HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 45800 0
ORDINANCE NO. 4580
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 04-06.00
LOCATED ON RUPPLE ROAD, SOUTH OF
WEDINGTON DRIVE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY
41.70 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING"THE ASSOCIATED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS APPROVED
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is
hereby changed as follows:
From RT-12. Residential Two and Three Family and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four
units per acre to R-PZD 04-06.00 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved
development plan and development standards as shown on the plat and approved by the
Planning Commission on May 10, 2004.
Section 3: That this ordinance shall take affect and be in full force at such time as
all of the requirements of the development plan have been met.
Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section I above.
PASSED and APPROVED this 151h day of June, 2004.
By:
ATTEST:
By:
SONDkA SMITH, City Clerk
APPRO ED:
,Mayor
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIImIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIII
Doc ID: 007396590002 Tvpe: REL
Recorded: 06/25/2004 at 11:18:09 AM
Fee Amt: $11.00 Pace 1 of 2
Washinaton Countv. AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
F11e2004-00025130
EXHIBIT "A"
RPZD 04-06.00
PART OF THE SW '/a OF THE SE'/a AND PART OF THE NW '/a OF THE SE'/< ALL IN
SECTION 12, T16N, R31W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW
CORNER OF SAID SW '/4, SE '/4 THENCE S01007'42"W 1321.68 FEET, THENCE
S88039122"E 1299.70 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF RUPPLE ROAD
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N0005019"E 1781.17 FEET, THENCE
LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY N880271419'W 421.78 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF
MEADOWLANDS SUBDIVISION PHASE I AND H, THENCE S0000393499W 702.70
FEET, THENCE S89057957"W 165.18 FEET, THENCE N58012108"W 359.00 FEET,
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 125.61 FEET SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 925.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N54016'02"W 125.51 FEET,
THENCE S89059'20"W 304.85 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 41.70 ACRES
MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD.
0 • '.4•
Washington County, AR
06/25/2004 111t18 09 AM s filed on
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2004-0m130
Bette Stamps-pri.(",it ylerk
by
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No.4580
w/Ex. A
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1 05/14/04 mayor & city council
2 draft ordinance
3 05/11/04 memo to Planning Commission
4 05/05/04 memo to planning
5 05/04/04 letter to Dawn Warrick
6 05/06/04 Summary of Multi -use trip generation
7 04/30/04 memo to Jeremy Pate
8 10/02/00 letter to Parks & Recreation
9 OS/21/01 Meadowlands
10 02/22/01 memo to Sara Edwards
11 04/01/04 letter to city
12 04/21/04 Protection Covenants for Rupple Roaw PZD
13 copy of map
14 10/10/01 copy of contractual agreement
15
10/03/01 copy of Certificate of Authority & Special Power of Attorney
16 copy of Close Up View
17 copy of One Mile View
18 1copy of minute
19 05/18/04 Staff Review Form
20 05/27/04 memo to city council
05/27/04 Persimmon Place Sumary of Average Vehicle Trip
21 Generation
22 05/27/04 Rupple Row Summary of Multi -use Trip Generation
23 05/27/04 Cross Keys Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
24 06/21/04 memo to Dawn Warrick
25 06/23/04 Affidavit of Publication
26 5-preliminary plat maps
NOTES:
06/25/04 filed w/Wash. Co. Circuit Clerk.
� Q2d
• City Counciloeting of June 01, 2004 (0`l5�0Y
Agenda Item Number Cis&0
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO �,lA 6'1 40
21
fauPp�c ,eaa�
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator
Date: May 14, 2004
Subject: Residential Planned Zoning District for Rupple Row (R-PZD 04-06.00)
Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance creating a Residential Planned
Zoning District (R-PZD) for Rupple Row. This action will establish a unique zoning
district and approve a Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision with 182 single
family and 39 two-family lots (260 dwelling units) proposed.
BACKGROUND
The property is currently zoned RT-12, Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4,
Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 41.70 acres on
Rupple Road, west of the Boys and Girls Club. Current zoning would allow for a
maximum of 301 dwelling units. The applicant proposes to develop a single family and
two-family subdivision in a "neo-traditional' style, utilizing rear alley access and
dwellings constructed at a build -to line, near the street. Lots are proposed to be smaller in
size than a typical residential subdivision, and a range of minimum to maximum square
footage for the proposed homes is to be determined prior to final plat. Total density
proposed is 6.24 dwelling units per acre.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 in favor of this request on Monday, May 10,
2004. Approval of a planned zoning district requires City Council approval as it includes
zoning (land use) as well as development approval (preliminary plat). Recommended
conditions included in the attached staff report were approved by the Planning
Commission. Additional conditions were added to the staff report from the Planning
Commission approval, including reducing the interior street widths, limiting three-family
dwelling units to three (3) specific Tots, and a to -be -determined maximum square feet of a
dwelling unit for the development.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
44, 2nti 1/111`l
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 04-06.00
LOCATED ON RUPPLE ROAD, SOUTH OF
WEDINGTON DRIVE. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY
41.70 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS APPROVED
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY CJO N,CIL OF\THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification4the following describ4_property is
hereby changed as follows: E
From RT-12, Residential Two and Tb ee Family and 18F=4, Residential Single Family,
four units per acre to R-PZD 04-06.00,asshown in Exhibit ' attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
Section 2. TFia the change in zoning classification is based upon the
approved development plan�and development standards as shown on the plat and
approved by the •PIan ning Com 1mission on May,,10, 2004.
Section" 3. -. That this ordinance shall take affect and be in full force at such
time as/all'of the Feguirements of the development plan have been met.
'Section 4. Thafthe official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 12004.
APPROVED:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
RPZD 04-06.00
PART OF THE SW % OF THE SE'/a AND PART OF THE N W '/a OF THE SE 'A ALL IN
SECTION 12, T16N, R31 W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW
CORNER OF SAID SW %a, SE '/4 THENCE S01007142"W 1321.68 FEET, THENCE
S88039'227'E 1299.70 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF RUPPLE ROAD
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N00050' 19"E 1781.17 FEET, THENCE
LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY N88027141 "W 421.78 FEETTTOTHE EAST LINE OF
MEADOWLANDS SUBDIVISION PHASE I AND 11, THENCE S0000313453W 702.70
FEET, THENCE S89057757W 165.18 FEET, THENCE'N58032108"W 359.00 FEET,
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 125.61 FEET SAID,CURVE HAVING A
•RADIUS OF 925.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARIN \N54016:02,W 125.51 FEET,
THENCE S89059920"W 304.85 FEET TO THE/P.O.B. CONTA G�41.70 ACRES
MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AGHT ND RIOF WA
F�RECORD.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTE'V7LLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
PC Meeting of May 10, 2004
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
'telephone: 501-575-8264
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P., Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: May-05-,2004 Revised May H, 2004
R-PZD 04-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439) was submitted
by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John Nock of Nock Investments, LLC
for property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The property is currently
zoned RT-12. Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units
per acre, and contains approximately 41.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property
to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential subdivision
with 182 single family and 39 two-family lots (260 dwelling units) proposed. Planner: Jeremy
Pate
Findings:
Existing Development: The vacant site is located in west Fayetteville across from the Boys and
Girls Club on Rupple Road. With the exception of the Boys and Girls Club and Meadowlands
S/D, the surrounding property is currently undeveloped, though various development plans have
been approved. A recently approved Fire Station is to be constructed on the lot immediately
north of the subject property. Meadowlands Subdivision Phases I & 11 lie to the northwest, and
Cross Keys Planned Zoning District is immediately to the west.
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Meadowlands S/D (duplex, SF) ,
Fire Station #7 site
RSF-4, Single Family Res. 4 DU/Acre
RT-12, Res. 2 & 3 Family, 12 DU/Acre
R-A, Residential Agricultural
South
Vacant
Washington County - no zoning
East
Boys & Girls Club, vacant property
RMF-24, Res. Multi -family, 24
DU/Acre, R-A, Residential Agricultural
West
Cross Keys Subdivision PZD
R-PZD
Water & Sewer: A 12" water line is being extended along Rupple Road with ongoing
development. Staff is recommending a cost share to upsize the proposed development's water
line from 8 inches to 12 inches to complete a public water line loop. Sewer is to be extended to
serve the development.
K:IReporis120041PC ReportsW-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Rout REV/SED.doc
•
Proposal: The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential
subdivision within a unique R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of the site is for a "neo-
traditional" development consisting of 182 single-family residential dwelling units and 78 two-
family residential units, for a total of 260 dwelling units. The proposed density for the R-PZD is
6.24 DU/acre.
Proposed Uses: R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District
Proposed Land Use
Lots 1-144
Single Family Residential
Use Unit 8
Lots
145-183
Two-family Residential
Use Unit 9
Lots
164, 165,
Two-family, Three-family
171
Use Unit 9, 10
Lots
184-221
Single Family Residential
Use Unit 8
Lots
222-226
Common Areas
Maintained by POA
The project site is currently zoned RSF-4 and RT-12, allowing for single, two and three family
dwelling units, in their respective districts. The developer proposes an unconventional residential
subdivision, with all access and services to be from rear alleys, and dwelling units to be sited
close to the street (a 5-foot front building setback is proposed). Lot sizes and setbacks are
proposed to be much smaller than those allowed in typical zoning districts, thus the need for
processing a Planned Zoning District. The typical lot size for single family use ranges from
approximately 40-45 feet wide x 115-120 feet deep. The designated two/three family lots are
proposed to be approximately 75 feet wide by 101 feet deep.
Access: Access is proposed in all four cardinal directions
North:
Two
(2)
connections to existing stub -outs from Meadowlands S/D
South:
Two
(2)
new access points from Persimmon Street, to be constructed
East:
One
(1)
connection onto Rupple Road
West:
One
(1)
connection into the approved Cross Keys PZD subdivision
Rupple Road is a newly constructed street south of Wedington Drive. A new traffic signal was
recently installed at the intersection of Rupple Road and Wedington, the primary means of
access to the subject property. The developer of the Rupple Row PZD is also required to
construct Persimmon Street east of the Cross Keys development, coordinating with the adjacent
developer of Cross Keys to eventually complete an improved, through connection from 46`h
Avenue east to Rupple Road.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Rupple Road, Minor Arterial; Persimmon Street, Collector
Street Improvements Proposed: Six-foot sidewalks are required to be constructed along Rupple
Road and Persimmon Street, at the right-of-way line. Persimmon Street is to be constructed to
city standards, with a 28-foot width including curb/gutter and storm drains. The developer is
proposing to construct parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road, interspersed with tree
KAReparisL7004W Repons105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Roug REV/SED.do
plantings. Interior streets are proposed to be 28 feet wide, with sidewalks located at the right-of-
way on both sides of the street. Additionally, alleys provide the only vehicular access to each lot,
as well as service access, within a 20-foot wide right-of-way. A street tree planting plan is to be
submitted as part of the tree mitigation and landscaping requirements, prior to final plat.
The tract of land proposed for development is Lot 7 of the WHM Investments Final Plat (FPL
01-07.00), approved and recorded in 2001. Impact Fees for the construction of Rupple Road are
due based on contractual agreements (see attached), applicable to development of the subject lot.
These fees are based on the actual number of dwelling units proposed by the Rupple Row PZD
development, as compared to the projected number of dwelling units for the subject property at
the time of Final Plat.
Rupple Row PZD: Rupple Road Impact Fees
Proposed
'Contracted
Difference
Cost
Letter of Credit
Cash Due
LOC Due
No.of Units
Total Units
Per Unit
Per Unit
Single Family
182
81
101
$231.30
$154.20
$23 361.30
$15,574.20
Duplex /
78
28
50
$141.64
$94.43
$7,082.00
$4,721.50
Townhouse
$309443.30
$20,295.70
see attached Contractual Agreement, in conjunction with the Final Plat 01-07.00, in which the current proposal is Lot 7
The Cash and Letter of Credit amounts are due prior to Final Plat approval.
Tree Preservation: Existing canopy: 0.61 %
Preserved canopy: 0.13 %
Required canopy: 25 %
Mitigation: 33 on -site mitigation trees (see condition of
approval)
Parks: The subject proposal appeared before the Parks and Recreation Board on Monday, May
03, 2004. With the WHM Investments Final Plat 01-07.00, 5.37 acres of park land was banked in
2001 to meet future park land dedication requirements by the developer in the Southwest
quadrant. The parkland dedication required for the proposed number of dwelling units for Rupple
Row PZD exceeds the amount of dedication land banked, therefore park land dedication or
money -in -lieu is due, prior to final plat. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends money -in -
lieu be paid in the amount of $7,482.75 to satisfy park dedication requirements prior to final plat.
A draft of protective covenants, as well as the applicant's response to the Planned Zoning
District requirements and description of the project have been submitted and are included in the
staff report.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends R-PZD 04-06.00 be forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning.
KlReports120041PC Reports105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) RF17SFAdoc
Planning Commission approval of the proposed preliminary plat in association with R-
PZD 04-056.00 subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
Planning Commission determination of the appropriateness of the proposed parallel
parking spaces along Rupple Road, a Minor Arterial street. Stafffinds the parking spaces
to be adequately located, however their position should be carefully evaluated to ensure
the continued safety of traveling and parking motorists. Rupple Road is a north -south
Minor Arterial street, planned to continue south to Hwy 62 on the Master Street Plan.
Allowed uses in this R-PZD shall be restricted to the following Use Units:
Use Unit 1, City-wide uses by right
Use Unit 2, City-wide uses by conditional use permit
• Use Unit 8, Single family dwellings
• Use Unit 9, Two-family dwellings
• Use Unit 10, Three-family dwellings
• Use Unit 24, Home occupations
The applicant shall submit a letter from WHM Investments or the current owners of
record of the subdivision acknowledging that all parkland banked with FPL 01-07.00
(WHM Investments) for future parkland dedication use in the Southwest quadrant is
being utilized with the current proposal. All future residential development within said
subdivision will require park land dedication and/or money -in -lieu, based on park land
dedication ordinances in place at the time of development.
Payment for Rupple Road impact fees in the amount of $30,443.30 and a letter of credit
in the amount of $20,295.70, based on the number of dwelling units proposed, shall be
submitted to the City of Fayetteville prior to Final Plat approval.
5. Parks fees in the amount of $7,482.75 are due prior to Final Plat approval. Fees in lieu of
park land dedication shall be reviewed and approved by City Council, to comply with
City ordinances.
6. Individual lot access shall be prohibited from Persimmon Street and Rupple Road.
A note shall be included on the plat stating that the Common Area lots, maintained by the
POA, are non -buildable lots.
A street tree planting plan shall be submitted before final plat as part of the requirements
to meet tree mitigation and landscaping goals for the PZD.
