent of proposal and expressing general support for proposed
Ph.2
rezoning.
One inquiry regarding proposed zoning / future plans and expressing general concerns
about flooding and drainage within the neighborhood, particularly to the south of the
proposed rezoning area.
Springwoods
PID 765-25746-000 & PID 765-25745-000 (Lots 1 & 2): Extensive email and phone
conversations with staff regarding expiration of PZD, rezoning process, and staff
request.
Owner preference in favor of request with change to UT.
PID 765-23604-000 (Lot 6A): Email / phone conversation with ownership team. Owner it
support of staff -proposed rezoning
PID 765-25752-000& 765-25756-000 (Lots 8 & 12): Slight concern about CS and UT,
but owner may be looking at doing some form of warehouse use.
PID 765-26552-000 (Pines at Springwood): Phone Inquiry from the POA board president
clarifying the scope of the request. Caller expressed general support for the rezoning,
acknowledging that RI-U aligns with what has been constructed in the neighborhood
already.
Park West
Phone Inqui from property owners: Minimal concern about split zoning of UT and CS
as potentiarevelopmWould work in both districts, general support of request.
Owners are also working through other development issues such as easement and
ROW acquisitions.
LEGEND
(See comments for details)
TEXT = Neither support nor opposition to request expressed
TEXT = Comment in support
= Comment in opposition
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 30 of 52
Wonsower, Donna
From: Masters, Jessica
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 1:22 PM
To: Don Nelms
Cc: David Nelms; Scott Price; Wonsower, Donna
Subject: RE: Proposed rezoning
Mr. Nelms,
Thank you for the follow up, and for taking the time to review the UT zoning district. We certainly appreciate the
feedback, and we will get this accounted for in our forthcoming report.
Jessie
Jessie Masters, AICP
Development Review Manager
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
(479) 575-8239
www.fayetteviLLe-ar.gov
Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANS
A AS
From: Don Nelms <dnelms46@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov>
Cc: David Nelms <daviddnelms@gmail.com>; Scott Price <gscottar@gmail.com>
Subject: Proposed rezoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jessie,
I really appreciate you taking the time to visit with me about zone district PZD and the rezoning of
Springwood. I am satisfied that changing this to UT will accommodate all of our needs. Thank you very
much for agreeing to do this for us. That will eliminate my concerns and make our lives much easier.
Don Nelms
Jasper 870-446-6477
Gallery 870-446-5477
Fayetteville 479-521-3963
Cell 479-841-2886
dnelms46aamail.com
www.nelmsgallery.com
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 31 of 52
Wonsower, Donna
From: Masters, Jessica
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 8:09 AM
To: Tim Brisiel; Wonsower, Donna
Subject: RE: Timber Trails
Ti m,
Thank you for the inquiry, and for clarifying the location. Staff is going to be recommending RI-U for those lots, and
R-A for the lots that are greenspace.
Let me know if you have any comments that you would like for the Commission to consider!
Jessie
Jessie Masters, AICP
Development Review Manager
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
(479) 575-8239
www.fayetteviLLe-ar.gov
Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube
Aft CITY OF
10, FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
From: Tim Brisiel <Tim@Legacyventuresnwa.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 5:17 PM
To: Wonsower, Donna <donsower@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Masters, Jessica <jmasters @fayetteville-ar.gov>; Tim Brisiel
<Tim@Legacyventuresnwa.com>
Subject: Timber Trails
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
The lots I own are all of them clouded in red. It is a total of eight lots. please disregard any verbiage as
this is an old sheet but at least you could see the lots in question.
Thankyou!
Tim Brisiel
Legacy Ventures I Legacy Asset Management
PO Box 8216
Fayetteville, AR 72703
479-790-3315
Currently mobile so please forgive spelling and grammar!
