No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4625tlllll ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ' Doc: 007827800002 TVDe: REL Recorded: 11/02/2004 at 08:51:02 AM Fee Amt: $11.00 Paoe 1 of 2 Washlnoton Countv. AR Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk ORDINANCE N0.4 6 2 5 F11e2004-00045123 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-1166 AS SUBMITTED BY RAYMOND SMITH ON BEHALF OF SLOAN PROPERTIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF BROYLES AVENUE AND SOUTH OF PERSIMMON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 22.94 ACRES FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER ACRE 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 R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 Units Per Acre as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 19`s day of October, 2004. By: APPROVED: COODY, ATTEST: •�""jC�TR "'��,, •��``%� •'jG.0048. I Y 0/"a By: = :FAYETTEWLLE: SO RA SMITH, City Clerk .4; :; EXHIBIT "A" RZN 04-1166 PART OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW '/4 AND PART OF THE NE '/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 13, T16N, R31W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID NW '/4, NW '/4 THENCE S8700210"E 2607.55 FEET, THENCE S02023'339'W 335.02 FEET, THENCE N87009541"W 785.46 FEET, THENCE S02055'40'W 224.40 FEET, THENCE N85056'35"W 518.52 FEET, THENCE N52054'42"W 470.00 FEET, THENCE N86031'26"W 300.00 FEET, THENCE S86006538"W 620.46 FEET, THENCE N0203810"E 358.93 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 22.94 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. Washington. County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 11/02/2004 08:51:02 AM and recorded in Real Estate File Number2004-00045123 Bette t rails . Circuit Clerk by N NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No, 4625 CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Document 1 09/17/04 memo to mayor & City Council 2 draft ordinance 3 memo to Planning Commission 4 letter from Police Dept. to Dawn Warrick 5 copy of Current Ownership Information & any proposed or pending property sales 6 copy of Planning Commission minutes 7 copy of Close Up View 6 copy of One Mile View 9 copy of Future Land Use 10 Staff Review 11 memo to Dawn Warrick 12 Affidavit of Publication 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOTES: 1/2/04 Ifiled at Wash. Co. Circuit Clerk office � id�i9/a�l City Council Meetin'gTof October 05, 2004 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO R� _1/4 0 To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator U)V- Date: September 17, 2004 Subject: Rezoning request for Sloan Properties (RZN 04-1166) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance rezoning approximately 22.94 acres of property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units per acre. BACKGROUND The City Council passed Ordinance 4596 on August 03, 2004 thereby annexing 160 acres of property south of Persimmon Street. In the absence of a formal rezoning request, the property was given a zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural. The applicant requests to rezone the northern 22.94 acres of the 160 acre annexed property. A large single family home currently exists on the property, and it is the location for an off -site detention pond that will serve Cross Keys, a subdivision under construction to the north. Persimmon Place, Cross Keys R-PZD, and Rupple Row R-PZD are located north of the subject property. The applicant requested the property be rezoned from R-A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-2, Residential Single Family, 2 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's intent is to develop large single family residential lots south of Persimmon Street. Staff recommended approval of a rezoning to RSF-4 for the subject property. Rezoning the property to RSF-4 will increase the density, allowing for more intense residential use of the property and allow for development compatible to surrounding residential subdivisions. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on September 13, 2004. The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to forward this rezoning request to the City Council with a recommendation for approval to rezone the subject property RSF-4. BUDGETIMPACT None. �`'rC0jr /S.tricrdiny i�ls�o�/ • 9 AT' By: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-1166 AS SUBMITTED.BY RAYMOND SMITH ON BEHALF OF SLOAN PROPERTIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF BROYLES AVENUE AND SOUTH OF PERSIMMON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 22.94 ACRES FROM R-A, RESID NTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGE FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: , Section 1: That the property is hereby changed as From R-A, Residential tkgricultural to Units Per Acre as shown IftiNihibit "A" Section 2. That i Arkansas, is hereby PASSED AND AP,P,RC Sondra Smith, City Clerk THE CITY OF of the followin described Residential Single -Family, 4 hereto and made a part hereof. 'of the City of Fayetteville, zoning change provided in of 92004. DAN COODY, Mayor EXHIBIT "A" RZN 04-1166 PART OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW %4 AND PART OF THE NE'/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 13, T16N, R31W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID NW '/4, NW IATHENCE S87002' 10"E 2607.55 FEET, THENCE S02023'33"W 335.02 FEET, THENCE N87009'41"W 785.46_ FEET, THENCE S02055'401W 224.40 FEET, THENCE N85'56'35"W 518.622"`FEET, THENCE N52054'42"W 470.00 FEET, THENCE N860311265'W�r300.00 FEET, THENCE S86006'38"W 620.46 FEET, THENCE N02038510"E 35 :93 FAT TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 22.94 ACRES MORE OR LESS S BJECT T EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. � �! FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of September 13, 2004 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator DATE: September 8, 2004 RZN 04-1166: Rezoning (SLOAN PROPERTIES, 477): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at EAST OF BROYLES AVENUE AND SOUTH OF PERSIMMON STREET. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 22.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-2, Residential Single-family, 2 units per acre. Property Owner: CHARLES SLOAN Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends rezoning of subject property to RSF-4 based on previous findings for RZN 04-11.00 (Greenwood/Sloan) and those found herein. MISSION, ACTION: e: September 13, 2004 'Y COUNCIL ACTION: e: October 05, 2004 BACKGROUND: Required YES ' ' - O Approved O Denied Required O Approved YES (D Denied At the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2004, a proposal to annex and rezone a 160 acre tract was tabled upon request of the applicant. The annexation and rezoning proposals were brought before the Planning Commission again on June 28, 2004, at which the annexation was forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval and the rezoning request was tabled at the request of the applicant. The City Council passed Ordinance 4596 on August 031 2004 thereby annexing the 160 acres of property. In the absence of a formal rezoning request, the property was given a zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural. (See attached minutes.) Property description: The subject property contains approximately 22.94 acres located south of Persimmon Street and west of Rupple Rd. It is the northern portion of the 160 acre tract recently annexed into the City and zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. A large single family home and detention pond for Cross Keys Subdivision (under construction) currently exist on the property. Persimmon Place, Cross Keys R-PZD, and Rupple Row R-PZD are located north of the subject property. Request: The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned from R-A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-2, Residential Single Family, 2 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's intent is to develop large single family residential lots south of Persimmon Street. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a rezoning to RSF-4 as previously recommended by staff for the subject property based on the findings included in the staff report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Direction Land Use Zoning North Vacant (Persimmon Place and Cross Keys PPL under construction RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units/acre R-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys South Vacant R-A, Residential Agricultural East Vacant R-A, Residential Agricultural West Vacant R-A, Residential Agricultural INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Currently the site has access to Persimmon Street and Broyles Road along the north and west sides of the property. At the time of development, Persimmon Street will need to meet the current street standards. Broyles Road is planned to be improved as part of the treatment plant project. Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets: North: Persimmon St. (future collector) and 46th Street (local) South: Sellers Rd. (future minor arterial) East: Rupple Rd. (future minor arterial) West: Broyles Rd. (collector) Water: The property has access to a 6" water main along 46th Avenue. A 12" water main will be extended to the east property line with the construction of Rupple Row subdivision that is currently underway. Also, a 12" water main will be extended along Broyles Road along the west property line as a part of the City of Fayetteville Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility. Currently the developer has a plan approved for the construction of a 12" water main to serve this property. This main will extend from the proposed 12" main of Rupple Row to the proposed 12" main along Broyles. Sewer: The site currently has access to a 10" sanitary sewer main that runs through the property along Owl creek. Approval of additional units added to the sewer system in this area will be dependant upon the remaining capacity in the Owl Creek lift station. Fire: The subject property is located 1.2 miles from the future Fire Station #7. Normal driving time is approximately 4 minutes to the subject property and 4-5 minutes at full build -out, assuming no access to Rupple Road with this development. Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. However, it will place an increased load on police services. The rezoning will not create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. However, it will create some increase in traffic congestion. Individually, each of these annexations and rezonings do not necessarily substantially alter the population density, nor do they create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion. The sum total presented over the years, however, has had a substantial impact on the demand for police services and has caused an appreciable increase in traffic congestion. Without the addition of police. patrol personnel, these areas may see a lack of traffic enforcement or may experience situations where officers are delayed in answering many calls for service because of call volume exceeds the number of officers available to respond in a timely manner. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates the site as Residential. Unlike RSF-4, rezoning this property to RSF-2 is not compatible with surrounding development in the area. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: The proposed zoning of 2 units per acre for a single family residential development is not consistent with existing zoning and density to the north of the subject property. Development of Persimmon Place Subdivision has been approved to the northwest of the property. It is zoned RSF-4 and developed at 2.65 units per acre. The preliminary plat. for Cross Keys R-PZD 04-02.00 was approved for development with a density of 2.81 units per acre. Finally, property to the northeast of the property is zoned R-PZD (Rupple Row) with a density of 6.24 units per acre. Property to the east, south, and west is vacant and within the R-A zoning district. Alternatively, rezoning the property to RSF4 will increase the density, allowing for more intense residential use of the property and allow for development compatible to surrounding residential subdivisions. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning will result in a residential development which will fail to promote orderly and consistent development patterns. A higher density than the RSF-2 zoning district allows for development of a subdivision with density appropriate in this area, and would provide compatibility with the adjoining and surrounding approved developments. In order to develop a residential subdivision on this property in a manner that is consistent with the future land use plan, a residential zoning district is needed. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Development of large single family homes with individual access onto a collector street may create a dangerous traffic situation. The police department has determined this rezoning will place an increased load on police services. The rezoning will not create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. However, it will create some increase in traffic congestion. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: The approximately 22.94 acre tract under an R-A, Residential Agricultural designation would allow for a maximum of 11 dwelling units (1 per 2 acres). With the proposed RSF-2 designation, density requirement would allow development of 45 dwelling units; contrasted to the potential 91 units if rezoned to RSF-4. Rezoning the property to either RSF-2 or RSF-4 increases the possible number of residential units substantially, yet a zoning classification of RSF-4 is consistent with land use and zoning within the City of Fayetteville and developing areas to the north. The following is a review of available services: Engineering — The property has access to a 6" water main along 46th Avenue. A 12" water main will be extended to the east property line with the construction of Rupple Row subdivision that is currently underway. Also, a 12" water main will be extended along Broyles Road along the west property line as a part of the City of Fayetteville Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility. Currently the developer has a plan approved for the construction of a 12" water main to serve this property. This main will extend from the proposed 12" main of Rupple Row to the proposed 12" main along Broyles. The site currently has access to a 10" sanitary sewer main that runs through the property along Owl creek. Approval of additional units added to the sewer system in this area will be dependant upon the remaining capacity in the Owl Creek lift station. Currently the site has access to Persimmon Street and Broyles Road along the north and west sides of the property. At the time of development, Persimmon Street will need to meet the current street standards. Broyles Road is planned to be improved as part of the treatment plant project. Fire - The subject property is located 1.2 miles from the future Fire Station #7. Normal driving time is approximately 4 minutes to the subject property and 4-5 minutes at full build -out, assuming no access to Rupple Road with this development. Police - The police department has determined this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police 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 ) 0 l 0 161.03 District R-A, Residential -Agricultural (A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural district are designed to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural areas; obtain economy of public funds in the providing of public improvements and services of orderly growth; conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for affordable housing, increase scenic attractiveness; and conserve open space. (B) Uses. f l) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 6 Agriculture Unit 7 Animal husbandry Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 37 Manufactured homes f2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Wl Density Units racreI One-half /D) Bulk and area regulations. Lot width minimum 200 ft. Lot Area Minimum: Residential: 2 acres Nonresidential: 2 acres Lot area per dwelling unit 2 acres W) Rethark reaviremenic 11 Front Side Rear 11 35 ft. 20 ft. 35 ft. (F) Height requirements. There shall be no maximum height limits in the A-1 District, provided, however, that any building which exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured from the required setback lines. (G) Building area. None. 161.06 District Rsf-2, Residential Single -Family — Two Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. To provide a single-family dwelling transition zone between single-family neighborhoods that have developed with larger lot sizes (one acre and over) and areas that have developed with smaller lot sizes.(8,000 sq. ft.), and to permit and encourage the development of low density, detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 Ci -wide uses b right Un 8 Sin le-famil dwellings (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. Unitsperacre 1 2 (D) Bulk and area regulations. Lot width minimum 100 ft. Lot area minimum 21,780 s . ft. Land area per dwelling unit 21,780 s . ft. (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 30 ft. 15 ft. 30 ft. (F) Height regulations. 