No less than 33 trees shall be planted on -site to meet tree mitigation requirements.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
10. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
K:IReporis120041PC Reports105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) REV/SEDdoe
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
11. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private),
sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat
review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are
subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's
current requirements.
12. Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with current standards to include six foot
sidewalks along Rupple Road and Persimmon Street, at the right-of-way line. Sidewalks
shall be constructed along the interior streets pursuant to Planning Commission approval.
13. Street lights shall be provided along all adjacent and proposed streets at a spacing of no
more than 300 feet where not currently present, pursuant to city ordinances.
14. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed
utilities shall be located underground.
15. Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one calendar year.
Additional Conditions:
16. Streets within the proposed development shall allow for two-way traffic and on -street
parking on one (1) side at the minimum width allowable, to be coordinated with City
staff. Interior sidewalks shall be five (5) feet in width.
17. The option to utilize Use Unit 10, Three-family residential units, shall be limited to lots
164, 165 and 171 only.
18. Prior to Final Plat, a maximum square footage of the proposed homes shall be determined
and reflected in the covenants to be filed of record.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
✓ Approved Denied
Date: May 10, 2004
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted
in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
R:1Repor1s120041PC Reports105-10-041R-M 04-06.00 (Rupple Rou) REHSED.doc
0
Findings associated with R-PZD 04-06.00
From §166 Development:
Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD).
(B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines
(1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the
purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development
standards and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon
achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as
to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration
of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the
protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall
determine that specific development features, including project density, building
locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas,
screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to
further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all
applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the
same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications.
FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to property zoned RT-12, R-A, RSF-4 and R-
PZD, with varying densities of residential development. A Fire Station has been approved
for construction directly north of this site, and the existing Boys and Girls Club is across
Rupple Road to the east. The subject property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential single
family, 4 units per acre and RT-12, Res. Two & Three family, 12 units per acre. The total
number of units allowed by the current zoning on this property is 301; the proposed
number of units is 260, a net of 41 less units than that allowed currently. The proposed
density of 6.24 units per acre for residential land use is compatible with surrounding
developed areas, thereby preserving and enhancing the neighborhood.
There are few trees that exist on the site, and for those being removed, on -site mitigation
will be required. There are no known watercourses on the subject property; the 100-year
floodplain affects lot 226, in the southeast corner, a lot which has been designated for
common open space for the neighborhood. Open space areas have been located all along
Persimmon Street, providing a natural buffer. The developer proposes to require rear
vehicular access for all of the dwelling units, eliminating curb cuts along the interior streets
and facing the front of the homes onto the public street. Connectivity is being provided in
all cardinal directions, allowing for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular movement between
neighborhoods. Staff finds the rezoning request with the associated development proposal
furthers the health, safety and welfare of the community.
(2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the
development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning
Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and
K. Weports120041PC Reports105-10-041R-PZ0 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) REVISED.doc
landscaping shall be provided as set forth in § 166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part
of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and
quality (size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of
fences, berms and plant material to be used.
FINDING: A street tree planting plan for the proposed neighborhood is required to be
submitted for city approval, prior to final plat of the proposed development. The site has
0.61% canopy coverage with 0.13% preserved canopy proposed. No fewer than 33
mitigation trees shall be planted on -site, to meet the tree preservation requirements.
Landscaping shall be approved pursuant to all ordinance requirements.
(3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply:
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in
light of the projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local
collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in
appropriate relationship with one another.
(c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such
considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different
land uses.
(d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system,
providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning
development.
(e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the
planned zoning development and to adjacent areas.
(f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and
interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code.
FINDING: Rupple Road, a Minor Arterial, is a newly constructed 28-foot wide street
adjacent to the property on the east. Currently the only property served by this street is the
Boys and Girls Club. Persimmon Street, a Collector, is to be constructed along the
property's south boundary, to provide access to the west. The surrounding Minor Arterial
and Collector streets can accommodate the projected traffic volumes of 2,266 average
weekday 2-way vehicle trips for the proposed development. Internal streets are proposed to
be 28 feet in width, with 4-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. Connectivity is
achieved in all four cardinal directions with a layout that allows for internal access to but
discourages through traffic within the adjacent neighborhoods. Vehicular access to
dwelling units is prohibited from the external streets, as well as the internal streets. All
K. IReponA20041PC Repor1s105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) REV/SED.doc
vehicular access to individual lots is to be rear -loaded, from alleys located within 20-feet of
right-of-way. Streets are to be constructed to meet all city codes.
(4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172
Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the
respective use areas.
FINDING: On -street parking is allowed within the 28-foot street cross-section of local,
interior streets. Due to future potential of high traffic volumes on Rupple Road, a Minor
Arterial, parallel parking is not allowed on the street; however, the developer proposes to
construct pull-outs to allow for guest/visitor parking along Rupple Road in appropriate
locations. Staff recommends that the organization of these spaces, with regard to potential
conflicts with existing intersections and the number of 2-space pull-outs be evaluated
carefully to prevent the creation of a dangerous traffic situation.
(5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district,
all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of
this chapter of this code.
FINDING: The residential land use proposed does not require specific buffers from
adjacent development. The applicant proposes common greenspace along Persimmon
Street as a natural buffer to this future Collector Street. A street tree planting plan is to be
submitted for approval by the Landscape Administrator prior to final plat of the
subdivision.
(6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with current standards to include
a six foot sidewalk located at the right-of-way along Rupple Road and Persimmon Street.
Four -foot sidewalks are to be constructed on both sides of all proposed interior streets.
(7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Street lights shall be provided along all streets adjacent to and within the
proposed development, with spacing not to exceed 300 feet.
(8) Water. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Water shall be extended to serve the subject property. Staff will be
recommending a cost share to increase the water line size from 8" to 12", in order to
complete a 12" water line loop in this area.
(9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sewer shall be extended to serve the subject property.
K. Weports120041PC Reports105-10-04W-M 04-06.00 (Rupple Rouf R8{ issn.doe
(10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or private.
(a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards
of the City.
(b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to
the following conditions:
(i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul-
de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to
existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street.
(ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public
streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below.
(iii) All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage
and drainage for private streets shall comply with the. City's Grading (Physical
Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open
drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer.
(iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density
served by a loop street shall be 80 units.
(v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a
"private street."
(vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a
neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the
responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund
shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide
that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right
to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the
vote of the other parties to the covenants.
(vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained
as required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be
required) to maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property
owners within the PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad
valorem tax purposes and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for
such cost. The protective covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private
streets for purposes of providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and
any other of the municipal functions. The protective covenants shall provide that
such covenants shall not be amended and shall not terminate without approval of
the City Council.
(viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The
K. IRepor[s120041PC Reporls105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) REVISED.do
0
following standard shall be used:
Paving Width (No On -Street Parking)
Dwelling
Units
One -Way
Two -Way
1 - 20
14'
22'
21+
14'
24'
*Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is
intended.
(ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private
streets within a PZD.
(x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street.
(xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign,
not exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street"
which shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing all public streets to serve the development, in
accordance with city codes.
(11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight
building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be
constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the
nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into
a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities.
FINDING: N/A
(12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for
tree preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The
location of trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of
buildings, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and
finished grade levels.
FINDING: The site has 0.61% canopy with 0.13% preservation proposed. Mitigation is
required in the amount of 33 trees, planted on -site. Please reference the attached report
from the Landscape Administrator.
(13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or
K:IReporis120041PC Reporfs105-10-041 R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) REVISP.D.doc
commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in
§ 166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards
for Commercial Structures.
FINDING: N/A
(14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish
special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall
have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant
restrictions.
FINDING: No significant views have been identified in this area.
(E) Revocation.
(1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may
recommend to the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or
occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances:
(a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed.
(b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased
development schedule as stated in the approved development plan.
(C) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all
common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the
final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components.
Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting
of each quarter, so that the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual
development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning
Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial
or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open
spaces and public recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the
Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any
additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may also
issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or
revoke those previously issued.
(2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be
sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a
time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be
made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation
shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the
event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city
clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted.
KAReportsU0041PC Reporis105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupp(e Rom) REVISED.doc
(3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those
portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and
effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected,
the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize
continued issuance of building permits.
(F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations.
(1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake
and be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private
roads, parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas,
building, lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The
city encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or
other nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district,
contracts and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of
permanent care and maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally -
owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and
by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas.
The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission
together with the filing of the final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the
preliminary plan or at least in a preliminary form.
(2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the
developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the
Guarantee that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval.
The provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
(a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are
granted.
(b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer.
(C) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years.
(d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other
common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes
and other public assessments.
(e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance
assessment levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the
property.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted Protective Covenants and Restrictions for Rupple
Row Planned Zoning District (see attached), establishing development guidelines and the
existence of a Property Owner's Association. At the time of Final Plat, the covenants will be
reviewed again for PZD compliance, and shall be filed at the County, pursuant to
K:IReports120041PC Reports105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) REI7SED.doc
ordinance requirements. Maintenance of common space and the detention pond shall be
addressed in covenants and on the final plat.
From MI61 Zoning Regulations:
Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning Districts
(A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage
comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic
development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned
development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a
simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the
development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals.
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of
development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts.
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
(3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are
harmonious and beneficial to the community.
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or
commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and
integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities.
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the
area;
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and
cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and
in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas.
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas
and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional
land development regulations.
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural
features and amenities.
(9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet
harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan.
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic
location, topography, size or shape.
K. IReports120041PC Reporls105-10-041R-PZD 04-06 00 (Rupple Row) REV/SED.doc
FINDING: The proposed R-PZD of 221 lots is located on property identified for residential
use on the Future Land Use Plan. The proposed density and land use is compatible with
adjacent development and will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The variety
of residential uses, from single family to two and three family units, provides flexibility in
the land use pattern, while maintaining a sense of compatibility with surrounding land
uses. No negative impact is anticipated on future development; rather, the proposed
development is anticipated to benefit the area as a whole, in providing a much -needed
smaller lot and footprint, thereby reducing price, while retaining a heightened sense of
neighborhood character through the use of neo-traditional design principles. The timing of
the development helps to achieve connectivity along Persimmon Street from Rupple Road
to 46tn Street, with the recent development. approval of the property to the west. Common
open space is being provided within the development, and the neighborhood will benefit
from the nearby Boys and Girls Club facilities.
The proposal meets the following Residential Guiding Policies in the General Plan 2020:
9.8.a Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible,
livable, and accessible neighborhoods.
9.8.c Minimize through traffic on minor residential streets.
9.8.f Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative transportation
modes, community amenities, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods
and services.
(B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council
in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each
rezoning parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific
design and development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label,
along with the designation 'PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master
development plan and development standards.
FINDING: Staff has reviewed the proposed development with regard to findings
necessary for rezoning requests and development ordinances. An ordinance is required to
be drafted in order to create this Planned Zoning District which will incorporate all
conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission. Covenants provided by the
developer will be included in the R-PZD ordinance, and will be filed of record with the
Final Plat. The proposed PZD will be forwarded to the City Council, should the Planning
Commission vote in favor of approval.
(C) R - PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District.
(1) Purpose and intent. The R-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use or clustered
residential developments and to accommodate single -use residential developments that are
determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential rezone. The
legislative purposes, intent, and application of this district include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for
K. IReportsUONIPC Reports105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Rou) REV/SED.do
predominately residential areas, consistent with the city's General Plan and the orderly_
development of the city.
(b) To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses and
activities within a single development, or when considered with abutting parcels of land, can be
planned on a total basis.
(c) To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing
such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and excessive
demands on planned and existing public facilities.
(d) To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance natural
beauty and other attributes.
(e) To encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in connection with new
residential development.
FINDING: The proposed residential planned zoning district allows single-family and
two/three family residential uses which are compatible with surrounding property. A
general rezoning would not allow the type of development the applicant is pursuing, based
on the bulk and area requirements of typical zoning districts, therefore a Planned Zoning
District is more appropriate for the proposed development. The proposed subdivision
allows for a density and land use that is compatible with adjacent properties, yet also
allows for a flexible site plan and layout. A harmonious relationship with surrounding
developments is achieved, while allowing for a very different style and type of development.
Public improvements are required to adjacent streets and utilities, providing better street
connectivity in the area, as well as a looped water system.
(2) Permitted uses.
Unit 1 City-wide uses by right
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit Public protection d .:I:«.. f•aeilitie
j.:., riaia-iirrrrr�--issc`rir�ca.
Unit 4 Cultural and reefeatl 1r mix£ a lines
Unit Go efnment facilities
Unit 8 Single-family dwellings
Unit 9 Two-family dwellings
Unit 10 Three-family dwellings
Unit 12 Offices,
di d related
Unit 13 gating places
Unit 19 Commercial Feereation, snian Sites
Unit 24 Home occupations
Unit 25 Pret�ssional offices
Unit 26 Multi family dwellings
K. 1Reports110041PC Reports105-10-041R-PW 04-06.00 (Rupple Ron) REVISED.do
FINDING: The proposed single-family, two-family and potential for three-family dwelling
units are permitted uses within a Residential Planned Zoning District. The applicant has
identified other Use Units, as noted above and on the plat, to be permitted by right or by
conditional use in this district.
(3) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent
(51 %) of the gross floor area within the development.
FINDING: The proposed PZD proposed is entirely residential in use.
KAReporls1d0041PC Reports105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row) REV/SED.doc
REZONING RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of R-PZD 04-06.00 with
conditions as noted in the staff report.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property
to R-PZD 04-06.00 is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land
uses in the area.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed rezoning of the existing Residential Two and Three Family
(RT-12) and Residential Single Family (RSF-4) property to the proposed
PZD development with residential single, two and three family use at a
density of 6.24 units per acre is consistent with the General Plan 2020 that
identifies this area for residential use. The proposed land use is similar to
that of the Meadowlands Subdivision, which combines single family homes
two/three family homes in a standard layout. However, the proposed Rupple
Row development is much different with regard to site layout and
organization, meeting many of the objectives and principles of the land use
plan that promote traditional urban forms of development.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is needed in order to develop a subdivision in the
manner proposed with the R-PZD site plan.
A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning will not create or appreciably increase traffic danger or
congestion for Rupple Road, a minor arterial street, or Persimmon Street, a
Collector street. Approximately 2,266 average two-way vehicle trips per day
from this development would be created; a Collector street can accommodate
4,000-6,000 vehicles per day, and a Minor Arterial 12,200-14,800 vehicles per
day at full build -out. Additionally, a traffic signal was recently installed at
the intersection of Wedington and Rupple Road. Currently traffic to the
Boys and Girls Club is the primary source of traffic on Rupple Road south of
Wedington.