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 32 of 52
O
co
a)
T
L
70
C
U
(0
C
O
U
O
70
C
O
O
O
O
c�
L
>a�
C
O
-0
L O—
Z O
In �
O 1C)
L N
E _0
loz O
N U
L O
(B
O T
O N
L L
Q
(D O
C (�
(� C
to M
00
O
O N
co 114
$
S
_ � s
ab
33 �
4 $ 8
8 8 g
Y 4 8 0
� � I
oife—s o _ Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 33 of 52
Wonsower, Donna
From: Masters, Jessica
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 3:43 PM
To: Wonsower, Donna
Subject: Expired PZD - Inquiries
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Donna,
I have so far received two phone calls about the staff -initiated rezoning.
Foxglove: Slightly concerned about CS and UT, but it sounds like they may be wanting to do some form of
warehousing use anyway. They may be following up with an email regarding this.
HWY 112 (east of Truckers Drive): Not terribly concerned about the split of UT and CS, since they are trying to do
residential and the use schedule in both of those zoning districts would allow for it. They are also working out other
issues such as easement acquisitions and ROW acquisitions.
Thanks!
Jessie
Jessie Masters, AICP
Development Review Manager
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
(479) 575-8239
www.fayetteviLLe-ar.gov
Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANS
ARKANSAS
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 34 of 52
PZD AND ZONING COMPARISON
CLIFFSIDE AND PADDOCK RD SUBDIVISION
P-1
RSF-4
PADDOCK RD PERMITTED USES
Use Unit 1: City -Wide Uses by Right
Use Unit 2: City Wide Uses by Conditional Use
Use unit 8: Single -Family Dwellings
Use Unit 24: Home Occupations
LEGEND
PZD Boundary ■ a a Affected Parcels sense
*/
P-1
RSF-4
LEGEND
Residential Agricultural (R-A)
Residential Intermediate -Urban (RI-U)
Neighborhood Conservation (NC)
1
I J..
r) AFFECTED PARCEL
PID:765.29115-000
` PADDOCK RD PZD
...�.��na�..a
CLIFFSIDE PZD
Single-
AFFECTED PARCELS
Family
Two -Family
t A. et to nn
Single -Family
RSF-S
Single -Family
k 1 ooP
Two -Family
iaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaL
Tree Preservation)
Common Area
3 -
7
O
NC
x
N
Two -Family
RPZD Tree
Preservation /
Common Area
Tree
Preservation I
Common Area
Single -Family
I AFFECTED PARCEL
PID:765-29115-000
PADDOCK RD PZD
�aaaaaaaa(laa as aaaaaa CLIFFSIDE PZD
INC AFFECTED PARCELS
RI-U
NC
/ RI-U
Acai ra nn
RPZD C
R-A c
RSF-8
4
k 1 noP O
RI-U
iaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa - RI-U
R-A
3
R-A
INC
RW
2
r
CLIFFSIDE PERMITTED USES
Lot Numbers
P W LaM We
Lots 1-3. 34-38,
Smgle Family Residanlial
67 106-111
Use Unit 8
Lots 4-33, 39-66,
Two-tamily Dweh,ngs
68-105
Use Unit 9
(112A18)
CommonrTree Preservation Areas
Maintained by POA
CITY -OWNED PARCEL
UTILITY FACILITY
CITY -OWNED PARCEL
UTILITY FACILITY
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 35 of 52
PZD AND ZONING COMPARISON
WESTBROOK VILLAGE II
I.Ilm(lonv D,
WESTBROOK VILLAGE II
PLANNING AREAS
WESTBROOK VILLAGE II
Single -
Family
Green
space
(PA-3) 121
Single-
Family
FA.p) AFFECTED PARCELS
PLANNED AREA I (PA-1)
SINGLLFAAIILY DWELLWG
1
PLANNED AREA 2 (PA-2)
SINGLE-FAAQI.Y DWELLING
Pmporrd Zoning nM Dr dopm t SwduNs Far:
PLANNED AREA 3 (PA-3)
GREENSPACE
IAI
coornsr�c,: roa t>� uwAret
lahogany Dr
LEGEND
Residential Intermediate -Urban (RI-U)
ggg PZD Boundary
=iiii Affected Parcels
�e
ek Blvd
i,
e�
�r
VILLAGE II
R SF-1
RSF-1
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 36 of 52
"' Azurite S
a
PZD AND ZONING COMPARISON
SPRINGWOODS
SPRINGWOODS
LOT 6A:
SPRINGWOODS _
I
CPZD
0
0
3
Z Z LO
� . J MEA
0 W col
0) U SUI
Q
ix
0
w
H
i765-26552-000:
ON OF PID U
LL LOT 1
PINES AT U. SPRINGW
SPRNGWOOD
J
Z
p
al{LLUy
50 W
FG
oao1 i
■■■■■.■.■■■■t ■■■■■.