11 Building height maximum 1 35 ft. (G) Building area. None. 161.07 District RSF4, Residential Single - Family — Four Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. 1 Permitted uses. Unit 1 Ci -wide uses b ri ht UnitB Sin le-famil dwellin (2) Conditional uses Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use pennit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit Two-familydwellings Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density Single-family dwellings Two-family dwellin s Units r acre 4 or less 7 or less (D) Bulk and area regulations Single-family dwellings Two-family dwellings Lot minimum width 70 ft. 80 ft. Lot area minimum 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. Land area per dwelling unit 8,000 sq. ft. - 6,000 sq. ft. (E) Setback reauirementc 11 Front Side Rear 11 25 it. 8 ft. 20 ft. (F) Height. None. (G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. FAYE'i'1'EVILLE THE CRY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS September 7, 2004 Dawn Warrick Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Warrick, .RECEIVED 5:�' f 0 2004 PLANNING DI'/oI,CE DEPARTMENT This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed rezoning RZN 04-1166 (Sloan, pp 477) submitted by Raymond Smith for property located East of Broyles Avenue and South of Persimmon Street would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. However, it will place an increased load on police services. The rezoning will not create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. However, it will create some increase in traffic congestion. Individually, each of these annexations and rezonings do not necessarily substantially alter the population density, nor do they create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion. The sum total presented over the years, however, has had a substantial impact on the demand for police services and has caused an appreciable increase in traffic congestion. Without the addition of police patrol personnel, these areas may see a lack of traffic enforcement or may experience situations where officers are delayed in answering many calls for service because of call volume exceeds the number of officers available to respond in a timely manner. YSinc rely, ieutenant William wn Fayetteville Police Department FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 19M FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-19W (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 JAIL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 PHONE: 479-587,3555 FAX: 479-587.3522 i� )� kka k§a k�\k �\m ()� to �« «a !0.90 r«� j\}x30 ,}2 CO \/\E30 =$r S45 ae .�. o. ®® ) /(!| X I } CO) \E k \\E 4 \/�\ \ \\\ . O u �w }\\ \ ![ m=m 2g i)i CO § tMZON § OCL )0 10 CURRENT OWNERSHIP INFORMATION AND ANY PROPOSED OR PENDING PROPERTY SALES Assessor's Parcel Number 001-11773-000, NW'/. of Section Thirteen (13) , TI6N, R31W 160.00 acres, more or less. There are no proposed or pending property sales for this property. REASON FOR REQUESTED ZONING CHANGE Parcel Number 001-11773-000 is currently zoned A-1 and will be annexed into the City of Fayetteville and zoned as R-A, It is proposed to re -zone 22.94 acres of the parcel to RSF-2 for development into a single family residential subdivision. LAND DEVELOPMENT The development of this property is consistent with the land use of the residential areas surrounding the proposed development with slight increase in vehicle traffic. WATER/SEWER ACCESS .An 6" water line is available on the North end of the property and a 12" water line is planned along the West side of the property. A 10" sewer line extends along the northern third of the property along Owl Creek. DEGREE TO WHICH THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE PLANNING OBJECTIVES, PRINCIPLES AND LAND USE AND ZONING PLANS The proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. WHETHER THE PROPOSED ZONING IS JUSTIFIED AND/OR NEEDED AT THE TIME THE REZONING IS PROPOSED The proposed rezoning is justified at this time in that it is in keeping with the policies and adopted plans of the City of Fayetteville. Zoning this property as RSF-2 is consistent with surrounding subdivision. WHETHER THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD CREATE OR APPRECIABLY INCREASE TRAFFIC DANGER AND ,r 1• The proposed zoning will not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. WHETHER THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD ALTER THE POPULATION DENSITY AND THEREBY UNDESIRABLY INCREASE THE LOAD ON PUBLIC SERVICES INCLUDING SCHOOLS, WATER, AND SEWER FACILITIES This increase is not expected to undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water and sewer facilities. Improvements planned to the Fayetteville overall wastewater treatment system and the coming on line of the new wastewater treatment facility on the western side of Fayetteville should adequately provide services to the sub- division. WOULD IT BE IMPRACTICAL TO USE THE LAND FOR ANY OF THE USES PERMITTED UNDER ITS EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION This property is presently in the county but within the Fayetteville Growth Area. It would be impractical to maintain the A-1 or R-A zoning since it would be inconsistent with the surrounding areas already zoned as residential subdivisions, Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 48 ANX 04-01.00: Annexation (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-11.00: Rezoning (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: I believe the next item on our agenda is ANX 04-01.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. Morgan: This subject property contains approximately 160 acres of vacant property located south of Persimmon Street east of the future Broyles Avenue and west of the southern extension of Rupple Road. The approved Preliminary Plats for Persimmon Place and Cross Keys R-PZD are located just north of this subject property. The property is adjacent to the city limits to the north and the west. The applicant proposes the annexation of this property, 160 acres into the City of Fayetteville. Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation based on findings within the staff report and that the subject property is adjacent to the City of Fayetteville and will create appropriate city boundaries. In conjunction with this annexation request is RZN 04-11.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from R-A to RSF-4 should the preceding annexation request of 160 acres be approved. The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance limiting development to 1.5 units per acre. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could step forward, introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Smith: Good evening, my name is Raymond Smith. I submitted the application on behalf of Greenwood and Mr. Sloan of Sloan Properties. As was explained, this property is located southeast of the intersection of 461h and Persimmon. It is approximately 160 acres. It is adjacent to 40 acres for the Cross Keys subdivision which this would be part of the Cross Keys subdivision that is already in the city being developed. Mr. Sloan has quite a bit of detail here that he is passing out to you that shows the location of this property and what the plans are. Planning Commission l • • June 28, 2004 Page 49 Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, the owner/developer of the 160 acres. What I have given you tonight is a drawing. This has my property which is the west 160 acres and then the McBryde property which is attached to mine on the east side running parallel. I am working with the McBrydes to help them develop theirs at the same time that I'm doing mine. What we have proposed here is a subdivision, we do have floodplain in this subdivision. We knew that going in. One of the questions that I had was what to do with that floodplain which would be open field for the neighborhood to look at. One day it dawned on me why not putting in a first T golf course for kids. It is across the street from the Boys Club and was it possible. We went and talked with the Boys and Girls Club, visited with them for a little bit and they said yes, that they would be interested in doing something if we could build it and make the revenue neutral for them so it didn't cost them anything to maintain. We sort of put our heads together and talked with a couple of other developers in that area that are already under construction right now and asked them if they would be willing to participate with us and they said yes. We are trying