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.
K. 1Reports120041PC Repor1s105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupple Row).doc
E
• R-PZD 04-06.00
Page 18
Finding: The development proposed would create, on average, 572 future residents in
this area, thereby altering the population density in the immediate vicinity.
Based on findings from public service providers, as outlined below, an
undesirable increase in load on public services would not be created.
Fire - Water supply with fire hydrants is needed to serve development on this site. Fire
station #7 (Rupple Road), sited on the property adjacent to the north, will serve this site
once it is constructed. Fire response time to the site is approximately 0 minutes, 30 seconds,
which is 0.1 miles from the property.
Police - Projects existing in this area already receive police services. The same level of
service will be provided to this site as is currently applied to the existing surrounding
development. No additional equipment or personnel is needed to provide service to this
area. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Planned Zoning
District will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase
the load on police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and
congestion in the area.
Engineering — The proposed subdivision has been reviewed for access to public utilities,
including water and sewer, and will not undesirably increase the load on public services.
If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses
permitted under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning
even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why
the proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
K:IRepoM120041PC Repons105-10-041R-PZD 04-06.00 (Rupp(e Rou).dw
May 05 04 05:28p Dam Farrar
15� 444-3447 p.2
FAYETTEVILLE
FIRE MARSIiAL'S OFFICE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
From: Fire Prevention Bureau
To: Planning Division
Date 5 5/04
REZONING XX.
ANNEXATION
REZONING # 04-06.00 OWNER John Nock/Nock Investments
ANNEXATON# OWNER Rupple Row
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY Rupple Rda south of Wedington Dr,
NEAREST FIRE STATION AND
LOCATION Station #7, Rupple Rd. (future)
RESPONSE TIME FROM FIRE STATION # 7 TO
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY MINUTES 30 SECONDS.
TRAVEL MILES FROM FIRE STATION # 7 TO LOCATION OF
PROPERTY .1
COMMENTS ON FIRE DEPT.
ACCESSIROADWAYS
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS? IF SO
LOCATION
WATER SUPPLY WITH HYDRANTS
NEEDED?... Yes
AD01110NAL
COMMENTS,
MAIN OFFICE
115 SOUTH CHURCH ST.
(501) 444-3448 / (501) 444-3449
FAX (501) 575-8272
SU ST N
N-W MALL
e5 57 271
FAX 501) 575-8 2
FAYE'OTEA ILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVRA.F ARKANSAS
May 4, 2004
Dawn Warrick
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Warrick,
eECEIVED
MAY 0 5 2004
PLANNING DIV.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed
R-PZD 04-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439) submitted by
Jorgensen & Associates, Inc. on behalf of John Nock of Nock Investments, LLC for
property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive would substantially alter the
population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create
an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Planned Zoning District
will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the
load on police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion
in the area.
Sincerrely
W,
ieutenant William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
AYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (OEUVERIES) POLCE 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701
O. BOX 1988 JAIL 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701
4YE7TEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-1988 PHONE 501-587 3555 FAX 501-587-3522
Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway Volumes
May 06, 2004
24 Hour
AM Pk
Hour
PM Pk
Hour
Two -Way
Land Use
Size
Volume
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Single Family
Detached Housing
182 Dwelling
Units 1742
35
102
116
67
Apartments
78 Dwelling
Units 524
8
32
31
17
Total
2266
43
134
147
84
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-444-3469
TO: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
FROM: Rebecca Ohman, Park Planner
DATE: April 30, 2004
SUBJECT: Subdivision Meeting Comments
##############################################################################
Meeting Date: April 309 2004
Item: RPZD 04-6.00 Rupple Row, pp 439
Park District: SW
Zoned: R-PZD
Billine Name & Address: Nock Investments, LLC One East Center Street #301 Fay, AR 72701
Land Dedication Requirement
Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = acres
Multi Family @ .017 acre per unit = acres
Mobile Home @ .024 acre per unit = acres
Lot Split
COMMENTS:
Money
in
Lieu
@
$555
per unit =
$
@
$393
per unit =
$
@
$555
per unit =
$
@
$555
per unit =
$
In October 2001, as part of the development of the Meadowlands Subdivision and
Fayetteville Boys' and Girls' Club, WIM, Inc banked Tract 5 consisting of 5.37 acres
toward future development in the Sf quadrant. Please see attached meeting minutes and
letters.
The Rupple Row Project requires a total of $131,664 or 5.70 acres be dedicated for 182
Single Family and 78 Multi -Family units to satisfy the Park Land Dedication Ordinance.
This amount exceeds the 5.37 acres banked in October, 2001. Thus, parks fees in the
amount of $7,482.75 or a land dedication of 0.33 acres are due prior to issuance of the
final plat.
This project must be reviewed at the May 3, 2004 PRAB meeting to determine the
recommended requirement.
RPZD 04-6.00
DEBORAH SEXTON LAW OFFICE, P.A.
Attorney at Law
201 North East Avenue
P. O. Box 953
(501)443-0062 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702 Fax (501)443-2001
October 2, 2000
Parks and Recreation Department
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Planning Division
Planning Comission
Ladies and Gentlemen:
represent WHM Investments, Inc. (the °Mcllroy Company"). As part of our
ongoing conversations with the City of Fayetteville (the 'City") and the Fayetteville Youth
Center (the °FYC°), I have been asked to prepare a letter requesting that the Mcllroy
Company or its assigns be allowed to bank the 6 acres described as Tract B on the
attached copy of a survey, prepayy Jorgensen & Associa es, nc. on Septem er 12,
2000 TFte 6 asaulLbe banked aoca�rdmg=to the:'Park Land.:Qrdiriance-on future.
fiGi\%CI6nMd1; ♦\ice r AL......�� J a ..-Ao.:
As you are well aware, the FYC is purchasing 9.69 acres adjacent to the 6 acres
in the Meadowlands development from the Mcllroy Company on which a new FYC
building will be built. The Mcllroy Company has already deeded to the City 3 acres of
land adjacent to the above -referenced 6 acres, causing a total of 18.69 contiguous acres
to be available for a joint project for the FYC and the City.
Sinc�ere_ly1 yours,
1 9
Deborah Sexton
DS:dml
PRAB Regular Mmd%
contribution to the park Mr. Ackerman said similar requests had been honored in the past.
MOTION:
Ms. Eads moved to honor the request of Linda Doyle to donate up to 51,000 for a sign to be located
in Red Oak Park in memory of Richard Doyle with Parks and Recreation Division staff having final
approval of sign type, content and location.
Ms. Nickell seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion was approved 5-0-0.
V. Meadowland Park Land Meeting:
A September 20, 2000 meeting was scheduled to review the Meadowland subdivision park land in which the
new Fayetteville Booms and Girls Club is to be built. ari�cutre�s 3.0 of land. The owner is
.donating 2 acres to the Boys and Girls Club and has offered to sell them an additiona17.69 sacs at $ 10,000
noon at the Parts and Recreation Division, 1455 S. Happy Hollow Rd., Fayetteville, Arkansas.
VI. Wade Colwell's Report on Central Park Observations
Mr. Colwell shared observations from a recent visit to New York City's Central Park and distributed an
article featured in the Smithsonian publication about the park. Mr. Colwell said there were no outside
ballfield fences resulting in large open space between the fields. Other observations included minimal picnic
tables, many park benches, large grassy areas, numerous vendors, a soft surface trail, and tiled bathrooms.
VIL Park Master Plan: Eric Schuldt
Mr. Schuldt distributed Master Plan public workshop meetings dates.
Thursday. September 14 meetings will be conducted at Holcomb Elementary Cafeteria and Happy Hollow
Elementary Cafeteria from 7:00 until 9:00 pm
Friday, September 15 the Steering Committee workshop will be conducted at Drake Field conference room
from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
Monday, September 25 meetings will be conducted at Ramay Junior High Cafeteria, Vandergriff Elementary
Cafeteria, and Jefferson Elementary Cafeteria from 7:00 until 9:00 p.m.
Tuesday. September 26 a meeting will be conducted at the Walton Arts Center from 12:00 noon until 2:00
P.M- Evening meetings will be conducted atAsbell Elementary Cafeteria and Butterfield Elementary Cafeteria
from 7:00 until 9:00 p.m
September 11, 2000 / Page 3
Meadowlands
August 21, 2001
Final Plat approved per Sara Edwards with a re -zoning last week fiom R-2 to R-1
71 Single Units = 1.775 acres for park land ordinance
34 Multi Units = 0.68 acres for park land ordinance
= 2.455 acres due to satisfy the park land ordinance
3.2 was deeded to the city several years ago
3.08 acres actually - I asked Ed Connell to check the legal description and it is not 3.2 acres
With the lot splits taken place by Planning the new deeded amount
is 2.79 acres
d L eft$nkedgexvtiyto,b'b.?s`v+sigs
cans into t loispittsdncG'}�j P,lan� g
�j-333S 7
r
rJ
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVn.LE, ARKANSAS
TO: Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator
FROM: Kim J. Rogers, Parks Operations Coordinator
DATE: February 22, 2001
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-575-8264
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Plat Review Comments for February 27 & 28, 2001 Mtg
ss*s****ss*ssss****s***ss**s*ssss*******s***ss***s**sss***ss***ss***ss***s****
I have reviewed the following: LOT SPLIT
_X LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
SUBDIVISION
proposal submitted under the name of: LSD 014.00 Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439
in the park quadrant, zoned land billing address:
Listed below is the decision of the Parks Stab and the recommendation of the Parks &
Recreation Advisory Board to accept the following;
Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu
Single Family @ .025 acre per unit = acres _@ $470 per unit = $
Multi Family @ .02 acre per unit = acres _@ $375 per unit = $
Mobile Home @ .015 acre per unit = acres _@ $280 per unit = $
COMMENTS:
The Parks and Recreation Division has been required to lease the existing Meadowland
Subdivision park land dedication acreage (Ozark View Park) to the Fayetteville Youth Center
DBA the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club Incorporated This park property was received on
March 30, 1995 in the amount of 3.0eacres through the Park Land Ordinance for the
Meadowlands Subdivision development
Land 3nve�Ftments, a This issue has been discussed with Deborah Sexton, Attorney
at Law, r'epresetitirig'fhe said developer (see attached letter and documentation from the Law
Office of Deborah Sexton),
The Parks and Recreation Division will also require a copy of the wetland determination
report along with the location and acreage of the wetlands.
Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates has been contracted by the Fayetteville
Youth Center DBA the Boys and Girls Gub ofFMwueville Incorporated to apply for the
GL.O.M.R(Conditional Letter of Map Revision). 404, and the grading permits. The Parks
and Recreation Division is requiring copies of the permits, applications, and reports thereof.
Also, a copy of the L.O.M.R (Letter of Map Revision) is required
i
April 1, 2004
City of Fayetteville Planning Division
125 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas, 72701
Re: R-PZD Residential Planning Zoning District Request
Rupple Row Subdivision
Project Summary: Rupple Row is planned as a 40.65 acre neo-traditional development located in west
Fayetteville, Arkansas. The project is strategically located directly across the street from the recently
opened Donald W. Reynolds Boys and Girls Club on Rupple Road. The Rupple Row neighborhood is
designed to enhance the quality of life of those who will call it home. A neo-traditional neighborhood such
as Rupple Row is a unique design approach that takes its inspiration from the "township" planning model
that .prevailed in the United States early in the Twentieth Century. Key components of neo-traditional
neighborhoods include land development in a more compact and human scale, with homes within walking
distance of parks, recreation facilities, schools and a central meeting place. Specifically, Rupple Row is
designed to maximize the available land into functional yet friendly home sites. This utilization and resulting
lot prices are aimed at promoting tighter building footprints and affordable lot prices. This corresponds to a
chief aim of Rupple Row in providing an atmosphere for quality affordable home ownership.
The Rupple Row neighborhood concept intends to promote an aesthetically pleasing development which
fosters opportunities for friendly human interaction. The development will include tree -lined corridor streets,
pedestrian -friendly site design, and appropriate project density. Proposed home designs include traditional
facades with relaxing porches and verandas. Rear entry garages are neatly tucked behind homes and
accessed through service alleys.
Project Site: The project site consists of approximately 40 acres owned by Nock Investments, LLC. The
land is currently zoned R-1.5 and R-1. Rupple Row is located directly west of the Donald W. Reynolds Boys
arid:.GGts Club across the newly constructed southern portion of Rupple Road. Rupple Road is
approximately one mile west of 1-540 on AR Hwy 16 West The development site is bordered to the south
by�Persimmon Drive (on Fayetteville master street plan), and to the north the newest planned Fayetteville
.Fire Station.
Legal Description: (see submitted Preliminary Plat)
Development Team: The Owner/Principal Developer is John Nock. The co -developers on the project are
Richard Alexander and Rob Merry -Ship. The project architect is Tim Cooper of Cooper Architects and the
project engineer is Chris Brackett of Jorgenson and Associates.
The proposed PZD meets the criteria as set out in Sec.166.06A, Planned
Unified Development Code:
(1) Location. The above described property is eligible as it is situ led#tbiu NoRty
Fayetteville limits. KK
• Page 2 April 1, 2004
(2) Ownership. landowner is eligible applicant and the development plan will be binding upon
all subsequent owners of the land.
(3) Size. Although the site location contains approximately 40.65 acres. There is no minimum
tract size requirement
The proposed PZD can accomplish one or more of the following goals specified in Sec. 161.25(A) Planned
Zoning District, Title XV, Unified Development Code:
(1) Flexibility. Rupple Row will include approximately 220 homes, each not having less than 1,200 sq. ft. of
heated space. The development style will be in accordance with Neo-traditional neighborhoods,
including tree lined streets, front porches, zero4ot line courtyard units, rear entry garages, service alleys
for trash pick-ups, utilities and resident parking.
(2) Compatibility. Rupple Row is compatible with existing and planned surrounding land use. The vision of
and design of the development directly incorporates surrounding development including the recently
opened Donald W. Reynolds Boys and Girls Club. The proposed PZD will achieve compatibility
between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the overall
neighborhood appearance.
(3) Harmony. The area in the western part of
Fayetteville
is currently being developed
as residential
neighborhoods and
this proposal will meet the
purpose and
intent of R-PZD and permitted
uses.
(4)'Variety. The planned lots are currently all reserved under letters of intent by multiple builders. The
resulting effect will be a variety of home facades and an increase in employment opportunities and
services.
(5) No Negative Impact. On the contrary, Rupple Row will be a positive addition to the City of Fayetteville
and specifically the surrounding area.
(6) Coordination. Proposed PZD and the development of land surrounding the PZD is being coordinated
between various developers and city officials. To the north coordination is ongoing with the City of
Fayetteville on the construction of a new fire station and to the west direct coordination is ongoing with
Charlie Sloan and the development of his project, Cross Keys. A connector street is planned between
all adjoining properties.