NS-G
Lot No.
Land Use
Use Units
Density
Acreage
1
Commercial
12 13 14 15 16 17,25
n/a
47.73
2
Multi-Family
26
18 DU/AC
26.36
3
Single Family
8
2 MAC
25.53
4
Multi Family
26
4 MAC
10.70
5
Single Family
8
2 DU/AC
32.28
6
Commercial
1 12 13 14 15 16 17 25
Na
1 18.04
7
Commercial
12 13 14 15 16 17 25
n/a
5.17
8
Preservation Area
1'
n/a
i 123.45
9
Lift Station
3"
n/a
0.02
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 37 of 52
RSF 4
PZD AND ZONING COMPARISON
SPRINGWOODS
K i I1
RMF I1 PARK WEST (SEE
FOLLOWING EXHIBIT)
SPRINGWOODS
��nnu�naIMnn1n1nun.........insionglooll��
LOT 6A: CS
SPRINGWOODS t 1
Fill
dw
• '♦/
C
♦
G : •
O�
♦ 49
LOTS 5-9, 12:
Z . i
to MEADOW FIELD
y • J COMMERCIAL
N . Lu SUBDIVISION
Ix
EL y
Lu
w �
PORTION OF PID W LOTI:
7fi5-26552-000:
PINES AT Iwi SPRINGWOODS
SPRNGWOOD 4 (PROPOSED UT)
I .` J Rl
♦ 71
IL
Fo�o i
r� owon
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIl�. ♦ : 1
ENNUI),
�i WV Friel?
LEGEND -1
Community Services (CS)
Urban Thoroughfare (UT)
n PZD Boundary
ENNUI Affected Parcels
i
Permitted Use -
Unit Number
Description Expired PZD CS UT
1
City-wide uses by right x x
4
Cultural and recreational facilities x _' x
5
Government Facilities z z
s
Single -Family Dviell,hgs x z
9
T,vo (2) Family D,vellmgs x x
10
Three (3) and Four (4) Family Dwellings x x
12a
Limited Business x
12b
General Business x
13
Eating Places x x x
14
Hotel, Motel and Amusement Facilities x x
15
Neighborhood Shopping Goods x x
16
Shopping Goods x
! x
17
Transportation Trades and Services
Gasoline Service Stations and Drive-in/
is
Drive Through Restaurants
x
19
Commercial Recreation, Small Sites
x
24
Home Occupations z x
25
Offices, Studios, and Related Services x x x
26 Multi -Family Dwell ngs x x
_-. 34 Liquor Store -.--_ --- ---.- x
4o Sidewalk Cafes x x
r._...... ............. .............. .............
41 Accessory D�iellings x x
.... ............... ..............
.
44 Cluster Housing Development x x
45 Small -Scale Production x x
R-O 46 Short -Term Rent • _. x. x
�)anning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 38 of 52
PZD AND ZONING COMPARISON
PARK WEST
• .I�I�� W 11° y I I� PARK WEST 71
I JOHNSON
• ——
♦ UTJ
NS-G
ik
.....