to take the floodplain, we have had a wetland study done and are avoiding all of the wetlands and we decided to see if we could get in a nine hole golf course. We have talked with the First Tee again to see if they would be interested in helping us out with the golf course that teaches kids nine core values. We plan on having lots that will range in different sizes from 145' lots to 95' lots around this golf course and down to the south of it. We do expect to bring this to you in phases. We are probably not going to go out there and do this all at one time. Knowing the city's situation with the sewer plant we do know that we have to do this in phases according to plan. Obviously, we are not going to build streets and get lots ready and find out that we don't have capacity. We understand that but we do already have the property. On the south corner coming up on the McBryde's southeast corner there is about I 1 acres in there. Some is in the floodplain, some is not. There are some wetlands around it. Rather than try to work our way into the wetlands we decided just to make that a park for that area. That is what we would like to have. Once again, whoever maintains the golf course and has ownership has to maintain the park. Basically, what we are trying to do is put this in and offer it to the Boys and Girls Club to offer kids golf. It shouldn't cost them anything. There are scholarships to buy clubs for kids who can't afford it. It is a good amenity. There is still a lot of meshing of different people, architects and engineers that it has to go through. A lot of things that we did ask for is that it has to be environmentally friendly because there is a creek around this. We don't need to build pebble beach. We need to build a golf course that has low maintenance, something natural that keeps fertilizers and things like that down to a minimum. There are a lot of issues that we are trying to address. We will maintain a minimum of 20' buffer off of the creek. We have had the Corp. of Engineers out there with us. They have looked at our plans and said that they did not have problems with anything that we Planning Commission i • ) • June 28, 2004 Page 50 were trying to do. We will need detention and things like that so there are a lot of issues still to address. What we would come through first would be the portion abutting Persimmon Street. We are building Persimmon Street now in the first phase of Cross Keys. We are building from 461h Street and over to the Nock property and the McBryde property and then it is going to be taken on over to Rupple Road for the Boys Club. Other than that, with staff s recommendation, we have met with other developers that are coming through tonight to get together so good things could happen that would benefit each one of us. One of the things hat we talked about that is not on my plat and I don't think it is really on his yet because it hasn't been worked out, we talked with the Corp. about maybe not having Rupple go straight south, go to the south of the property that the school would like to purchase and bring it away from the wetland area, south around the valley basically verses putting it on the side of the hill as it does now. Those are some issues that will have to be worked out. Right now it is just a concept plan. We feel comfortable with that 1.5 Bill of Assurance for my property and the McBryde property together. We left a little bit of flexibility. We did look at the RSF-2 zoning and the problem with that is that it requires the 100' lots and some of these lots are 90' or 95'. It is almost like a great thing for a PZD except it has so many people that would have to come together to make this work. We would like to at least go ahead and get started to build the road across there. We would like to get that started and then get some answers basically on what we need to do further to the south. We can do this in phases. This phase is going to be based on what city capacity is. We have been working closely with Greg Boettcher since a year ago on this thing to know what the capacity of the treatment plant was at knowing that if I purchased this property could I have capacity in 2006. We know that there are issues to face on this project. That is sort of where we are at. I bought my property January 9`h. The McBrydes have owned their property for 24 years. We did not go out and make this decision based on the school. We made a decision to do this project. The Jowers asked me if I would be interested if they wanted to sale. Jean and 1 have been friends for years. They have been gracious to work with me and give me the opportunity on this project. We have already paid for it and purchased it. It is the same price whether it is in the floodplain or not. We did think that maybe bringing an amenity to Fayetteville would be great. I did talk to First Tee and there will be a First Tee golf course in Northwest Arkansas. They are fishing for a home. I would like for it to be in Fayetteville. 1 would like for it to be on this property. Right now I think that is where they would like to have it at. Ostner: 1 will open the floor to public comment at this point. Ralston: Good evening. I'm Linda Ralston. I'm fairly new to the Planning process. I just want a clarification. I know it was comment about the Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 51 ,• RSF-2. I just wanted that clarified, it sounds like maybe a portion of this is commercial so I wondered if that all ties into the same zoning area. Are there different zonings? That is a comment just from being a little bit green. Also, through this area that is being talked about for Rupple Road and Persimmon and along that. Rupple Road I believe is no longer on the master street plan to go all the way through to Hwy. 62 or Oh Street. There is a lot coming together right in that area and I'm greatly concerned about a cul-de-sac almost bottlenecking. Ostner: Thank you. Would someone else like to speak? McGuire Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I live at 2742 N. Cheryl Avenue. I'm actually almost reduced to hysterical laughter. I don't even know if I will be able to speak because I believe I have just heard that the disadvantaged children of the Jefferson School neighborhood are going to get to trade their neighborhood school for a golf course! That is just what they need. I would be curious whether this Greenwood/Sloan annexation included a golf course when they brought it before you before but decided to table it. If not, I would say that there has been some influence by those of who has been trying to take a closer look and maybe resisting all of this annexation because these people are now trying to put in amenities to make these things more attractive than what they might have been before. I do appreciate your hard work of sitting up here and doing all of the studying that you have to do. 1 want to say again almost hysterically, that we just got a notice from the tax assessor for our land. We have some land in Goshen and it's value has gone from $36,000 to $75,000 in one year and we don't even have sewers or a school or anything. Definitely things are going on here. I just want to point out that I imagine that the reason that this Greenwood/Sloan annexation came forward when it did, which was a couple of months ago and right at the same time as the McBryde/Sloan is because of the location of the, school on the McBryde/Sloan plat. It was immediately after the McBryde/Sloan property was chosen as the most possible location of Jefferson School that this annexation came out. I just wanted to point out again that there is a tremendous relationship between school placement and development. I do feel in terms of the annexation task force and even getting the right of citizens to speak at the school board that it is really all too late. That the very wise entrepreneurs and business men and investment bankers in town have done wonderful long term planning and are all ready to leap out with everything already all planned, a ten year plan for schools and all of these things and before we barely have time to wake up it is going to be over. It is going to be over tonight a lot of it might be. Anyway, I don't know if we should annex or not. I am more looking at the relationship between school placement and development. With this school placement out here the Westside development is taken care of. Next it will be the Cummins Park school on the south side and that will take care of the development Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 52 out there, acres of development added on. Then there is going to be the Hissum School on Hissufn Lane going out toward Goshen on Hwy. 45. Ostner: Ms. Bowman, there is no school called for on this project that we are talking about tonight. Bowman: We'll look at McBryde/Sloan to see if there is a school called for there either and we will wonder why not. Anyway, I just want to make a relationship between all of this annexation. It wouldn't be going on right now, they wouldn't have come forward except that the school got placed out there. Ostner: Thank you. Are there other comments from the public? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. We have talked about both annexation and rezoning in the same conversations but really we are only looking at the annexation item first. Anthes: In contrast to the last annexation that I voted against I do find that this particular parcel seems to fit more of the criteria for annexation guideline policy. One is that it is a piece of property that is tucked in a pocket that is almost completely wrapped with the City of Fayetteville. It is much closer to density and to a commercial neighborhood node at Wedington and Rupple and the Boys and Girls Club and a R-PZD that we just approved for Rupple Row and the fire station. We have density there that seems to speak to this property having more pressure for development than perhaps some of the more outlying areas. Also, we do have quite a large amount of environmentally sensitive area within this property that I would hope that the city could work with on. I had no idea about this golf course and the annexation, which way we choose to vote one way or the other has nothing to do with whether this amenity is offered. I will say that protecting that water way and making sure that whatever happens there, whether it is a golf course, greenspace, dedication or whatever, is handled in a way that contributes positively to the tributaries and streams in the area. If this is 160 acres, which seems to me is large, and would be something that I would be looking for a fiscal impact assessment on. However, since it seems like we have not ever required those before nor has the annexation task force, from what Commissioner Graves was saying, it doesn't seem like they are going to be requesting those reports. I guess I'm not going to let that hold me back on this site. Graves: I don't necessarily think that the taskforce won't be asking for those kinds of reports. I think that the taskforce is looking at a wide range of things such as recommendations to make amendments to the General Plan when that occurs next year. Recommendations for the ordinances surrounding annexation and some guiding policies for annexation. The chance of getting a fiscal impact study for these particular properties in the time Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 53 frame that the taskforce has been organized could not have occurred. It is information that the taskforce is certainly interested in and has inquired about. 1 would expect that information much like the sewer impact study tat everyone waited on last year on annexation. 1 would expect that some of that type of information would be forthcoming as a result of recommendations coming out of the taskforce. It probably isn't something that we are going to see right away on some of the things that are coming before us in the meantime. Shackelford: Staff, part of this request we have been given a Bill of Assurance limiting density to 1.5 units per acre. Just for the record to make sure we are all on the same page, Commissioner Vaught asked earlier what goes into the denominator of that calculation. We have talked about this area being a golf course and possibly greenspace that would be dedicated. You made the comment earlier that if it was a park that it would not go in to the calculation for density. What about if it is as proposed a golf course or if it is required to be set aside as greenspace? Would that go into the calculation for density? Warrick: That is an issue pertinent to the rezoning which will be the next item that we are talking about. Not knowing what is going to happen my understanding is that 1.5 that is being offered with the Bill of Assurance for this project covers the whole 160 acres. We would certainly have to look at all of the variables with regard to whether or not the Parks Department wishes to have that property dedicated to the city so that it would then be under the city's ownership for the golf course. I am not sure that that is necessarily in the plans for this particular site. The golf course is relatively new for all of us I believe. Right now my understanding is that the offer by the developer is a calculation of 1.5 density over the entire 160 acres. Shackelford: Obviously I am jumping the gun and talking about rezoning before we talk about annexation but I've already started so I'm going to finish. What about as the applicant indicated this thing comes in and is phased? Will the Bill of Assurance limiting it to 1.5 per acre, I don't understand how that is going to work because they bring in the first phase that is probably going to be greater than that density thinking that they are looking at the overall piece. How would you approach that as staff? Warrick: Honestly, for this particular site it is a little bit problematic to look at one overall zoning. The speaker who made the first comments with regard to the golf course questioned the zoning and whether that was a different district and how that would be handled. We did some quick checking and golf courses are permitted in certain zoning districts but not in residential zoning districts. My suggestion would be that this area, because of the varying densities that the developer appears to be proposing and because Planning Commission • 1 • June 28, 2004 Page 54 of the amenities that they have proposed with the golf course if it does come to fact and also the fact that there is a portion of this property that is covered by floodplain and floodway. This is a site that falls under the criteria that we would encourage a developer to process a Planned Zoning District. At that point they have some latitude with setting out densities and lot sizes and different types of community open space, which is part of the idea with regard to this golf course area if I'm understanding it the way that I believe it has been presented then it really does kind of fall under those types of projects that we would encourage someone to process as a Planned Zoning District. It is not something that really fits into the package of one existing zoning district for every portion of the site. Shackelford: With that I have one more question. Have we seen a situation and is it possible to have a PZD when you have a project that encompasses more than one tract of property which brings in more than one applicant as this proposed development does? Warrick: I think as long as all of the applicants were willing and served collectively as one voice then it is possible to do something like that. In many cases we see groups of individuals come together to make a request for a commercial development or in some cases an annexation. You will see later in the agenda there is an annexation proposal that has several different property owners represented in the petition. That is something where collectively it works better than individually. It is possible. Ostner: My concern is that this is a terrific drawing. I've never even heard of First Tee and I'm blown away. It is an amazing concept but with an annexation and rezoning it is really just a suggestion. The applicant, good intentions aside, is not legally bound to this drawing. This is an idea that he wants to do. Mr. Shackelford raised a great point. If we rezone to single family, Mr. Sloan could run into a problem trying to rezone the golf course, can't get it rezoned and suddenly two years from now the golf course isn't built. I just want to make it clear that if this were a PZD we would have a lot more certainty that this terrific concept could be brought through. We are simply considering the annexation and the land use rezoning at this point. Vaught: I guess my opinion on it is we need to look at whether we think it is appropriate to rezone and then we need to establish an appropriate rezoning, with or without a Bill of Assurance, with or without these concept drawings. Let the developer, if this is what he wants, work with city staff and hopefully he would be amicable to bringing forward a PZD. He understands the complications with breaking up a zone like this in these ways because you would have to break up the lots and then it gets funny with the Bill of Assurance and how do you calculate the 1.5. Those are a lot of my questions, even floodplain and actual creek acreage. I Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 55 don't know if that is included in the calculation. Is