(7) Open Space. The developer is involved in the development and financial plans of a golf course to be
built on adjacent land that will complement the activities already in existence and planned near the
Donald W. Reynolds Boys and Girls Club. Park requirements have been fully met .
(8) Natural Features. Rupple Row is planned to obtain maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of
natural existing land features and surrounding areas.
(9) General Plan. Proposed PZD will take into consideration tree preservation, landscaping, water
conservation, preservation of natural site and the protection of the natural land to further the health,
safety, amenity and welfare of the City of Favetteville.
KL
:toper
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
RUPPLE ROW PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, John Nock dba, Nock Investments, LLC is the record Owner of the
following property.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Part of the SWIM of the SE 1/4 and part of the NW 1/4 of the SEl/4 all in Section 12,
T16K R31 W in Washington County, Arkansas and being more particularly described as
follows: Beginning at the NW Comer of said SW IA, SEIA thence SOl"07'42"W
1321.68 feet, thence S8803922"E 1299.70 feet to the West Right of Way of Rupple Road
thence along said Right of Way N00050'1 VE 1781.17 feet, thence leaving said Right of
Way N8802741"W 421.78 feet to the East Line of Meadowlands Subdivision Phase I &
D thence SOO°03'34"W 702.70 feet, thence S89057'57"W 165.18 feet, thence
N58012108"W 359.00 feet, thence along a cove to the Right 125.61 feet said curve
having a radius of 925.00 feet and a chord bearing N54016'02"W I25.51 feet, thence
S8905920"W 304.85 feet to the P.O.B.; Containing 41.70 acres more or less subject to
easements and Right of Way of record.
WHEREAS, the developer has divided said property into 223 lots and said tract
was surveyed and platted into lots and, proposed use is single family only.
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the developers of the property described
above, as well as prospective purchasers of the lots that said tract be known as Rupple.
Row Planned Zoning District, Fayetteville, AR. And the use of Lots is restricted as
hereinafter. provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and for the purpose
above mentioned said owner has caused said tract to be platted into lots with the size,
location, and boundaries of each lot shown on said plat, which has been filed for record,
and every deed or conveyance of any lot in said tract described as shown on said plat
shall be held and deemed a sufficient description for the conveyance thereof, subject to
the restriction hereinafter stated, which shall be for the use and benefit of, and binding
upon, the present owners, their grantees, and all future owners of lots within the tract
which shall be known as Rupple Row, a Planned Zoning District (PZD) m Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas.
RFr7 fcD
APRi " 1 0004
PU%tvtv,tv.,a UIV"
1. Easements as shown on the plat of said property are reserved for
construction, operation and maintenance of public utilities, and are
provided for the purpose of enabling such utilities, their agents and
employees, to enjoy free, open and unobstructed access through, over and
along such easements to the end that their personnel, trucks and work
equipment may at all times install, service, operate and maintain all utility
facilities within the boundaries of said easements.
2. All houses on all lots shall have a minimum of 1,400 sq.ft. (excluding
garage) of heated living area with an enclosed two car garage and no
carports. Entry to garages shall be from the rear access drive provided.
All driveways shall be concrete or brick pavers.
3. Each lot shall be used for residential purposes only.
4. No. additional structure such as porches, garages, storage buildings, etc.
shall be erected or placed on any lot in this addition until the plans and
specifications showing the type and location have been approved in
writing as to conformity and harmony of external design with existing
improvements in the addition by the developers.
5. No structure of a temporary character, house hailer, basement, shack,
additional garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any
time either temporarily or permanently. Storage buildings are allowed as
per #4. above.
6. No animals, poultry, or livestock of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept
on any lot: No kennels allowed. Household pets must comply with city
rules about fencing or confinement by leash.
7. Sidewalks are required to be built as specified.
8. A satellite dish may be installed on each lot provided that the dish is no
closer than 10' to the property line and located behind the front edge of
house.
9. The parking or storage of unused or unlicensed motor vehicles is
prohibited in front of any residence. No vehicles in inoperative condition
shall be left on lots more than 30 days. The owner of each lot shall
remove these vehicles. in addition parking on the street shall be limited to
guests only, and no vehicle shall remain on the street for more than six
hours of any twenty-four hour period. Permanent or semi -permanent
. storage of such vehicles or items must be completely screened from view,
whether within the garage or behind a solid fence.
10. No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish, trash,
garbage or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers.
11. No fences shall be allowed in front yards except masonry or wrought von
of a maximum height of six feet. No form of wire fence shall be allowed.
12. The grass on each lot shall be maintained by mowing.
13. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except
one professional sign of not more than one square foot, one sign of not
more than five square feet advertising the property for sate or rent, or signs
used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and
sates period.
14. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried out upon any lot, nor
shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an
annoyance or nuisance.
15. Landscape plans must be submitted for approval along with house plans,
prior to commencement of construction. Turf areas within the front and
side yards of each house shall be sodded
16. Each builder shall be responsible for adequate drainage swales around the
house to properly drain runoff.
17. Exterior of the houses shall be 50% brick or stone. Other material may be
approved, but must be reviewed by the developer. All perimeter block
shall have brick or equivalent to cover foundation.
18. Minimum roof pitch shall be 6:12. Roofing material shall consist of tile,
wood shake, or 40-year composition architectural shingles made by GAF,
style "Grand Seqoyah" or equal.
19. Uniform pedestal mailboxes shall be required at each house, and the all
shall be white in color.
20. Rupple Row Planned Zoning District Property Owners' Association
(POA) shall be established at the time of execution of these covenants.
Said POA is formed to assess yearly dues to pay for maintenance and
upkeep of the entryway, all common areas including landscape islands, all
fences, the masonry wall surrounding the PZD, the detention pond, park
auras; to ensure continued health and vitality of all mitigation trees; and
for payment of streetlight bills within the PZD. Each lot shall have a vote
and the majority of those attending a meeting for that purpose shall be
authorized to levy an assessment to all owners to defray the costs of
maintenance and pay the electric bill for the streetlights. Each owner shall
pay within 30 days. If an owner does not pay their share, the POA shall be
entitled to place a lien on the owner's lot and shall take the form of an
affidavit executed by the POA and recorded in the office of the Circuit
Clerk of Washington County.
21. The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is a third -party beneficiary to the
covenants, and shall have the right to enforce the street maintenance
requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vole of the other parties
to the covenants. In the event public spaces are not maintained as required
by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to
maintain said spaces and to charge the cost of such maintenance to the
property owners within the PZD on a pro rats. basis according to assessed
valuation for ad valorem tax purposes, and shall have a lien on the real
property within the PZD for such cost.
22. All lots shall be required to have two trees planted upon construction. One
of these trees will be required to be 2.5" caliper and planted in designated
areas along the street frontage of each property.
23. The owner of each residential lot agrees to be bound by the foregoing
covenants. Any party violating these covenants will be responsible for
any attorney fees incurred because of their violation.
24. These covenants are to urn with the land and shall be binding on all parties
and all persons claiming under them until January 1, 2015, at which time
said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of
ten (10) years. Notwithstanding the above, at any time, these covenants
may be waived, terminated and/or modified as to the whole of said
property or any portion thereof, with the written consent of a majority of
the then owners of said lots in said property, and if only a portion of said
property is intended to be affected by said waiver, termination and/or
modification, then the written consent of a majority of the then owners of
said lots in the portion to be affected shall also be secured No such
waiver, termination and/or modification shall be effective until the proper
instrument in writing shall be executed and recorded in the office of the
Recorder for the County of Washington. Each lot represents 1 vote.
25. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any
person or persons violating or attempting to violate any of these
covenants, violators being subject either to restraint or to an action for
damages.
26. invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgment of court order
shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in
full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto affixed their hands and
Seals this it day of 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON)
On this j Si day of \ ' [l 1\wQ ' 2004, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified and acting within and for
said County and State, appeared in person, John Nock located in Fayetteville, Arkansas
and personally well know who statedthathe is the owner of Rupple Row Planned Zoning
District and is duly authorized in his respective capacity to execute the foregoing
instrument, and further stated he had executed the foregoing instrument for the
consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, II have hereunto set my hand and official sea] this
c-i L-L day of �p11A yam. ,2004.
My Commission Expires:
(0-s-ao\3
OFFICIAL SEAL
KATHY SKARRITT
NOTARY PUBLIC. ARKANSAS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
regMMMSION EXP. 0610512013.
4/15/2004_1
oil
0
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into this �ay of October, 2001, by and
between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, (hereinafter called "City') and WHM Land
Investments, Inc. (hereinafter called "WHM"),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001 the City Planning Commission approved the
final plat of WHM, located at City Atlas Page 439, but referred the establishment of an
impact fee to the City Council for its approval.
WHEREAS, WHM desires to have an executed agreement formalizing the current
understanding before transferring Tract 5 to 'the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and WHM agree as follows:
1. The City has agreed to build Rupple Road, classified as a minor
arterial, in order to provide access to the proposed Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club.
WHIM shall pay, based on the rational nexus formula, an impact fee for a
proportionate share of the cost of Rupple Road as a Minor Arterial. Based on the
formula, the applicant shall be assessed $176,724.25 for a road impact fee. The
impact fee was based on the projected future residential development of Tracts 3
& 7 that shall be using Rupple Road.
At the time the Boys and Girls Club meet all requirements to obtain the
Reynolds grant, WHM shall pay the entire $176,724.25 if the City Council approves
and completes construction of Rupple Road as a four (4) lane street with curbs,
gutters, and storm sewer.
If the City Council approves construction of a two (2) lane street with plans
for future widening, then at the time the Boys and Girls Club meet all requirements
to obtain the Reynolds grant, WHM shall:
a) Pay to the City $100,000.00 (non-refundable, not dependant on any
development of vacant lots),
b) Provide the City an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of
$76,724.25 with additional principal to be added each year based on the
increase in the Consumer Price Index during the previous calendar year, as
quoted in the Wall Street Journal on January 2 of the previous year and the
year of the increase. Such letter of credit shall run for a term of six (6) years
from date of when all conditions are met for the Fayetteville Boys and Girls
Club to obtain the Reynolds grant and shall be due upon the City completing
the widening of Rupple Road to four (4) lanes with curbs, gutters, and storm
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
PAGE 2 OF 3 PAGES
sewer. In the event, Rupple Road is not improved to such standards within
six (6) years, the letter of credit shall expire.
c) The irrevocable letter of credit shall be issued for a one year
period at the beginning of each twelve (12) month fiscal period during
the six (6) year teen.
2. The projected future development of Tracts 3 & 7 are 81 single family
units, 28 duplex units, and 260_apartment units. If during the six year period
indicated above a development is approved by the Planning Commission in excess
of any of the above indicated units WHM shall pay an additional impact fee for each
unit in excess of the above as follows:
a) For each excess single family unit $231.30 in cash and a letter of
credit for $154.20, total being $385.50. The total amount will be paid in cash
if Rupple Road has been completed as a four (4) lane road with curbs,
gutters, and storm sewers..
b) For each excess duplex unit $141.64 in cash and a letter of credit for
$94.43, total being $236.07. The total amount will be paid in cash if Rupple
Road has been completed as a four (4) lane road with curbs, gutters, and.
storm sewers.
c) For each excess apartment unit $320.51 in cash and a letter of credit
for $213.67, total being $534.18. The total amount will be paid in cash if
Rupple Road has been completed as a four (4) lane road with curbs, gutters,
and storm sewers.
The cash impact fee and letter of credit shall be delivered upon the Planning
Commission approving the final plat or large scale development. Any letters of
credit received during the six (6) year period from the date the Boys and Girls Club
meet all requirements, shall be retumed.back to WHM if the road is not widened to
four (4) lanes with curbs, gutters, and storm sewers during the six (6) year period.
If after the six (6) year period WHM presents a preliminary plat to the
Planning Commission in excess of the projected units, WHM shall pay an additional
impact fee for each unit in excess of the projections based on whether or not
Rupple Road is completed at that time as a four (4) lane road, with curbs, gutters
and storm sewer. If completed, the total amount indicated above shall be paid for
each excess unit. If not complete, the cash amount indicated above shall be paid
for each excess unit.
L
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
PAGE 3 OF 3 PAGES
If during the six (6) year period indicated above WHM has a final plat
approved for less than the projected units indicated above the $76,724.25 letter of
credit shall be reduced for each unit less than the projected units indicated above.
WHM shall receive a reduction for each unit less as follows:
a) . For each less unit of single family in tract 7, a reduction in the letter
of credit of $154.20.
b) . For each less unit of duplex in tract 7; a reduction in the letter of credit
of $94.43.
c) For each less unit of apartments in tract 3, a reduction in the letter of
credit of $213.67.
3. Upon the Boys and Girls Club meeting all requirements to obtain the
Reynolds grant, all on -site and off -site improvements and fees, for any development
by WHM, or its assigns, within the approved final plat area shall be based upon the
above provisions and terms. The above provisions and terms will apply to WHM
and any subsequent assigns. Inconsideration for this Agreement by the City, WHM
shall deed Tract 5 to the Co.
4. In the event the Boys and Girls Club fails to meet all requirements to
obtain the Reynolds grant and is not constructed within the approved final plat area,
all on -site and off -site improvements and fees for any development on tracts within
the approved final plat area shall be based on current ordinance requirements at the
time of development approval. Also, the City shall deed Tract 5 back to WHM.
IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ABOVE, WE SIGN
BELOW:
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
WHM LAND INVESTMENTS, INC.
By: -
Dag ••••y, V'aybr 'royft •
Woodruff,Heather City /I
iL�D FOR RECORD
1ERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY WET 9 PM 1 56
AND WASHItluuii CO Ait
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY B. STAMPS
TO WHOM IT MAY. CONCERN:
Comes now the undersigned, Hayden Mcllroy as President of WHM Land
Investments, Inc., and does hereby appoint and designate Deborah K. Sexton, as the true
and. lawful attorney
in
fact
and agent (subsequently
called agent), to
serve and to sign
documents, for and
in
the
name, place, and stead,
and for the use
and benefit of the
corporation, to endorse checks, drafts, execute agreements, contracts, warranty deeds,
promissory, notes, mortgages, security agreements, assignments of rents and leases,
indemnity agreements, borrower's certificates, financing statements, deeding of title, or
other written documents binding the corporation in the negotiations and transactions with
the City of Fayetteville and the.Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club.
The rights, -powers.. and authority of the agent, Deborah K. Sexton, to exercise any
and all of the rights and powers herein granted shall remain in full force until October
25, 2001. After such date this power of attorney shall terminate, and thereafter be null,
void, and of no effect whatsoever
This power of attorney may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name on the V day of
October, 2001.