PA-8
PRESERVE/
CS BOTANICAL/DETENTION
1un.n.u.L �
J.PRESERVE/
RMI 1S PA-11
MIXED -USE
R-A
REMAINDER OF PA-12 PZD HAS BEEN MIXED -USE
PREVIOUSLY
REZONED PA3 PA-14
RMF-12 CONDO THROROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL
PA-8
51 m I IBOTANICAL/DETENTION
PARK WEST
SPRINGWOODS PZD
(SEE PREVIOUS
EXHIBIT)
P!U
r
71
w nwy Ii T I JOffN50N
•
F71'Y><+rle�n7 1
C i
Z
♦
• MUT
NS G
♦ L
CS IL
AFFECTED PARCEL
$........... ti PID: 765.15856.000 i
RMF-18
R-A
Cs UT
RP D
RMF-12
RSF 4
- tin.n.n.n.....un..u..r
PARK WEST
LEGEND SPRINGWOODS PZD I 1 ( 1
Community Services (CS) (SEE PREVIOUS
EXHIBIT)
Urban Thoroughfare (UT) PZD Boundary (�!1) Plan ing Commission
...
Affected Parcels April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS E PIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 39 of 52
PZD AND ZONING COMPARISON
PARK WEST
Permitted Use Park West Park West Park West Park West
Unit Number Description # PA-3 PA-8 PA-11 & 12 PA-14 CS nj
1
City-wide uses by right
x
x x
x x
x
3
Public Protection and Utility Facilities
x
4
Cultural and recreational facilities
x
x
x
x
x
5
Government Facilities
x
x
x
8
Single -Family Dwellings
x
x
x
x
9
Two (2) Family Dwellings
x
x
x
x
10
Three (3) and Four (4) Family Dwellings
x
x
x
x
12a
Limited Business
x
x
x
12b
General Business
x
x
x
13
Eating Places
x
x
x
x
x
14
Hotel, Motel and Amusement Facilities
x
x
x
15
Neighborhood Shopping Goods
x
x
x
x
16
Shopping Goods
x
x
x
x
17
Transportation Trades and Services
x
x
x
18
Gasoline Service Stations and Drive-in/ Drive
Through Restaurants
x
x
19
Commercial Recreation, Small Sites
x
x
x
24
Home Occupations
x
x
x
25
Offices, Studios, and Related Services
x
x
x
x
x
26
Multi -Family Dwellings
x
x
x
x
34
Liquor Store
x
x
x
40
Sidewalk Cafes
x
x
41
Accessory Dwellings
x
x
44
Cluster Housing Development
x
x
45
Small -Scale Production
x
x
46
Short -Term Rentals
x
x
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 40 of 52
Subject Property
■"11"W f �wDEANErSs� c -
cif Z ■ w
NGTON a ai`w w �C9�„_
CLEVELAND
Q SMEN
RZN-2024-0011
RZN 2024-0011
Overall View
NORTH
'ION , `,
0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles VON RD 12
i
>> a W N c-2 m m, U7 'RDr— -'
Subject Property
Subject Property
ARD
KELL
RD
- w
' r_Ir
�z
.O�
JO crzn
'
• — J
U)
Q
as �
-J
LLi
-MO
I
■
1 w o 'r"
J JZrCE
i
jm:BLVD �OW Yo
Q N
G .�"IN O O
o r��
zO
,OI 0 ROIL
@N 51. *W- o<SDRDRA
yTAll \� C� p l RN RD Q
m� : �llv TOWNSHIP ST 0 1-1 O
1—O ,H -FO
= r gSION V)l
fUN4 >C
gLVD1 1
I�
-
-��Q % Y §��p1r=1L'AFAYETTE ;
v EDICKSON ST
to' a �fi '� P 1 Subject Property
aJ � << co CENTER .'e �.1,J♦11 i
w 3 TA, ilN RD
;� NC Q R6C 1S; yam'
O Z �nli_ IxO p I f�� ��R■Lu ��
;U RSF-2 S O ILL!HUIyTs, . ;r.,LE Woo"'
� ■ • ► ��
r� w hii ticti' VILRD RSF-1
= 37 H 1ST C=� Z. �' m
I
R-A
K i �_� 1 19TH �0. o v
CATO ST 20 > z =
<e SPRINGS RD li>- w z z ,�� - -
R
v m,
zoning � l-z canarel maaMrial
RESIDENT IALSINGLE-FAMILY EXTRACTION
NS E-1
— — — — _F777 RI-U COMMERCIAL
RI-12 Resitlenlial-0Fce
NI C-1
ReaitlenYel-Agricunural I♦ C-2
C-3
_ RSF-1 FORM BASED DISTRICTS
= Downtown Core
RS IIIIIIIII —. TlwroagM1hre
RSF-� �MdIa SVeat Center
RSFA Dmmlwm Generel
RSF-18 �Cnmmenly Se —a