it included in the calculation of the 1.5? Warrick: My guess is that it is. This is relatively new information for us. Vaught: In my opinion it is prime to be annexed. It is definitely a residential area of town with it's location and with what is going on around it. With the Boys and Girls Club and with our statements that we would like to see heavier density in some areas like Rupple Road and some of these new areas that have come in. I would almost think that 1.5 units per acre is too low but I think that with the amount of floodplain that's where we are falling into that .1.5 units per acre because we can't build on a lot of this site. I would hope as a PZD we could possibly work with the applicant. If they came tows as one 240 acre site that would be a situation like we had on wilson springs where we had such a large area that the engineering work that had to be done on the site was overwhelming. It could possibly be one of those more confusing PZDs would be correct in this situation. Ostner: Thank you. Matt, on 7.10 and 11 can you explain a little bit how I'm to read this? I'm understanding that there is sewer capacity for these projects but if you could just touch on how to read your charts for me. Casey: The chart hereon 7.10 lists the three major lift stations in the area. We are looking at Owl Creek .lift station for this area but it also pumps directly into Hamestring Creek. Any impact we have on Owl Creek will also impact Hamstring Creek. What we have shown here are the estimated remaining units left that could be added to lift stations. If we add 200 units to the Owl Creek lift station we also need to figure that into the impact of the Hamestring Creek also. On the next page, Dawn may need to help me on this, I have not seen this table before. That was something that our Planning Division put together. Warrick: I will try to help. On page 7.11 what we've tried to do is give the Planning Commission and City Council an understanding of what impact on that determined remaining capacity on those three lift stations on the west side of town that new development would have. This goes back to some degree to Ms. Clark's conversation earlier about having available the ability to serve new developments. We have in the first table included the various projects that have been submitted and processed through the city. The last four are items that we are seeing tonight but those are projects that we have been considering since he study was released. That study gives you the numbers on page 7.10 as available units or remaining capacity on each of those lift stations. Those numbers represent the maximum based on the zoning district that each of these developments have requested. It is not real numbers with regard to approved Preliminary Plats. It is a maximum density if it was fully developed at Planning Commission } • • June 28, 2004 Page 56 that zoning that is being requested. We have calculated that out and projected remaining capacity, which is the last column in the second table on page 7.11. That indicates that there is remaining capacity in each of those lift stations to accommodate proposed developments at full density build out. Ostner: This is with our current sewer system and is totally independent of our project? Warrick: That is correct. That is without the Bills of Assurance that this developer has proposed. This is at the density that the underlying zoning would . allow. Ostner: The Bills of Assurance lower these numbers? Warrick: Yes, they would lower these numbers significantly. Vaught: If we approve this with the Bill of Assurance if he comes back through with a PZD it will trump that Bill of Assurance, is that correct? Williams: That is correct because in fact, it would be a rezoning. It is like if he came back with a different kind of zoning that was approved and then the most current rezoning folds. MOTION: Shackelford: In an effort to keep this thing moving forward, I agree with the comments that Commissioner Anthes made earlier. I think that this annexation makes a lot of sense based on where it is in relationship to the other standards that we are charged to look at. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of ANX 04-01.00. Clark: Second. Ostner. I have a question. I'm not sure if staff can answer it. On our findings our services, fire police and engineering have given us their report. On page 7.12 the Fayetteville Police Department's approval letter says that this project will not alter the population density or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. Wedington is a problem. It is less of a problem since it was widened. The Wedington/Betty Jo area is very problematic. I'm wondering what the capacity of Wedington might be. How close to capacity Wedington is flowing now. The accidents and the length of wait at that signal. I believe traffic should be right in here as an infrastructure that we have a finding for. I'm not sure the qualifications of the police department to consider the engineering of traffic flow. I would like to believe that they are fully Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 57 capable. I'm not sure they are. That is my question. Can you address any of those issues? Warrick: I can request reports and traffic counts on that area to get an understanding. I can tell you that the Highway Department is working on improvements to Wedington west of Rupple. Rupple Road east all the way into Garland to Gregg Street has been improved and the Highway Department currently has a project that they are working on widening Rupple Road west I believe to Double Springs but I can get you the information on that. That is a project that they are currently under way with. I believe that they are looking at rights of way acquisition and easements and utility relocations at this point in time. That is something that I can tell you. I can also say that when the Police Department is reviewing this they are reviewing this for annexation of vacant land. Annexation of vacant land doesn't necessarily cause any new impact. A development certainly would. Their evaluation of an annexation is to determine whether or not they can reasonably serve it and whether or not they serve that existing development in that area right now. Ostner: It is the same form letter for the rezoning as well. Warrick: It is. I encourage them to evaluate that specifically as well. If they give the same area then I have to take it on faith that they have reviewed it. They go on our Zoning Review Tours with us and they look at these sites. In this particular area yes Wedington does have a tremendous amount of traffic on it. Hwy. 62 does as well. These projects that we are considering, this property specifically is right in between the two. The city is currently building Broyles Road which is the north/south connector street between those, at least to the south end of the city limits of Fayetteville where it will be picked up and exist in the city of Farmington. Then we have Rupple Road which is projected to connect Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 16 but it can't unless development occurs along that corridor or the City Council determines that is the high priority and it becomes a capital improvement project on one of the city's future capital plans. Persimmon is a projected connector street east and west between Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 16 is being pieced together as various properties develop. That street will connect Double Springs Road to Shiloh Drive, the outer road to 1-540. Like I said, it is built in pieces and it is getting there but it won't be complete unless property is developed on either side or unless the City Council determines that is one of the highest priorities with regard to capital improvements that needs to be installed by the city. That is what I can tell you about the infrastructure in the area. I can request accident reports and traffic numbers and things like that if you would like. Ostner: I would like to know more about the traffic. The strategic plan that the Council came up with and are very proud of it has a goal of improve Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 58 mobility and street quality. The top action for 2003 was an east/west connectivity plan. We have lots of east/west corridor issues in this town. I believe that Hwy. 62 and Wedington are two great examples. I'm not sue when we are going to solve them if we don't at least examine them now when we are looking at annexing 160 acres. Those are my concerns. I agree with Commissioner Anthes that this project is very different from the last project much further west that we looked at. I would be more inclined to annex this area. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission l • June 28, 2004 Page 59 Ostner: The next item is the tandem item on this same piece of property, RZN 04- 11.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. We have already heard the staff report. Are there any members of the public who would like to address this rezoning? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Vaught: I have a question for the developer. I just wanted to make sure you understood a lot of these issues that we have been talking about. Sloan: Yes. The golf course has been involved in this thing since the day that I walked in and told Mrs. Jowers that I would buy it. That was two days before we made the decision and that was almost a year ago that we were going to put the golf course in. I have spoken with a few people in Planning about it. We didn't want it out in public or anything right now because we still have to bring a lot of entities together to see if we could make it work. I don't like the fact that people think that I just brought this up to the table. It has always been on the table and I can bring witness after witness in here. Some of them are city employees. I see the problems with it. It probably should be a PZD. I don't mind pulling the rezoning and coming back with basically the same drawing and having the surveyors break out the boundaries and everything. Would.a concept plat fly through verses doing the whole thing? I know that this got to be a question before. I guess in a sense that we can bring a concept plat in and then each phase completely drawn to actual scale and things like that. We can easily get the boundaries because we know that we are going to work within limited boundaries for the golf course. We know that the front lots are all going to be 300' deep. We have already made that determination. We just put the line 300' south of Persimmon and said that's it for those. We know where we are at there. You guys suggest the best way to do this and we are willing to work with it. That's not a problem pulling it back. I didn't realize the golf course needed to be in a separate zoning district. Homes are on the golf course. I have never built one and wouldn't be doing this except for it's a First Tee situation and it is worth the effort that we have to put in for it and we have enough people to support it. Once again, I don't mind bringing it back as a PZD. We would love to do concept rather than doing sewer and trying to work out everything on the last lot and the whole project may be two years away or three years before we can even break ground on it. That is the only question I've got. You guys advise us and we will try to work within that advisory. I see the problems I would have with the zoning. We were hoping that the Bill of Assurance would be the thing. Some of it was because all of the sudden we were asking for the RSF4 and it looks like many homes could go in there. We are not looking for that. That was the reason for offering the Bill of Assurance that we wouldn't exceed that. I did not realize that the golf course needed to be in another zoning district. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 60 Vaught: I would say that is something that you need to work with staff on. We have one other really large PZD that has come through as something similar. I don't know how it would work with a residential PZD or whatever this winds up being. That was more of a residential section and commercial section with defined lots. I don't know how it works. Warrick: We have within our ordinance the mechanism to look at this the way Mr. Sloan wants to have this. You mentioned the springwoods Planned Zoning District. In that development they had 289 acres and broke it out into nine large lots and identified land use and density for each of those lots with the expectation that we would then follow that up and see development proposals on each of them. One thing that was unique about that project is that much of the infrastructure was already existing at least to provide access to each of the large lots that was being created because it is surrounded by various city streets. We are right now processing through the development review, two subdivisions for two of those lots that were created in the springwoods PZD. We are looking at lot 3 and lot 5 which are both single family subdivisions. I would suggest that we might be able to treat this in a very similar fashion where we look at the whole 240 acres and say that this large tract will be single family residential developed at a density of "X". This large tract would be commercial recreation developed for a First Tee golf course and then take it out in chunks that basically matches an appropriate development pattern. We would be looking initially at. just blocks of property, large lots that would have to be followed up by Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Developments, whichever is appropriate, for each of those large lots under the conditions of the zoning that is set for the PZD. Shackelford: Just a follow up question on that for the record. That, as you explained it, wouldn't be that much different from a developer's standpoint than doing it in phases. If you do Phase I of A,B,C subdivision and then you do Phase II you have to come through with a Preliminary Plat and that sort of thing, is that correct? Warrick: It would be very similar to that although we would look at the whole grand scheme of things, the whole master plan up front to understand the relationship between the various uses and densities the major street connections that need to be talked about and identified at that time as well. Vaught: All that said I don't think we should pull the rezoning request. I think that we are bound to assign some zoning to this and if we do nothing it is assigned R-A, which I don't necessarily think it is appropriately zoned. I think that we are bound to set some sort of zoning. Ostner: I believe if we do set some sort of zoning we, in our minds, need to forget about the golf course, which is not compliant with the zoning district we Planning Commission • June 28, 2004 Page 61 are granting. We are granting a zoning district, we are granting a density, we don't know about the golf course. I just wanted to clarify that. Anthes: I'm encouraged to hear the developer discuss the possibility and probability now of a PZD for this property. The reason why is because I look at that R-1.5 and I look at the proximity of this to city services and commercial nodes and I find that density to be alarmingly low in certain parts of this parcel. That doesn't mean that it would be alarmingly low over the entire 260 acres. Some graduated use of possibly mixed density, mixed income and other uses rather than mere single family homes, particularly when we have talked about accessibility to things like golf courses. In fact, in looking at this where you have the lowest density might be something that I would ask you to look at possibly exchanging for the higher density and vice versa. That is to give more people access to the public amenity rather than fewer people access to the public amenity. Give more people public access and a closer walking arrangement to an already more dense zoning, which I think is about 7.9 units per acre just north of here and the commercial zone and the Boys and Girls Club. I'm heartened by that. I would like to see this come through as a PZD and I think one way we could do that if the applicant is willing is that we could table the rezoning request for reconsideration, which I believe we have done before on following an annexation. I will move to table RZN 04-1100. Allen: Second. Sloan: Does that allow us to come back with a PZD? Anthes: Yes. Sloan: I would do that. That keeps you guys thinking. Shackelford: If we make a motion to table do we need to put a date specific on it or what are the repercussions of the motion as it stands? Williams: You have some choices on that. You could have a motion to table to a definite date or you could motion to table indefinitely upon request of the applicant to get back on the agenda. You can do either way. Sometimes in parliamentary procedure a motion to table indefinitely is also a motion to kill because it usually means something doesn't ever come back up and I don't think that is your intent. Shackelford: That was my concern because I don't think that is our intent either. Planning Commission ) • ) • June 28, 2004 Page 62 Anthes: I will restate my motion. I would move to table this rezoning request until time that the applicant requests it comes back before us with a different classification. Allen: 1 will second. Vaught: By tabling it we are not allowing him to jump right in where he was with a