2001126596
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHO AND
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
OF WHM LAND INVESTMENTS, INC.
PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES
WHM LAND INVESTMENTS, INC.
Mcllroy, President
ATTEST:
Ze da Mcllroy, Secretary .
STATE OF ARKANSAS }
} ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON }
BE IT REMEMBERED, on this day came before the undersigned Notary Public
within and for the County aforesaid, duly commissioned and acting, Hayden Mcllroy and
Melinda Mcllroy, in their capacity as President and Secretary of WHM Land Investments,
Inc., appearing in person to me, who stated that they had executed and delivered the
above and. foregoing document for the consideration, uses and purposes.. therein
mentioned and set forth.
WITNESS my hand and seal as such Notary Put)Bc this 3' day of OAer, 2001
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
I1-05�2006
o' : .:
1. IIP
d:\myfiles\copy\mcilroyspecia1103.poa
F 2001126597
:111JUA=1•
:111:,U0=:l•
oil
lip
IBM ms,
m iNO
Y �
c
{
c3
o,
na.• ��
r
1
4:
R-PZD 04-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439) was
submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John Nock of Nock
Investments, LLC for property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The
property is currently zoned RT-12, Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4,
Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 41.70 acres. The
request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow
the development of a residential subdivision with 182 single family and 39 two-family
lots (260 dwelling units) proposed.
Ostner: The next item on our agenda is R-PZD 04-06.00, a Residential Planned
Zoning District for Rupple Row. If we could have a staff report please.
Pate: The vacant site is located in west Fayetteville across from the Boys and
Girls Club on Rupple Road. With the exception of the Boys and Girls
Club and Meadowlands S/D, the surrounding property is currently
undeveloped, though the Planning Commission has seen and approved
various development plans recently. Fire Station #7, which is to. be
constructed on the lot immediately north of the subject property.
Meadowlands Subdivisions Phases I & II lie to the northwest, which are
developed and Cross Keys Planned Zoning District is immediately to the
west and proposed to be connected to this development. The property is
currently zoned RT-12, Residential Two and Three Family, and RSF-4,
Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately
41.7 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential
Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential
subdivision with 182 single family lots and 39 two-family lots for a total
of 260 dwelling units proposed. That proposed density is approximately
6.24 dwelling units per acre, which is actually less dense than allowed on
the property currently. The project is an unconventional subdivision with
all access and services to be from rear alleys. Dwelling units are to be
sited much closer to the street than you see in typical subdivisions. There
is a 5' building setback on the front. The lot sizes and setbacks are
proposed to be much smaller than those allowed in typical zoning districts,
thus the need for processing a Planned Zoning District as opposed to just a
standard subdivision or rezoning. The typical lot size for single family
uses range from approximately 40 to 45' wide by 115' to 120' deep. The
two and three family lots are proposed to be approximately 75' wide by
100' deep. Rupple Road is a newly constructed street south of Wedington
Drive that accesses the Boys and Girls Club at this time. The developer of
the Rupple Row PZD is also required to construct Persimmon Street east
of the Cross Keys development, coordinating with the adjacent developer
of Cross Keys to eventually complete an improved, through connection
from 46`h Avenue east to Rupple Road. The developer is proposing to
construct parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road. One of staffs
conditions tonight is Planning Commission determination of the
appropriateness of those proposed parallel parking spaces along Rupple
•
Road. It is a minor arterial street. We find that the parking spaces are
adequately located and do serve a good purpose in that area. However, we
do need to ensure that their position is carefully evaluated to ensure that
the continued safety of traveling and parking motorists on this future busy
street. With regard to findings, staff finds that the property is identified
for residential use on the Future Land Use Plan. Thus, is compatible with
that General Plan 2020. The proposed density and land use is also
compatible with adjacent development. The residential subdivision to the
northwest, Meadowlands Phases I and II is a similar type of use.
However, it is a very different type of configuration and site design layout.
They also have I believe single family homes and duplex and potentially
even triplexes in that area as well. There is connectivity to the north,
south, east and west in this proposed development. It does allow for a
density and land use that is compatible with adjacent properties. Thereby
creating a harmonious relationship with surrounding developments. There
are comments in your packets from the Fire Department. Obviously, the
newly built Fire Station 47 will not have a problem responding to this.
The Police Department and Engineering have also reviewed these plans
and are in support of them. Staff is recommending approval of the R-PZD
to be forwarded also to City Council with a recommendation for approval
of the rezoning with 15 conditions. 1) Planning Commission
determination of the appropriateness of the proposed parallel parking
spaces along Rupple Road, a Minor Arterial street. Item number four is
payment for Rupple Road impact fees in the amount of $30,443.30 and a
letter of credit in the amount of $20,295.70, based on the number of
dwelling units proposed, shall be submitted to the City of Fayetteville
prior to Final Plat approval. Item five, the City Council heard this with
regard to parks fees and parks fees in the amount of $7,482.75 are due
prior to Final Plat approval. With that, I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present?
Brackett: Good evening, my name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen &
Associates. I'm here representing the owner, John Nock who is also in
attendance and his architect, Tim Cooper. We prepared a foam board to
maybe help you understand the overall concept of this that includes a
schematic of the layout of what will be the future homes. We know that
this development concept has not been done much in this area but we feel
that it is something that is in demand in this area. Mr. Nock is very
familiar with it and if you have any questions concerning the concept I
would refer those to him and would be happy to answer any other
questions you might have.
Nock: Hi, my name
is John
Nock.
I wanted to give
you just a brief outline
of
what.you are
looking
at there
on the concept.
What you
are looking at
is
somewhat different from most developments that you would see in this
area. Although, if you have traveled to Springdale to Harber Meadows
parts of it would be familiar, as well as Charleston Place, which is on the
east side of town. This is what some people refer to as neo-traditional or
new urban design planned developments. Some of the central parts of
new urbanism or neo-traditional developments include really tighter land
organization into categories. As you will notice all of the dwellings here
have rear access alleys and all of the homes will have rear access garages.
Having been familiar with some of the developments surrounding this area
what we have had is a series of problems with congestion, with cars
parked along streets, people that live there, not just visitors and of course,
that eliminates this under that concept. Also, it calls for tree lined streets,
tighter streets, although we have actually stayed with the current city
ordinance as far as the streetscape goes, but we have put tighter
parameters on setbacks. Also, you can see that not only is it tree lined
streets but also sidewalks on both sides of the streets as well as sidewalks
and walking areas along all of the alley ways. Along those alley ways you
would see all of the services that would be required including trash
removal. All utilities would be there and all hookups would be there. The
idea is that you would keep your main street truly for vehicular traffic for
pedestrian traffic and bicycles. Also, as you can see, we have been pretty
particular about making sure that there s the installation of single family
verses multi -family so that those components are ear marked and
specifically put in positions where they compliment rather than contradict
each other's use. One of the things that is a really strong idea in my
opinion if you look at the long term goal for Fayetteville is that we say
housing choices for all income levels. I wanted to point out that
obviously, your development design and concept has to go with the long
term plan. There are a lot of developments that are done out there with
acre lot or '/< acre lots or two acre lots even. This is not that concept. This
is a concept that creates a very attractive, very quality footprint for both
building of a home but it also utilizes the land use in such a way that you
can afford to do so so that the end user is getting a very quality instrument
and a great place to live. The home price is where right now the market is
being underserved. That would be in the 125,000 to 145,000 category. I
bring that up because it is important to know what the end result is going
to be and what they are going to look like. On this board you can see
somewhat of a look, not every home will look this way, but it is destined
to look like a neighborhood rather than just a development. That's about
all of the comments that I have but I will be available for comments.
Ostner: At this point I would like to open it up to the public.
Davison: Just please, the density is the issue. When we speak of density a lot of
people only think of houses and people but density in these situations
relates to traffic. Even in this situation I don't believe the traffic can be
accommodated for this dense of project at this time. If we also look at the
parallel parking along Rupple Road. I believe that is right where the Boys
and girls Club is, I believe that will be creating an even more dangerous
situation for those children. I would just ask you to be careful. We have
started to decide, staff and the city, that these PZDs are great but they also
need to be really, really carefully monitored. Once we give those then it is
pretty much up to us to make sure that the little things that we can do
make a difference. I'm not sure I'm sold on them being appropriate on
how much you are going to see them being used so I appreciate it if you
would check on that. As well as with the TIFFS coming up I know you
will be doing a lot of reading. If you would just please consider that it is
too much of a traffic problem, it is a safety problem for the children. I
love the smart design. Those aspects are long over due. It is nice to have
a development with those elements such as long standing city
neighborhoods that have garages in the back and all that, it is still too
dense. It is too dense because it will create unsafe traffic situations for our
children. Thank you.
Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I want to applaud all of you. I'm very
much a newcomer to any idea of city planning. Whatever paths in your
lives have led you here have given you a lot more experience of this than I
have, which is almost zero. As I said last time I was here, what brought
me more into this was more of the collaboration between the school
district and the city around planning. I am reminded that this project, as I
understand it, will be I would like to see a map if it is possible, whether it
will be right on top of the new school. I would like to see a map that
includes this project along with the other two that were up last time that
have now been tabled. My problem with planning is that it seems like we
are having. a blind man and an elephant problem here. Everybody knows
just a little piece of it. Nobody knows we are really dealing with an
elephant because everyone is only touching the leg or the tail or the trunk.
Also, nobody is really responsible for the elephant because everyone can
say I didn't really know it was an elephant, I only voted for the little tail
part. I will say again, I do not see how the Planning Commission and the
City Council can make decisions about all these development decisions
without knowing the overall plan. I believe Hugh Earnest of the city is in
an excellent position to layout that overall plan and I would like him
called upon to do that. I know he has sat on the city school committee that
has made many of these plans and I think this should be information that
everyone is drawing on. In terms of this particular development, as far as
I see it trying to look at a larger part of the elephant, you are adding right
here at this comer of the Boys and Girls Club, the Fire Station and the new
Jefferson relocated school, you are adding 260 units to the 320 units of the
McBryde/Sloan and the 640 units of the Sloan/Greenwood. Right there
you have 1,220 new units. In this case, we all thought that was bad the
last time we talked about it and the west side neighbors were here saying
that we do not want this kind of density in our area. Now this new
development is even more dense. Instead of 320, four units per acre on 80
acres you are going to have 260 units on 42 acres. If you add them all
together it looks pretty big, and it's only part of the elephant! I am in
favor of the more neighborhood oriented kind of development. I like
anything that encourages community and encourages people to gather
together in their housing development. I like the idea that there is some
slightly less expensive housing. Although, I'm not sure housing of
$125,000 really addresses housing choices for all income levels. That's
my concern. In terms of the elephant there's really nowhere to talk about
the elephant so I'm just talking about it wherever I can. My overall
concern is that I believe that this west side development is happening at
the expense of not south side development but south side people, the
people who live in the south side now. Those would be the people who
went to the Jefferson neighborhood school and the people who live behind
the Mountain Inn and behind the courthouse. Again, I don't know Mr.
Nock and I'm a novice at this but sources tell me that Mr. Nock may also
be involved in the Mountain hm renovation or whatever is going to
happen there and may be involved in some development in south
Fayetteville and might have sold the city the land for the fire station. I
don't know if these are all facts but I want to look at elephants. I would
want some mechanism in this city planning that can look at elephants. If,
and again I don't know Mr. Nock and I'm a novice, but I would like if Mr.
Nock if benefiting from the location of the fire station, the Boys and Girls
Club and the Jefferson relocated school all on the west side and if he
perhaps also stands to benefit from maybe a gentrification of the area
behind the town hall, the old courthouse, I don't know if he does, or
whoever does, that's the elephant. I want to know who is providing the
housing for the people who live there now. I'm concerned that that is part
of the elephant and I would not go ahead and approve any development on
the west side until I know where the people on the south side are going to
live. That's all I have to say. I would like Mr. Earnest to be brought
forward to explain the overall plan so that we could all look at the elephant
and know what we are doing. I don't know how to get that to happen but
that's what I would like to see.
Ostner: Thank you Ms. Bowman. Are there any other comments?
Moorman: Hi my name is Barbara Moorman, I live on the west side of Fayetteville,
partly in the city and partly out of the city. My property goes down to a
point where I expect eventually Rupple Road, when it gets to the day that
it crosses Hwy. 62 will come in my direction. My questions and concerns
are not simply general, although they are that too, but they core but it is
putting housing and amenities in an area where they are more accessible to
the density. is not the city core affect me directly. I wanted to raise a
question about Fayetteville's goals. Is Fayetteville encouraging density
•
and is it trying to discourage sprawl? That's been my impression that
density is good and sprawl is bad from Fayetteville's point of view. If that
is the case then I wonder what a definition of sprawl would be and where
sprawl is. If you have dense developments that are outside of the main
downtown is that sprawl or is that density? These terms are thrown about
and people talk about neo-traditionalism and new urbanism and smart
growth and those terms are absolutely meaningless if you don't define
them. They have been defined by other people but I don't believe they've
been defined in Fayetteville's particular context. I would like to
understand what the future plans are for Rupple Road. Everything that is
planned to be built on it and where it is going to go after it crosses Hwy.
62. It has been projected to come down to Hwy. 62 for a long, long time
but development is preceding a pace and I'm sure there are plans beyond
that. I would also hope you know how many people are projected to live
west of I-540 and between Wedington and 6th Street within the next five
years or ten years. What is considered the carrying capacity in terms of
population for that area? What we seem to be doing is saying, as Mr. Pate
said recently, there isn't development around there right now. Well, no
but it is about to happen. It is projected. When I asked the Planning
Commission last year what was projected for all the way out to
Farmington, Mr. Estes, who was here at the time and I believe has since
moved out of Fayetteville said commercial all the way to Farmington,
mixed commercial all the way to Farmington all along both sides of Hwy.
62. I don't know if that really is the projection and I don't know what the
population projection is. I think that it would be really smart of
Fayetteville to have all of its annexations and big rezonings done at one
huge meeting once a year so that you can really see the elephant that Dr.
Bowman was talking about. Since you don't do that then I think you at
least have to look at it in terms of a discreet region. I think as far as being
against sprawl, as I think Fayetteville has said it is, being for new
urbanism which is against sprawl. The woman who wrote the first book
against sprawl, Jane Jacobs, The Life and Death of Great American Cities,
pointed out in a recent interview when she was asked about what she
thinks about the new urbanism today she said, and I certainly agree "It's
still sprawl." Thank you.
Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other people who would like to comment on
this issue from the audience? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and
bring it back to the Commission. There are a few things that I would like
to touch on before we go further. The zoning for this property was
approved by law long before us. This property could be developed
without a rezoning. The owner has a right to build as each of us has a right
to own a home and the current density that this developer is proposing is
actually less than what he could build by right. Density is at issue here in a
way but it is hard for me to understand how we are increasing density
beyond what is already available by right.