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY Neigh--]Servkes
RM- = NeigM1borM1aatl ConserreYan
— � RM112 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
� RMF-13 IIIIIIIIII Commercial. IntlusNal. ResitleMial
t Planning Area RMF-z° INSTITUTIONAL
Fayetteville City Limits I-USTRIAL -R-1
Fayetteville City Limits g I-1 Nmvy CommarclalaM Lbht lntla—1
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 41 of 52
RZN-2024-0011 RZN 2024-0011
One Mile Map
0 0.13 1 0.25 1 1 1 0.5 Miles
I r I
RSF-4
—---------
Ida
RMF-12
low
Subject Property
Regional Link
Neighborhood Link
Freeway/Expressway
Unclassified
Residential Link
! _ _ : Fayetteville City Limits
-----------——
HE D
Subject Property
ORTH
UL
VAN
EMMA
�O
Zoning
� I-2 Generei mauamei
RESIDENT IALSINGLE-FAMILY
EXTRACTION
DNS
IIIIIIIIIF-1
�RI-U
COMMERCIAL
RI-12
Resitlential-Off—
NI
C-1
�Raamennal-ngneeneral
c-z
_
_
RSF-1
FORM BASED DISTRICTS
Downtown Gore
RSF-0
Ur.. nwrougVhre
RSF'
�MdIn SVeat Center
RSFA
Dmm—Genre,
RSF-18
�Cemmenlry Servi.a
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY
Neigh --]Se —
p
RMFE
= NeigM1Vo —] Conse J.
RM112
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
RMF-18
Commercial. Intlusirial. Resitlential
Planning Area = r-
RMF-za
INSTITUTIONAL
RMF-00
_ R 1
Fayetteville City Limits
INDUSTRIAL
_--
- —y Cemmerc1.1 arM Ubhtlntlu—I
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 42 of 52
RZN-2024-0011 RZN 2024-0011
One Mile Map
RSF-4
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 Miles
Subject Property
- Regional Link
- Neighborhood Link
- Institutional Master Plan
Freeway/Expressway
Unclassified
Alley
Residential Link
_ ! Fayetteville City Limits
CPZD Subject Property
Subject Property
I----1 I
Planning Area
Fayetteville City Limits _-- g
NORTH
zoning
= I-2 Ganarel Industrial
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
EXTRACTION
NS
= E-1
RI-U
COMMERCIAL
RI-12
Residenlial-GFce
NS-L
C-1
�Reaiden
C-2
RSF-.5
C-3
RSF-1
FORM BASED DISTRICTS
RSF-2
� Downtown Gore
RSF<
Urpan Tlwroognhm
RSF'
�MdIn SVeat Center
RSF-
Dmmlwm General
R1
Community Services
RESIDEDE NTIAL MULTI -FAMILY
NeigM1borM1aad Servkes
RM-
= NeigM1b h—I Coneerredan
RM112
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
RMF-13
I♦ Commercial. Industrial. Residential
RMF-2a
INSTITUTIONAL
RMF_
_ R 1
INDUSTRIAL
I-1 Heavy Commarclal aM Lbht Indu Ht I
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 43 of 52
RZN-2024-0011
One Mile View
r
P-1
RSF-4
RZN 2024-0011
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 Miles
RMF-24'
RI-U
C-1
illillillilim Regional Link
illillillilim Neighborhood Link
illillillilim Regional Link - High Activity
Unclassified
Alley
Residential Link
— Shared -Use Paved Trail
— — Trail (Proposed)
Fayetteville City Limits
Planning Area
Subject Property
U
RSF-8
1
� MSC
I\ I
I \ I
I _
I
WYM RD
I �
I �
I �
I I
I 1
I I
I t
I I
I t
I t
t C-2
1
CS 1
tt
_ _ HUNTSVILLE�R� R-A
zoning -2 Gane.11- Vial
RESIDENT IALSINGLE-FAMILY EXTRACTION
NSG = E-1
-1
COMMERCIARI-12
Rasitlenlial-OFcaNSL
C-1
CC-3
RSF-1
FORM BASED DISTRICTS
RSDmmlmm
<Lits
Generel
RSF-18
Com ,ty ServRESIDENTIAL
MULTI -FAMILY
NeigM1borM1aatlRMIl
NeigM1borM1aad Conse J.
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
RMF-13Pla
ARM_
INSTITUTIONAL
Fay_
g
RMF-00
INDUSTRIAL
I-, Neavy Gnmmarclal arM LlgM latlaaitlal
R 1
annlnq
Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 44 of 52
RZN-2024-0011
RZN 2024-0011
NORTH
One Mile Map
R-
0 0.07 0.15
0.3 Miles
NS-G
NC
P-1
Subject Property
G
w
J
a
a
SF-4
0
RSF-1
a
o
�
g
w
J
Q
Zoning
RESIDENT IALSINGLE-FAMILY
rvSG
RI-U
� I-2 Generel Intlustrisl
EXTRACTION
= E-1
COMMERCIAL
RI-12
NS-L
�ReaitlenYel-Agricunural
RSF-1
Resid-ial-GFce
C-1
�C-2
C-3
_
RSF<
RSF'
RSFA
FORM BASED DISTRICTS
Downtown Gore
Urpan TlwrougVhre
�MdIa SVeat Center
Dmm— Genarel
r�
p
RSF-1S
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY
RM-
RM112
�Cnmmenly Se —a
NeigM1V h—]Servkes
= NeigM1borM1aatl ConserreYan
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
l
Planning Area =r- !
MF-13
R21
�RM_
Commercial. IntlusNal. ResitleMial
INSTITUTIONAL
—R'
- - Fayetteville City Limits
Fayetteville City Limits -- --
-USTRIAL
I-1 Nmvy Commarclal aM LlgM
lntluattlal
Planning
Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 45 of 52
RZN-2024-0011
Current Land Use
l�
a �
}
` Undeveloped /
Multi -family Residentialpr
y rr ~
7
'N
Regional Link
Neighborhood Link
Freeway/Expressway
— Unclassified
— Residential Link
01 Planned Residential Link
— Trail (Proposed)
Planning Area
Fayetteville City Limits
Design Overlay District
RZN 2024-0011
Undeveloped / Commercial
W1*
Subject Property
h
NORTH
I
Commercial
� lY P�� 1 L�. rt•ir••6' s1
Commercial/ IndustrialIle
City Park (Wilson Springs Preserve) --
Feet
0 170 340 680
1:5,625
FEMA Flood Hazard Data
IIk 100-Year Floodplain
Floodway
1,020 1,360
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 46 of 52
RZN-2024-0011
Current Land Use
RZN 2024-0011
IORTH
City Park (Wilson Springs Preserve)
Subject Property /
Undeveloped /
Single -Family Residential
Subject Property c . $.
i M Automotive Dealerships
Subject Property /.' and Service Stations
It
- .. -� , r► ,� �.