Brackett: I would just like to address some of those issues. The density that we are
proposing, one of the reasons is that it is next to the amenities that are
there. Rupple Road is a minor arterial with a light on Wedington. There is
a new fire station, there is a new Boys and Girls Club and there is a
possibility for a school in this area. We feel that putting homes next to
these amenities is what Fayetteville should be looking at doing. Putting
the density by the amenities they have. There was a comment made
concerning the overall plan for this area. We have been in discussion with
the adjoining owners and it just so happens we are also the engineers for
the property to the east and the property further to the east and Mr. Sloan's
property to the south and Mr. McBryde's property. We've been
discussing with all the developers in this area to discuss the overall plan
and to discuss the school and the Boys and Girls Club and those matters.
There has been a lot of time devoted to looking at the overall plan for this
valley and it is not something that was thought up over night. Thank you.
Ostner: Thank you. Do we have any discussion?
Vaught: Kind of addressing some of the comments. There are planning documents
that we do use that try to dictate the plan for the future and there has been
considerable work put into these by the Planning Commission, the City
Council and Planning Staff. There is the Master Street Plan, the 2020 Plan,
the Long Range Planning Map. All of these are available and you can see
where Rupple Road is planned to go. It is not an exact because nothing
has been built there. Also, I know some things were eluded to as far as
new urbanism. I, by no means, am an expert on this. The part that I
understand of the goal of Fayetteville of New Urbanism is creating
smaller, walkable communities. I do tend to think that this creates that
smaller, livable community. It is not the city core but it is putting housing
and amenities in an area where they are more accessible to the density. I
like the idea of having this by the school, if there is a school there. I don't
even know if there is going to be. It is a rumor from what I understand.
There is no contract. There is nothing in writing. There are other areas I
know the school board was looking at. I don't know if it would be a bad
location or not next to the Boys and Girls Club and a lot of residential
development. On the long range planning map this area is designated as
residential, of which this type of development fits and the other
developments proposed around it fit. Like Commissioner Ostner said, by
right they could come in, I believe some of this is RT-12. This is a
compromise where they are cutting it back and trying to make the
community more compatible with the areas around it. I like a lot of things
on this. One question I did have for the developer was at Subdivision on
Rupple Road on street parking was extended further down to Persimmon
and on this little drawing we have in front of us it is not there. I was just
kind of curious why that was changed.
Brackett: It should be on that drawing. It is on all of your drawings that were in the
packet. We have eliminated two spaces that were adjacent to
Meadowlands Drive because of concerns from staff but we are intending
for the rest of the ones, including the ones south of Meadowlands. That
should be on that drawing.
Vaught: That is all I have for now.
Ostner: Thank you. I would like to mention something Mr. Vaught mentioned
was the plan. The difficult part about being part of this city municipality
is that our plans are just very malleable. Those guys are building our city,
not us. Rupple will never be extended until someone steps forward and
says I want to spend 10 million dollars to build a subdivision and I'm
going to extend Rupple. We don't build the city, they do. It is a difficult
process. They have to do it within our parameters, we have to grant them
some things and we get to ask other things of them. Your metaphor of the
elephant, we are often the tail end of the dog so to speak. There are
property owners that want to develop in this town and we, with our
ordinances, get to keep up as best we can with how they choose to develop
their property. I think we do a really good job in a lot of ways. It is very
difficult especially when you look around us at many other municipalities
that are struggling to do a lot of things that we do well. There have been
mentions of Mr. Earnest sharing the plan. There is no plan. There are
maps that give areas of if you are going to develop here it probably should
be residential. If you are going to build a street here we are going to ask
you to do a collector street. Other than that, it has to do with the property
owners and when they would like to build our town. We don't have a
plan, you all do and your City Council updates all of those maps and those
approvals periodically. They are the ones who really have the power to
maintain those issues.
Vaught: I have one other question for the developer. I know there was
considerable talk about utilities and working with the companies, has all of
that been resolved?
Brackett: We had an initial meeting with the utilities and they've asked for some
additional details for as far as the buildable area for each lot. We provided
that to them and they are now reviewing it and we plan to have a second
meeting to finalize what will be required. They are informed of
everything that we are doing and we are working it out with them.
Allen: I would just like to pitch out a question here about whether or not we have
kind of an oxymoron. Is this density in a sprawl area?
Clark: Who do you want to answer that question?
Allen: I was interested in the opinion of my fellow Commissioners.
Vaught: Do we allow density to create another city center to make it not sprawl
somewhere else?
Shackelford: I don't know how you can declare that this is a sprawl area with the
emphasis that has been. put into the Boys and Girls Club and the other
amenities that have been put in this area. I think with the amenities and
the infrastructure that is in this location this is designated as a future
growth area for the City of Fayetteville. I don't think you can say
anything outside the downtown Dickson Street location is automatically
sprawl because it is not in the heart of the city. As our city continues to
grow there are going to be hotbeds or growth outside of existing areas that
we might default to right now thinking that this is the center and anything
outside of that is sprawl.
Ostner: I wondered that too. I was looking more at their buildings and their
narrow lots because 6.2 units per acre is not dense. We have downtown
areas that could go as high as 40 units per acre. If someone were to
choose to build a 20 story apartment building in those areas they could do
that. That is dense. It is a little bit odd with the fact that they could
already develop this and just build another subdivision and get the same
amount of density to me says that if the zoning is an issue, the zoning
issue that passed previously was to blame.
Allen: I guess I wonder too whether or not developers should always be the ones
who decide the direction of our community and whether or not that is a
part of our responsibility as planners.
Warrick: The City has adopted a General Plan. It is a future land use policy and
guide. It is periodically updated through a community planning process.
Through citizen input, public hearings and the Planning Commission level
as well as ordinances and resolutions adopted by our City Council to
reflect the desires of those persons who are participating in that process.
Our current General Pan was originally adopted in 1995 and has had
updates as recent as 2001. At that time we updated within the document
and reviewed the map which identifies current and future land use as well
as the Master Street Plan. We have recently completed a traffic and
transportation study and as a component of that we will be bringing
forward to the City Council later this year a proposed amendment and
updates to the city's Master Street Plan. These are dynamic activities that
continue as development occurs throughout the city. We have to adopt
these or amend these products periodically because things change. Our
boundaries change with regard to what we have jurisdiction over and
development occurs that needs to be reflected on those documents and
policies. Ultimately land use is recommended by the Planning
Commission and adopted as a policy action by the City Council. That
does enable someone the ability to develop based on the uses permitted in
whatever zoning district is applied to the property. This is the process that
we go through on a bi-weekly basis as projects come through, whether
they are actions to request annexation or rezonings, or whether they are
follow up actions to ensure that the projects proposed for those properties
is in compliance with the city's adopted regulations. We do proactive
planning. It is not as site specific as the downtown master plan, which is
the product that has recently'been finalized. That actually looked at a
demonstration of what could be done on a lot by lot basis. We don't have
the ability to plan in that detail for the entire city. That was a special
project that was appropriate for that discreet area described as our
downtown. For the rest of the community we do have this Future Land
Use map, the General Plan 2020, which is the text document that goes
along with it setting out guiding policies and implementation strategies.
From that, we implement new ordinances so that we can ensure that the
desire of that document is being manifested through our ordinances and
then we have to apply it to development in order to achieve that goal.
Allen: I understand that Dawn. Thank you for the clarification, that was just
simply a comment.
Warrick: Sure. I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands that we do
have some guiding policies and we're not just out there flying without any
guidance whatsoever. We do believe that our planning documents are
appropriate and we do update them because, like I said, things change over
time. It is important that we utilize those for making recommendations
and understanding where things can be improved upon and where things
are going right.
Shackelford: I would also like to make a comment because I'm in disagreement with a
couple of statements that have been made. I don't necessarily view it as
developers dictating growth. I think the citizens of Fayetteville dictate the
growth through supply and demand. If there wasn't a market for this
product developers wouldn't be bringing it to us. There is a need or desire
for homes in this price range in this location and the developer is seeing
this need and feeling that void. I take issue with the statements that we are
allowing developers to tell us how the city is going to develop. I don't
view it that way at all. I think it is driven more by economics and the
desire for houses in this price range in this area because of the amenities.
The close proximity to the interstate, the University of Arkansas and for a
number of reasons is what is dictating this much growth in this area. I will
tell you, I grew up in Fayetteville and I went to school on the west side of
Fayetteville 25 years ago. It is completely different than what it was then.
I think 25 years from now it is going to be completely different than what
it is now. We have all seen the census reports and I don't remember
exactly, but they call for growth in Northwest Arkansas for 400,000
people in the next 15 or 20 years. That growth is going to require housing
and different areas are going to be attractive to people based on amenities,
price range and that sort of thing. I think that's what has been driving the
growth in West Fayetteville, not the developers desire to be there, but the
citizen's desire to live there. Thank you.
Ostner: I certainly hope my comments weren't misunderstood. Of course the land
owners simply start the process, of course they don't get to do everything
they want to do. They are often turned down and they often stop the
process when they come to city hall and realize the zoning map or other
requirements that would be on them. I appreciate that comment from Mr.
Shackelford. I would tend to agree that the market is driving
development.
Clark: What is the rational for the parallel parking on Rupple Road as opposed to
someplace else? All throughout this report the staff raises great concerns
about that and I've got to say I can understand why.
Brackett: The idea there is these homes are rear access through alleys so each home
will have a drive in the back to park their vehicles but there won't be any
parking allowable on the alley because it will also be serving the trash
trucks and all the other public services. To allow for visitors to the homes
along Rupple, instead of having them park on Rupple, which is a minor
arterial, which would be a horrible thing. We are allowing some place for
these people to park as they visit these homes. If not, if that is not allowed
there is a possibility that they will go down the alley and will park in the
alley and that will prevent access for other homes and also provide trash
service and things like that. It is allowing for an area for people to park
who visit these homes.
Clark: How many potential visitors are we anticipating? How many cars will
these facilitate?
Brackett: We initially had one space per every home. They are shown as a double
space on the property line so it serves both lots. Because of the existing
drainage that is along Rupple and the problem with it being too close to
the intersection of Rupple and Meadowlands we have scaled that back
quite a bit so there is not a space per lot, it is .85 per lot. This parking
also, with being close to the Boys and Girls Club, I know that parking is
sufficient for now but it could provide off street parking for a special event
that happens to be going on there also. This is going to be right off the
road so it is not going to be a private deal. It is a possibility of that
happening also.
Ostner: The Subdivision Committee discussed that parallel parking issue.
Nock: Going back to the whole idea. I know that there was a question about how
to define neo-traditional or new urbanism. This development is a
definition if you want to include that. One of those things is that I think it
is problematic when you go into communities and you only see the
backside of homes. That is one of the primary aspects of neo-traditional
new urbanism is where you see not their backyards, not just a big privacy
fence, but you actually see porches and people sitting on those porches
interacting. Yes, it may seem too idealistic but that is the concept and that
is the idea. If we had put the rear end of those homes facing Rupple Road
you know what that would look like, we have that all over town already.
The idea is to open up the streetscape, put those homes along there, you
are starting first with the fire station. You have a sidewalk with a tree
lined street as protection down that way and then you have the Boys and
Girls Club on the left hand side and then you have this row of homes with
trees out in front with a very narrow setback and then you have the
extended setback of the porches along the front. You have an additional
buffer with the parallel parking. Our first concept to the city was literally
pulling in for visitor parking. That becomes a problematic safety concern
for backing out on Rupple. If you look at some successful city plans, not
just Fayetteville, but others where there is more of an urban feel, where
you want to see more interaction between people you allow for that
parallel parking along the front. Yes, that is expensive just like putting in
rear alley access ways is expensive for a developer to put that in but I
think the end result is it's an appropriate response to that specific
community. Specifically to the Boys and Girls Club. Not every time are
you going to have one visitor for every home. That is going to be a very
rare occasion so we even think it can be overflow for the Boys and Girls
Club if they are having an activity, a community event. Right now, in fact,
twice in the last three months the Boys and Girls Club have used our land
for overflow parking. When they have a big Easter egg hunt you are
going to see parking along there. That promotes that community
interaction. Yes, even though it is parking for the housing I see it as
parking for the community. Not every space is going to be used all the
time for visitors but it is to promote instead, that interaction.
Vaught: In addition, one thing I thought about was just a concern about traffic on
Rupple Road and the speed of it. One thing that we talked about at length
during the downtown master plan project was the use of on street parking
as a traffic calming measure. Cars tend to slow down .with on street
parking there and I think that that can possibly help in this area, especially
with the pedestrian traffic of the Boys and Girls Club. To me, that's one
thing I considered. That was something that if you guys were able to be a
part of that plan they talked about at considerable length and we talked
about
the use
of downtown streets now
and creating on street parking on
some
of them
that don't have it.
Ostner: I would agree. The facing outwards that the developer has referred to in
my mind is very important. When developments turn inward and wall off
themselves I don't think they work well. A development to the west is the
unfortunate "concrete canyon" that has a street that nobody faces and then
there is a fence on one side and a fence on the other. It is not the
developer's fault. In a way he was following our ordinances. This
developer has chosen to face outward and I believe it is a great thing. It
does interact and the parallel parking will help to slow down traffic.
Anthes: I have
a list of questions.
Some for Mrs. Warrick, some for Mr.
Nock.
Dawn,
can you remind us
what is the number of units allowed
by the
current
zoning?
Warrick: The current zoning allows a density of 7.2 units per acre, which would be
a total of 301 units. The proposal is for 260 units, 41 units less than what
is permitted by right.
Anthes: Thank you. John, on the street widths, I saw something in a letter that
indicated that you were proposing the 28' standard street width because it
was easier or something like that. Can you elaborate?
Nock: I wanted 24' wide streets for much narrower streets. Unfortunately, there
are certain constraints with the City of Fayetteville. You have to pick your
battles. As those who have participated in other forums recently about
some of our planning practices one of the concerns is wide streets tend to
allow freeways. Originally our concept was to do 24' wide streets with
one side parallel parking and after much debate we thought at least we
can step forward with the setbacks and bring the setbacks closer. One of
the driving points of this was in working with the treescape along the
streets. We could still allow for the parking on the side of the streets, I'm
talking about the interior streets now, still allow for two cars to pass one
another in opposite directions, have parallel parking on one side of the
street, as in most urban situations, and at the same time still have your
greenspace and still have enough setback for the housing. You're right, I
still would rather have 24' streets. But I think under our current planning
in the City of Fayetteville I think that's difficult to do. Dover Kohl, as we
have eluded to the master plan that has been talked about for the
downtown address narrower streets as being a way to promote better
traffic calming. There are other ways to do that as well. What we try to do
instead was to make, as you will notice the radius of the turns of the
streets, they are much tighter. That was with much negotiation and very
much good help from the city engineering to do that. What would be done
in most developments is just a very wide arc. As you can see this is very
tight, which again, slows down that traffic. In response, yes, we were
looking at a much tighter but we ended up doing this because it was
probably, we thought, the only battle that we could know would get done
that way.