+1
it
� #* rt
\. r�
------------
Mixed-Density Residential
Sta. /of Missou iMaxar,iful'icrosoft
Neighborhood Link FEMA Flood Hazard Data
Freeway/Expressway
Unclassified
Alley iM1 100-Year Floodplain
Residential Link Feet Floodway
— — - Trail (Proposed)
�- Planning Area 0 170 340 680 1,020 1,360
Fayetteville City Limits ; 5, 625
_ Design Overlay District
annlnq Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 47 of 52
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 48 of 52
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 49 of 52
RZN-2024-0011
Future Land Use
Civic
Institutional
I
L�
Residential
Neighborhood
RZN 2024-0011
ral
o
�i
_~ Planning Area
! - - Fayetteville City Limits
Ne
ORTH
0.9 49
Urban Center
�` l
��Q�l FULBRIGHT
D9 EXPY
9�0
'94 DRAKE ST
m
Non -Municipal
Government
Rural
OF Residential
City Neighborhood
Civic Institutional
Civic and Private Open Space
Industrial
Feet Natural
Non -Municipal Government
0 360 720 1,440 2,160 2,880 Residential Neighborhood
1:11 ,730 I Rural Residential
Urban Center
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 50 of 52
RZN-2024-0011
RZN
2024-0011
NORTH
Future Land Use
Civic and
Private
CLIFFS BLVD
Open Space
City
Neighborhood
0
p
W
O
0
�
�
O
O
Civic V
J
Institutional
O
Residential
=
Neighborhood
d
Q
Q
Q
_
w
WYMAN
RD
HUNTSVILLE RD
City Neighborhood
Civic Institutional
Civic and Private Open Space
Industrial
Feet
Natural
Non -Municipal Government
Planning Area
0 230 460
920 1,380
1,840
Residential Neighborhood
1:7 507
Rural Residential
! - - Fayetteville City Limits
Urban Center
Planning Commission
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Paqe 51 of 52
RZN-2024-0011
Future Land Use
'--- WEIRRO'��''
0
Ix
W
J
a
a
Ix
0
W
.J
a
a
MORNING
MIST DR
_~ Planning Area
! - - Fayetteville City Limits
RZN 2024-0011
ORTH
CRYSTAL DR
Civic
Institutional
c
Civic and
G W
Private
Open Space
Q
�J
Natural
Residential
Neighborhood
MCLAREN DR
City Neighborhood
Civic Institutional
Civic and Private Open Space
Industrial
Feet
Natural
Non -Municipal Government
0 230 460 920
1,380
1,840
Residential Neighborhood
1 :7,507
Rural Residential
Urban Center
April 8, 2024
RZN-2024-0011 (VARIOUS EXPIRED PZD'S)
Page 52 of 52
B. 2. - Rezoning-2024-0011: (Various Expired PZD Locations / Expired PZDS, PP Varie,,
Received by: Kit Williams
05/20/2024
5:49 PM
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams
City Attorney
TO: Mayor Blake Pennington
City Council Senior Assistant City Attorney
Hannah Hungate
CC: Kara Paxton, City Clerk/Treasurer Assistant City Attorney
Susan Norton, Chief of Staff Stacy Barnes
Jackson Shelton, Senior Deputy City Clerk Paralegal
Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorne ^�
DATE: May 20, 2024
RE: Three noncontroversial rezonings of expired PZDs
Pursuant to what I believe to be the City Council's unanimous agreement at the
last City Council meeting, we have divided the five proposed rezonings of expired
PZDs into the three fairly noncontroversial PZDs: Cliffside, Westbrook Village and
Paddock Road Subdivision from the other two more controversial rezonings.
Attached please find the proposed amended rezoning ordinance that removes
the two more controversial proposed rezonings. The current ordinance needs to be
amended to this proposed rezoning of the three fairly noncontroversial PZD rezonings
including the new Exhibits A & B which have removed the legal descriptions and maps
for the other two proposed rezonings.
Even before the rules would be suspended so the current ordinance would be
placed upon its second reading, I ask a Council Member to move to amend the current
ordinance and its Exhibits to the ordinance attached to this memo and the new Exhibits
A & B. I will then fully read this much changed ordinance.
We will try to get the two replacement ordinances, one of each of the more
controversial proposed rezonings onto the next agenda, but we may need to walk them
on at the Agenda Session. They will be handled separately at the City Council meeting
and the owners/developers should be treated as applicants for presentation purposes.
All proposed rezonings remain as recommend by Planning Staff and the Planning
Commission
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION
RZN 2024-0011 FOR 27.73 ACRES IN THE CLIFFSIDE PZD, WESTBROOK VILLAGE
PHASE 2, AND PADDOCK ROAD SUBDIVISION IN WARDS 1 AND 4 FROM PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICTS TO VARIOUS STANDARD ZONING DISTRICTS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone
classification of the property shown on the map (Exhibit A) and the legal description (Exhibit B)
both attached to the Planning Department's Agenda Memo from Planned Zoning Districts to the
following zoning districts:
• Cliffside PZD: RI-U, Residential Intermediate -Urban (18.67 acres) and R-A, Residential
Agricultural (7.44 acres)
• Westbrook Village Phase 2: Residential Intermediate -Urban (1.42 acres)
• Paddock Road Subdivision: NC, Neighborhood Conservation (0.20 acres)
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official
zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
PASSED and APPROVED this 7ch day of May, 2024.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
IC
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor KARA PAXTON, City Clerk/Treasurer
Forth vl.52
•
ia
Account#: NWCL5004205
Company: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE-CLERKS OFFI
113WMOUNTAIN RECEIVED
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701
Ad number#: 406092 MAY 2 9 2024
PO#: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Matter of Ord 6750
AFFIDAVIT•STATE OF ARKANSAS
, solemnly swear that 1 am the Legal Clerk of the NWA Democrat Gazette,a daily
newspaper printed and published in WASHINGTON/BENTON county,State of ARKANSAS;that I was so related to
this publication at and during the publication of the annexed legal advertisement in the matter of:
Ord 6750
Pending in the court,in said County,and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated below,and
that during said periods and at said dates,said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County,
that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said county,and had a bona fide circulation therein for
the period of one month before the date of the first publication of said advertisement;and that said advertisement was
published in the regular daily issues of said newspaper as stated below.
And that there is due or has been paid the NWA Democrat Gazette for publication the sum of$115.52.
(Includes$0.00 Affidavit Charge).
NWA Democrat Gazette 05/26/24;NWA nwaonline.com 05/26/24
owtotitiroN
\\\`\\‘�Gy.•�,g O SZ /,
Legal Clerk \ � NF•F9 %
. ',
�I13(NiaS t� , _ TAR 9m••
State of ARKANSAS,Countyof :) � �y v+:a
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 28th day of May, =m pU g\_\C a;2
sjj•M,t7. r\2.t...Plc•$.
e 'ARY PUBLIC
Ordinance:6750
File Number: 2024-26
REZONING-2024-0011:(VAR-
IOUS EXPIRED PZD LOCATIONS/
EXPIRED PZDS,PP VARIES):
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 2024-
0011 FOR 27.73 ACRES IN THE
CLIFFSIDE PZD, WESTBROOK
VILLAGE PHASE 2,AND PAD-
DOCK ROAD SUBDIVISION IN
WARDS 1 AND 4 FROM
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
TO VARIOUS STANDARD ZONING
DISTRICTS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City '�E C E I V E
Council of the City of Fayet-
teville, Arkansas hereby
changes the zone classification 2 9 2024
of the property shown on the �1 n�/
map(ExhibIt A)and the legal de- ,�1'li I
scription (Exhibit B) both at-
tached to the Planning
Department's Agenda Memo CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
from Planned Zoning Districts to C)TY CLERK'S OFFICE
the fallowing zoning districts:
•Clitiside PZD:RI-U,Resi-
dential Intermediate-Urban
(18.67 acres)and R-A,Residen-
tial Agricultural(7.44 acres)
•Westbrook Village Phase 2.
Residential Intermediate-Urban
(1.42 acres)
•Paddock Road Subdivision:
NC,Neighborhood Conservation
(0.20 acres)
Section 2: That the City
Council of the City of Fayet-
teville,Arkansas hereby amends
the official zoning map of the
City of Fayetteville to reflect the
zoning change provided in Sec-
tion 1.
PASSED and APPROVED on
May 21,2024
Approved:
Lioneld Jordan,Mayor
Attest:
Kara Paxton,City Clerk Treas-
urer
This publication was paid for
by the City Clerk-Treasurer of
the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
Amount Paid:$xxx.xx
May 26,2024