Anthes: Ok, a question for Mr. Coover. As this is a PZD but these will be city
streets, do we have any leeway to talk about a narrower street in this
situation?
Coover: I see no problem from an engineering standpoint if that's what you are
asking.
Anthes: Dawn, can you tell us something about that?
Warrick: The only thing I can lend to that is I think that it can possibly be done.
Obviously, we have 24' streets in other areas of town that have residential
developments. There are a few areas in here that it would be a little
challenging to provide a transition that would certainly have to be
engineered because there are connections from adjoining developments
into this project that those adjoining developments already have either 31'
or 28' wide streets. That would take a little bit of work. That doesn't
mean it couldn't happen. Our street standards that are a part of our
adopted Master Street Plan call for a 24' street to satisfy no more than 300
to 500 vehicle trips per day. That's probably the biggest challenge in
ensuring that those streets are going to function with the amount of vehicle
trips that would be generated by this particular development. Like I said,
there are other areas of town that are relatively densely developed with
residential projects and they function.
Anthes: Personally I would like to see narrower streets in this subdivision and also
I understand that there is 4' sidewalks and if we can take 2' to 4' out of the
width of either street and add a foot on either side and get that sidewalk to
5' to encourage kids on bicycles and pedestrian movement and that sort of
thing that would be something that I would really like to see. Would you
be amenable to that?
Nock: I would consider that done.
Anthes: Alleys, how wide are they?
Nock: We have 20' right of way with actual paved, 16'. That is to accommodate
two vehicles could potentially pass each other if need be. We have talked
about the idea of just doing one way on the alleys but you get into some
problematic issues because you still have to have all your service vehicles
go back there. Mainly the largest one is the city sanitation trucks and they
also have the armature that has to get the cans. Even if we narrowed those
•
alleys we still have to accommodate the trucks. We talked about making
those narrower too but I think just out of service perspective that it
probably has to be wider.
Anthes: Who is going to maintain those alleys?
Nock: It will be the city.
Anthes: So those will be to a spec?
Nock: It will be to city standards.
Anthes: I don't have a copy of your subdivision covenants but I had a few
questions. We're talking about a building setback but I don't see that
called out anywhere and I was wondering whether you are having a
mandatory setback or whether you are calling it a build to line and how far
back that is.
Nock: It will be a build to line.
Anthes: Do you know what that is?
Brackett: On the front of all the lots other than those along Rupple it will be 5'.
Because of an existing 20' utility easement along Rupple it will be 20' on
Rupple.
Anthes: The
other thing
is you've
talked about minimum square footages and have
you
considered
putting a
maximum square footage in your covenants?
Nock: I think that is going to be required just simply from the economics of it.
We certainly could do that because some of them are two family. There
are a small amount of them that are duplex lots. There's only so much you
can put on these lots to make them work. Because they are zero lot lines
you are also dealing with a property line on at least one side. There is a
point where it would not make sense to go any larger.
Anthes: The reason I ask is because we have had a lot of developments that have
come through the city that there was an intended size of house for the lots
and there was a minimum put in the subdivision covenants and then what
happens is it is such a desirable area that the lots have been really
overbuilt with houses that were really much larger than what was intended
by the developer originally. You have such tight constraints here I
wondered whether that would be something that you would consider.
Nock: It might not be required but we would not be opposed to doing that. It
seems like it is doing that automatically. That's fairly easy to
accommodate.
Anthes: I'm glad that you left the designation for a home occupation to be
permitted.
Nock: We think that's important.
Anthes: The on street parking at Rupple Road, I think that that is, as other people
have stated, positive measure that those residences face the street. It is a
much more urban pattern. It is a much more dense area. To address what
Commissioner Allen and other people have talked about is we do have a
situation where we have when we cross I-540 that's basically a "sprawl
area". Once we put the Boys and Girls Club out there we kind of, as a
city, made a mandate for that to happen. If there is the Boys and Girls
Club and there is the fire station and there is the possibility that there
might be the school then those things should be easily accessed by foot by
children and by residents which seems to make a case for me to see
density at those locations. With that, I would like to move for approval of
PZD 04-06.00 subject to the conditions of approval and with the addition
of a condition that the street widths be reduced working with city
engineering and staff to something between 24' and 26', whichever works
out the best. That the sidewalks be 5' instead of 4'.
Nock: There is just one thing. In that analysis of the width of the street we want
to make sure that we can still allow onsite parking so if we were very rigid
with on street parking. If we were real rigid with the rules you would not
be able to have a two way street and parking on one side. In most urban
scenarios you do allow because you don't always have one side of the
street completely lined with cars. We want to make sure that that
flexibility is there because we would be defeating one of the primary
purposes for visitor parking.
Anthes: I absolutely agree with you and I need to put that into the statement that is
that that would be two drive aisles and one side of on street parking. I see
that as a 9, 9, 8 situation.
Brackett: If we could just make that motion something that we could work out with
staff because it is our intent for a smaller street. If we could work this out
with staff to make sure that that is enough room. The reason we don't
have it is because it wasn't allowed through staff.
Nock: If I could add one more thing. This main street, Keats Drive would be a
wider street, because that is one of your primary access points as well as
connection to the other developments, which would be Putting Green
Drive and Daffodil Lane as well as Meadowland Drive. Those would all
have to match the current widths of roads that are already there. The other
ones it would be perfect for that.
Anthes: Alright, with the condition of approval number 16 to read with secondary
streets TAPE ENDED, MOTIONER CONTINUED?? made feasible by the
developer and city staff.
Warrick: We can make that work.
Anthes: With the endorsement of condition one which is the parking on Rupple
Road.
Shackelford: I will second, and would also like to take this moment to ask the applicant
since we haven't formally done so, do we have signed conditions of
approval or are you guys in agreement with all of the stated conditions?
Nock: Yes.
Shackelford: Ok, I will second.
Ostner: I have a question. On page 2.32 talking about your covenants, I know this
seems like a silly detail. How are the mailboxes going to be along
Rupple?
Nock: That is not a silly detail because in the development directly to the west,
northwest, which is Meadowlands. Some of this has to be worked out not
with our authority but with the authority of the almighty post office
service. It was originally designed, in that development; I was not
involved with that development process but it was designed for every
home to have a matching masonry mailbox in front of that property to
match the masonry. We are not going to that detail but we are looking for
uniformity. That is another one of these nostalgic interesting details in
this type of neighborhood. It is going to be our wish, so long as we
comply with the almighty post office, that each home will have it's own
mailbox along the perimeter of the street. Again, it promotes going out to
the mailbox at the same time and talking to your neighbor.
Ostner: My question was more rudimentary. In my neighborhood we get in
trouble. We get fines if we park in front of our mailbox because he can't
pull up and put the mail in. Along Rupple that seems problematic. It
could be problematic anywhere in town but it is usually problematic.
Nock: Ideally along Rupple, again, if we could get that approved, it would either
be one box for that whole group or it would be a very old style porch drop.
We would not want to put mailboxes along Rupple Road, that would be
the one exception to what I said. On the other hand, let's keep in mind
although we have been talking about parking along these other streets part
of the covenants is very much spelling out that the owners or residents of
these homes will be required to park in the alleys and preferably in the
garages. The occasional car that will be parked along in front of the houses
on the street should be occasional, not all the time. That would be the
hope anyway. That would be mandated by the covenants as well.
Ostner: My other question is on down your covenants, number 22, all lots shall be
required to have two trees planted. You don't really talk about where. If
you are building streetscapes it seems to me that it should be uniform.
They could put it in the greenspace or in their yard. There are some
modifications on the covenants and one of those things that we will
actually be defining is a direct placement of trees. That may sound very
rigid but in this particular case we want a specific spot where that tree will
go because we are looking for uniformity. In a lot of developments you
don't want uniformity but in this one we do for that very reason.
Brackett: The difference between the greenspace and the front yard is really nothing
in this development because the home is 5' off the right of way. In
looking at it there is not a big distinction between, it's all one area.
Ostner: I was just talking from the streetscape standpoint. Along Rupple there is
not quite 30' between the curb and the building and that gives a lot of
places.
Nock: We have had direct conversations with the city, especially on the tree side
about where those need to be placed so I think we have fairly narrowed
that down.
Warrick: Condition eight is the submittal of a street tree planting plan at the time of
Final Plat. We do expect this development to have that street presence
that is being described in the covenants and the comments of the developer
and with that part of the mitigation will be street tree plantings and we will
look for that plan to be submitted at the time of Final Plat.
Clark: I don't think Jill followed up on this one but I think it is a great idea. Will
you consider putting maximum square footage allowed in the covenants as
well?
Nock: ISure, as long as it is reasonable.
Brackett: The lot area itself will dictate the size of the home also. It is such a
different design concept that you really can't put a 3,000 sq.ft. home on
these lots.
Nock: A stroke of a pen will take out all uncertainty.
Ostner: I'm sorry to have waited this long to have brought this up. Use Unit 10 I
believe is for triplexes and you call out Use Unit 9 or 10 on 39 lots. That
increases density mathematically at least and I just wanted to talk about
that.
Nock: There is only one case where that could probably be done and that is on lot
164 and possibly lot 165. The reason why that uncertainty was there is we
were still working at the time with the city. They are going to be using
that rear access alley for a secondary entrance to the fire station. In some
ways we were unsure exactly where those property lines were going to be
and would still like to reserve that right to be able to do that if it makes
sense to do that in that particular case although there is no current plan to
do so right now.
Ostner: On the issue of triplexes you are only talking two lots?
Nock: I don't think it is physically possible anywhere else. Potentially 171 but
again, by the time you get vantage points and cars it is probably not doable
there.
Ostner: The only reason I bring this up is that since this is going forward to
Council it will become a legislative act. The math is different. The way it
is worded now all 39 lots could be triplexes which brings the density up to
7.14 units per acre.
Nock: That would not be the intent. Why don't we reserve it to those three lots
and that makes it pretty clear.
Ostner: I would like to add a condition of approval number 17 that the potential
triplexes only be lotsl64, 165, and 171.
Anthes: I'm agreeable.
Shackelford: I'm agreeable.
Ostner: Is that acceptable?
Nock: If we heard you correctly those three would be the allowance.
Ostner: Yes. That's the end of my comments. Is there further discussion? Renee?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R-
PZD 04-06.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
STAFF MEW FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OOGATION
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: June 1, 2004
FROM:
Dawn Warrick
Name
Planning
Division
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
CP&E
Department
R-PZD was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John Nock of Nock
Investments, LLC for property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The property is currently
zoned RT-12, Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and
contains approximately 41.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned
Zoning District to allow the development of a residential subdivision with 182 single family and 39 two-
family lots (260 dwelling units) proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Division Head Date
City Attorney Date
Finance & Internal Services Dir.
Date
Date
to /
gd/6
Date
Received in Mayor's Office
Cross Reference:
Previous Ord/Res#:
Orig. Contract Date:
Orig. Contract Number:
New Item:
s/17/of
Date fo
r
Yes No
k
1
• •
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville City Council
FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development
DATE: May 27, 2004
SUBJECT: Rupple Row PZD (PZD 04-06.00)
At the request of the City Council at the agenda session on May 25, 2004, staff has further
researched the above mentioned project to provide the following:
• Traffic projections (expectations) for Rupple Road caused by this and other recently
approved developments in the area
Traffic Impact Analysis
Develo ment
Rupple Row
Lets
221
Units
260
Acres
41.7
otal v d
2280
Cross Keys
108
108
38.5
1034
Persimmon Place
148
146
59.6
1397
4711
'See attached ITE trip
generation reports
Rupple Road is classified as a Minor Arterial on the City's adopted Master Street Plan. The
existing construction of this street south of Wedington Drive is to the City's standard for a
Local street with adequate right-of-way available for future expansions.
Persimmon
is classified as a Collector on the
City's adopted Master Street Plan.
It is being
constructed
by various developers as projects
are approved adjoining this area.
Wedington Drive, north of the subject property and other new developments in the area is
classified as a Principle Arterial. It was recently improved by the AHTD to a 5-lane section
from Rupple Rd. to the east across the 1-540 interchange to Garland Ave.
The differences between these street standards are as follows:
Street Classifications
reef T e
Local
Desl n Sery ee olu e
Less than 4,000
S ed
20-25
raffic Lanes
10' lanes 2
ave idt
28'
Ri • -of-wa
50'
Collector
41000 - 62000
25-30
11' lanes 2
36'
70'
Minor Arterial
12,200 - 14,800
35-40
12' lanes 4
52'
90,
Principle Arterial
17,600 - 20,600
40-45
12' lanes 4
*56'
110'
28' lanes on each side of median
While these three deveoments will generate approximately 4*ehicle trips per day, they
will be dispersed throughout the city's street system. The streets that will be primarily
affected include, Rupple Rd., Wedington Dr., Persimmon St. and 461h Street. To focus on the
specific impact on Rupple Road, it is reasonable at this time to assign 50% of the traffic to
Rupple Road for the purpose of analysis. If half of the traffic from these three developments
is accessing Rupple Road (2355 vpd), adequate capacity remains (1645 vpd) to accommodate
other general traffic demands.
With the future extension of Persimmon Street west to Double Springs Rd. and east to the I-
540 outer road, the improvement of Broyles Rd. north to Wedington Drive and south to
Farmington, and the extension of Rupple Rd. south to Hwy 62W, additional options will be
made available to further disperse traffic in this area. These extensions will not all occur
immediately, however they are expected to be evaluated and implemented as additional
development is proposed in the future.
The following data was provided by Water & Wastewater Director:
• Information regarding the 12" looped water line proposed for City cost share associated
with this project
The conceptual plan for Fayetteville's water distribution network in the western area provides
for 12-inch water mains on a grid pattern to meet customer and fire flow demands. Rupple
Road has been designated a corridor to contain a north -south 12-inch water main as
evidenced by water line construction to serve both the Boys and Girls Club as well as the
water main extension being constructed to serve Fire Station Number 7. The city's water
distribution system will soon have a 12-inch main running south along Rupple Road
beginning at Wedington and ending near the Boys and Girls Club. Under the city's water
main development standards, new water mains must be a minimum of 8-inch or as needed to
serve the new water demand. In this case the development's needs could be satisfied by only
an 8-inch water main extension along Rupple Road, however, it is prudent, permissible and
proper for the City to cost share in the incremental cost increase between 8 and 12 inch water
main to complete a 12-inch feeder main along Rupple Road.
Persimmon Place
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
For 146 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing
May 27, 2004
24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 1397 28 82 93 54
24 hour Peak Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit
Saturday 1475 74 63
Sunday 1282 67 58
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Rupple Row
Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation
Saturday and Sunday Driveway Volumes
May 27, 2004
Saturday
Sunday
24 Hr
Peak Hour
24 Hr
Peak
Hour
2-Way
2-Way
Land Use Size
Vol.
Enter Exit
Vol.
Enter
Exit
Single Family Detached Housing
182 Dwelling
Units
1838
93 78
1598
84
73
Residential Condominium / Townhouse
78 Dwelling
Units
442
20 17
378
17
18
Total 2280 113 95 1976 101 91
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Cross Keys • •
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
For 108 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing
May 27, 2004
24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 1034 21 60 69 40
24 hour Peak Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit
Saturday 1091 55 46
Sunday 948 50 43
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
FAYETT&ILLE 0
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
City Clerk Division
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8323
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division 11,0
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman IY%
City Clerk Division
Date: June 21, 2004
Re: Ordinance No. 4580
Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, June 15, 2004, approving R-PZD 04-
06.00, located at Rupple Road containing approximately 41.70 acres and accepting the development plan.
This ordinance will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilmed. If anything else is needed please
let the clerk's office know.
Attachment(s)
cc: John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, _, do solemnly swear that I am
Leg I Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication, that advertisement of:
inserted in the regular editions on
** Publication Charge: $ & , "!"/
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
a3 day of J lA " Q., , 2004.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: a-7&:j'&old RECEIVED
JUN 2 5 2004
** Please do not pay from Affidavit. CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE
An invoice will be sent. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Official seal
SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO
Notary Public -Arkansas
WASHINGTON COUNTY
My Commission Expires 07-25-2013
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVII I E, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
City of Fays"WIs
In IT ORDAINED er THE effY COUNCIL OF THE Crrr OF sAnrmnua, urw4swa:
SWW 1: That me m daWio,,tion of me folawing deectibea proi remby &n Co"
;1n AT.12, pesieential TM ane Three Fw* and RSF-4, ResIc WtW SInP Fenix, tout tails Per eore
-oon tb Do w 6h In EvNblt 4A. 8=hed n ofo and made a pelf rrereol.
That Ws orcinonce "I take affw anb be In hA fo= al suds time es a of tree requiremerrcs
gWpment plan have been fMt :.
Tnet the ofedal zoning Thep of the City of FeystteAOe, Arkansas, is hereby amenaeo to reflect
change proAdee in Secllon"yy1 abpae.
Fey APPRDVIII%,*o 1�'Sity34 of June, 2004.
EXHIBrrW
RPZD 04-08.00
THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE "te4oF NESE 1/4
WAY N88Z7'41v n4 u,w"�,.- •—
SE I AND II, THENCE SOO 03'34W 702.70 FEET, THENCE RI 7' 1
8.12'08'W 3000 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT�125.81 FEET
LNGA RADIlJS OF gP25T FEET AND n w CONTAINING 41.70 ACRES MORE OR
S88""8°8ve"pZ
x
��e
1�
4
sa"aaas""..g.
N
y
o
o
w
w
w
w
P
4µ
m
8�
I �
I =J
I I m l L
� I
• 1
� F 1
goal CIA
27
t
' AND v 1 '• `� I Rea'>eR
j.�l ✓««..
Imme
j..' I i C M.1 1 m , I^ P, a8f9t
' ^ _
1 _ m«
.31011
r I ' I I �' MINA'['
I notI v I • I I m I 1 l i l •1 ,- 1', 1^ i'.���RpR
••• 7 i
i^ I In
m i g
1 I I -• I- m I .. I �! C I!v
Its
-_J I ^. 1 I I gw
1_-= _ ty
40
jf:3}
Itill +4410
�-1 iR1
77
cam....- a .: 1
I'_
• I 1 - I t vl m I ftl
«;
tImii
W I I In
j 1
Lif Ior
WHIM
S S 4 ?a I— • i ! r I I ^ •- I I ". I 1
n
IN
1 r / �\ •
_ 1 � IF
i if 00
/' If A
\
IV f J nv-
� ime 111111115
8
911
1+60
If
� �8a 2 � Y �� '§�w i{•jA fA
A� ^ On LWM
f� r E� h
Eli AA
a:
- �ao N
01
...": +roc• o•rz revrsm oEum er avx•i er e,rt
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES aE p. �'� I�I1eIiI S
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS RUPPLE ROW SUBDIVISON 1 C
...mmva.111 cwo my « PRELIMINARY PLAT 3 S IM
C. 5. New Business June 1, 2004
R-PZD 04-06.00 (John Nock) City Council Meeting
/ P'A" /vocz )
o I /
Y V
I
'e •` LLr r Yw• a •' „ I
9
u YY LLY' LL � YIP- � .9 � I � \ � •�•
Yr r Yr 9 1
F. F F f.YFw I Io 6 Y R
a . s
IQf i(M�• . � YY• /
•gyp^ ' —�—� ' � !'.s i _ / / � i � 1 � /
1
a f { �Q+• /f � /
q 5 'qrL
qq � � R. �s a •' / /
/ - - -- --- - -_
w
\�l)
FS /� Il al e Ili .: 9�sf.Yk/F` ... •i5 F_ f
�165�5555fE4E5tccsststsy
"eiq»4
qqqqy
a
@4
�3
$:�"a=ESigRi;ktEFgG�'aa?c.
sssss>,
egc;pG
og&S�Sa
6EE3�
) `+ .wT4 » i � i � lid `5 � R. E .. g• . �R . � R . w i . � � u i � F �, F , e F f � F •�� �'� Y \�
_--- — = --- _
.�
— — — ay— — — — — — / — — — — — — — fir•-•—.;.. ._.—•—•—��•--�
' gag I I I I In I Pon 111 r•
R,1
_
A
SLLLf. 1'.p0' WIF MEYISED tl1ELfm BY: Yid MY BY: ue
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS a SURVEYORS RUPPLE ROW SUBD/VISON 2
f
i
a
�
MUL
jilt
j R.
"
HIS
.a
r � C F 4i 'M a•:Ia.S i.Cie •�R•! i L S e•E R•E i � ;
j ' — �_ _.-- — —• — — --- -� — ,,tee—�
to
0,
Yr
YM r
�6 e^
A•e•�•I-I�F.Iys�»e•a fF
�7! 1
1
$I I P ; 1Pt S 4 rS" u Si& La se' um nr ar
Y
a
6I I IS .SI •
L I , yy
Se.S
All ON
1, 9
I a i� \
a . j y� .. ....
f. ` ` Ym Y Ym
,
Y -- — m _ — —PIN Md.
— — —
slf/---
I
ftw
I / ,/ L I)i IK» ii�\' 'eR•6_ � lP• ��: dl� Yl P P � P �'- /r
zw
}} 4 \ I
91
I ' a6 fl � Y i. L�. S i. � i SL''6 gS i �E 6 S .tse � @. L = •• :i 5 S 9 e S\9, 5
\\ it'll f \ PIS aaa� 8 g 3
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES I dR, a
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS RUPPLE ROW
iri
:scceoe
=
S87so
4444444
:>s�Gxc
gL6yi�
oa�z8�
£Ey3ygsA#:
�a3S;g'Y
kES�
•I
zppp�5¢�fi5�55Ea5rLLs5gg:c¢7�sss1:r
t
��Ij�
yE, illy n w
alp yen �p
Yv1� P�
WOR
9
N
4
i
P
n
n!
P
4
P
•�
I �s
I �
vim
Ir I
Eli
�_ -1=
Lr
IN
.• r A,
IS
lz
IN
I I ' i3 t4 v
1 i •, Ilie
, - I i t_ J I_ 9%
IN f
1 M. I. , , i R $$
I J• I 1 r �,IN _
IN
IN IN I I amI I INI I IN I.
« I 1 I ^ I i' INs;
1 I. I r 1 I i� ?
_ IN , I« I I I I I C . 4v �.< gqOgq Y
I w,
—--J 1 IIN
I I
I u I l u I I r
I I 6i
IN
1
IN IN Iky"
IN1 , r am^ a a.0
IN i It I IN
IN
IN
^ I =J
fof
I
~�✓ %j / \
®
e
G va
A � bn Lx•nIN
R _ Y� E b
f
BY: .•,,,.: = WE
L.
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES m E*�� ®• ;+ OIIi� S
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS IRYPPLE ROW SUBDIVISON I
�•.�.. ,... „. PRELIMINARY PLAT V311c
June 1, 2004 C. 5. New Business
City Council Meeting R-PZD 04-06.00 (John Nock)
04'.
I ,
' - I
f -
I..
IN
.�t ^ ,w I 1
.. -- — T-
i.. 1 j.. � p f � .. � �\• �— 1
pVIA alk
p
ZiaImr
At
04 MOM
Zmm In
C�_, J I w
MO
01.
nO
1 I @g¢
USI I On IOrk g
is I I I I ' I» w I I_ I no00,
I I I� oRa"A
OP OR
1 — In
iUP .•
-
10 Imp , 1141,
I I 1 , .. I R—fie E E
in MV
' of In l Im
On I 'ImI 1�
I �.� puTYM^?
i i
—
�J———� 4443 iII'»i Ir"' II
� 1
/ /
IIIIIS
i
"�LBLCc
on LION
ACAC��'
j8aaij'b
- c
�
aa �� � F���t� f
Bv: muter.JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES a E� III10 w5 E
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS IRUPPLE ROW SUBDIVISION I
PRELIMINARY PLAT V3 I6
4
&
g
��
<C
by
�
R
June 1, 2004 C. 5. New Business
City Council Meeting R-PZD 04-06.00 (John Nock)
Y
kAdd,, 9e sD •.? I 1 / /
CII
�tif
&6�a5555v5��M1�eeCGLLCLG�
tl���•tl�Y����l�r�i;��dM�i�
T1S833
Eli
y
s.yg
>$S2t
Esk
.�igo:a&zssag�yE�
�3a:E�g`�aPi3?z�
r �
Mill �%�1111,11
%
%%14 %
%%
•-�' S •Y I;"�' / 4* WU1 ,Ile \
T e / __ _ _
do' do
dddd� a' MOP
# Y a dd,d
It
/If
`L
L a
YX YF i
i—.
ssi;ss�
osoa�e
ILL
` C
Add
Add
doo do.
� i I '. �Y S � e c .� � . �. : p . : � • e Q � 7 A
Tp
2
/ h / £ / 4 /° / A P j
!� Jig // \ Y I x brx AM!
Q.o•
Gn"WrIl "•
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES m momL" m
CIVIL ENGINEERS o SURVEYORS RUPPLE ROW SUBDIVISION 2/1
-
Y » PRELIMINARY PLAT 3
d=_,� •M M �1T.t!
R /I 91 t eG'�IR•w w#� S� l a #q 'e R � $ 4 ""� � \
/ / " •` ur UAW •E r
lk
P P R R
' �� � T � a . � S" ' R w t • +/ e • � 4 ' R� e • �/ e S R • G k \ 3. 9 ' L
\
_ —
/\\ � I r�ae 4 ', o.t •'+k'.Z .y R_3 Pi 1. S A
.00
t� 4r 4N' rW r
�• ur
sl A R
• I 1l1 — R S I6 S w �.y_ �•�• t u. '�� InS! t w 6' � ¢ S R. S �. � P .. R
s R'
\ �•. _� I I M ar ur V 0
Z •e_. t F. 4AW r ur ur $ ur
71 \�tg � i ., ' _ `•��_ _ _�JI�—ice 3.��� ������
n 9
iPt I '� - F�c� •. �• w..r e•u� es' T umum «n. /
I1 / ••..� � « rm ..�• / «,.
\GA
' t a t i t e R I+ a t M I• t 9. RE
1 R /
T — 1
"N20=2e
88;;
ONe
888
.$8g
7p^vC�rL
.PRR:E{
"$sc�xn
55aa
PRC
ens'=
•I
����d
S.55'a
'c6�5556CG5
C
L
rr
'e
tog
o
N
sY€Cgg
Cue•dR
P>:
'{Y.,�$E�4r•.
i:s
eE8
�"�y�
i"'•'\ �e u u u um
p 1 /
L
I / i 1 R It li�l�" IR \\' E E7 •g ��`\ a lP •��: Pln .ail\ ° ;� p a�°g �/ \AD
�—�P
T
! I tAMU� 5 a•3�.Si.SR.ts..S �.ReR 3 .ti'.° ..'�R.i : n�a Sg.S$.S $. BAR 4a.
um .r
I I
ME
cm Lowm
3
P n 8`p IS
1 ►ot
�. �E=m mot.: �.» #: t ��iI► ���lw i m Z
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES p ,ewA <.. pg p
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS RUPPLE ROW SUBDIVISION 3JIM
II£I'I IAljl
.w„,.m,... PRELIMINARY PLAT V31V
C>
\_
glulgialQ1014
.RR
.
a
ALy
C.Sr.
a
Lgv
C•d
e;;<sRe
gagase
a�ei$�a
G�65SEE€SEESES:=,::trGt
9
�
I7"
g
till
15
=p41
15
i�ii
1
1
1=
tia
•
=�E."d�LC6SP`ETY€7:"giw��$�LF�
xN
. �TTT - •�n�TT�R n
I
I
Ilk
1
i
I
4
JORGEN EN & ASSOCIATES mm. mwua m I
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS RUPPLE ROW SUBDIVISION 3 £
PRELIMINARY PLAT 3
4.,
Lam .. -aft RY• r
-- < /. �� « c •i
4 /
.0
6 ,tea r C,S � I / f R, " /6� / i
q �
I
dial
�q
03,
x12
kRREE
6GC56CGGry
qeo
y
14
aesase$;`5azeaszs',sa';���
aRaaI::■a an. a, P
Jill
�r
3p•3 Z'
R
R R 9
� 1
Yrr ,
/ a
.v /
1 rIIII./
P R6
to
--R ... I —"'\o• -- *7 /I x\ �r-sir-- L42i,
—y —R
I
• CW / `Yii" ' n ne R �_ vv qs A
���\, `\yR \�// .•'J,/+ 'Y1 Y—�I� Ys\��_ �j•Y� � i � S KR �_ �
L�; -- — \ •� 11 nemw
ddd
0,00
IF
+ All
YY, �/ Y 1•C2 OCE S �C YC YCV ♦ Y�'\R 'SCi �t�Y 'n.rS iS it \` W
I:
J �)
" eay3
i
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
Yea.mr.r.mmua.Y.YY.rY «.nwn r
0
wommomm
sasaa�
ox�g>og
ff
vv��)•.
-gti?ai
$8ak^Rc