PZD, does he have to start all over with a PZD? Warrick: A PZD is kind of a different ball of wax. It does go through a different review process than a rezoning does. We will have to start at the initial stage in looking at this as far as the development and land use classifications. To some degree he is starting back at the beginning but it is not just a request for rezoning at that point. It is a request for zoning and development combined approval. We are really getting back to the beginning with the development portion of it. Vaught: By tabling this rezoning we are probably never going to vote on it again. Warrick: Not as an independent rezoning without a development. If the developer does what 1 think he will do, which is process a PZD. The only thing in a PZD you do not hear that zoning independent of the development. Vaught: Because of that I feel it is appropriate for us to go ahead and assign the zoning that we think is appropriate and a PZD will trump that when it comes back through. Shackelford: I concur. I don't want to be problematic, especially with where we are on this agenda and where we have to go. I don't think that if we go ahead and make a recommendation for a rezoning that that has any affect whatsoever in this applicant and following the applicant's ability or desire to bring forth an R-PZD. I think that we need to look at this in tandem as our ordinances are written now and that we request annexation and assign a zoning to it. I think the question before us is RSF-4 appropriate given the surrounding land use of this property. I think that it is. I would like to go ahead and in the nature of what we are supposed to be doing, go ahead and recommend approval of that rezoning. Again, this is a recommendation for approval by the City Council so it will be reviewed there. Any development that came through on this would have to come back before this board as well. I don't think that we are giving up any control. I think we are keeping this thing moving so we are not asking the applicant to start over and we are not in any way inhibiting his ability or desire to bring forth an R-PZD. Anthes: I respectfully disagree and that is because on 160 acre tract in this location I don't feel that there is one consistent zoning that makes sense across the Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 63 entire property and therefore, I couldn't find for one. In addition, I feel that there is a motion on the table and that that needs to be heard and 1 don't intend to withdraw it unless there is a procedural problem. Williams: The motion to table would take precedence. Sloan: What if we just went R-A right now? Let me just do the R-A and then we will come back because we were going to do the golf course and obviously, I need more density on the southern end of it. I don't mind coming back through if that is what we need to do to make this thing official. Anthes: The reason why is if something happens and Mr. Sloan sells the entire piece of property then there would be development by right to a certain level of density that we haven't been able to study yet for it's appropriateness. That is why I would rather leave it either tabled or at a low density in favor of the PZD. Warrick: If this rezoning request were withdrawn the annexation continued on, and if it were approved by Council then the default zoning designation would be applied to this property as R-A. Thereby basically resulting in what you were talking about and the property having to come through some sort of approval process to be developed with any density other than one unit per two acres. I would be willing to bet that the applicant wouldn't mind withdrawing in light of that result. Anthes: Can I ask if the fees that are paid towards this rezoning request would then be able to be transferred to the PZD process? Sloan: I'll answer that for you. No. Warrick: We have spent a lot of staff time and materials on this. I'm pretty hesitant to do that. Ostner: Mr. Sloan, would you like to withdraw this rezoning request? Currently we have a motion to table. Sloan: R-A is fine. We will come back through with a PZD. I just don't know how fast the engineering firm can come back with the information. That's the biggest thing is just trying to coordinate everybody. That is the reason we were trying to stay with sort of a blanket zoning until you get about four different entities together and everybody fights over how many square feet they need for this or for that amenity and then what's left we will develop with residential. I'm not sure how quick we can pull that together but that was the reason for sort of avoiding the PZD. We did the PZD across the street. I liked it. We come to you, we show you exactly I • Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 64 what we are going to do, we guarantee we are going to do it and it makes the neighbors real happy. It is the same thing here except because of the time constraint, can we get in, do we spend more money knowing whether we are going to get annexed in or not. That was one of the issues and then can we get zoned so that we can do a concept like this. I guess that is where a PZD needs to be looked at as a concept PZD. That would be a strong issue. To me that is a great idea to allow us to run it through here. We don't spend as much money and time and then come back with all of the real drawings and everything else. Ostner: It would seem to me procedurally that it would be more helpful for the Council to see this thing tabled than as an annexation with a withdrawn rezoning request. I would suggest that we go ahead and vote on the tabling on your behalf. Warrick: I thought the annexation was already approved. Ostner: By us. Warrick: Now the request is... Ostner: I'm just thinking in these chambers on a Tuesday night they have to look at an annexation with no rezoning request. Warrick: They will have your minutes and they will have your recommendations and I think that there is a clear understanding of the expectations that we look at this as a comprehensive development plan and determine appropriate zoning based on the development plan for a PZD. I don't think that is too far of a reach from the policy that they have set out. Again, it is a policy that they look at those items together. It is really your determination. If it is tabled it is expected to come back as some type of zoning request. That is a little bit problematic because it wouldn't really be the same type of request. Very likely there would be additional land included in the PZD than just this I60 acres. Vaught: I have a question. By not voting on annexation we are recommending R- A as an appropriate use of this thing. I don't think it is an appropriate use for this land. I think that we should put something on there because a PZD may never come before us. We don't know. He is intending to but something could happen tomorrow and it doesn't happen so we have to look at what is appropriate for this area. R-A is not and by right they could develop that to R-A. That is an area that we have talked about wanting something more than R-1.5 per acre. By R-A you are saying one per two acres. Anthes: I'm saying to table it which is not R-A: Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 65 Vaught: It is R-A right now. If we don't send something forward it is R-A. I think that we should send something forward with it. I think that we need to consider the zoning and if R-A is not appropriate we should make a recommendation when we vote on annexations. Ostner: I understand your concerns. I would tend to disagree. Land inside the city limits that is zoned R-A is not cost effective. When you are a land owner and you are sitting on R-A you are passing up a lot of opportunities. I believe the market speaks when R-A is zoned into the city it is going to be rezoned. R-A is not that bad. We have a motion to table unless he would like to withdraw. Clark: Mr. Sloan, do you agree with tabling this so you can come back with a PZD? Sloan: If I am tabling it and we go through and are annexed in we are automatically R-A anyway. If that is the consensus then we are fine with it. Ostner: We have a motion and a second to table. Sloan: We are tabling but technically if it gets annexed in we are going to be R-A anyway. Ostner: That is how it will go. Is there further discussion to vote on the issue of tabling? Renee, could you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table was approved by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Shackelford, Vaught and Graves voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of six to three. •1A\ iIUU0lJ=: RZN04-1166 One Mile View a RA L:t:IH SLOAN PROPERTIES RA RN rf F, F1' E626!i IRA : ^ G G2 34'{t--•fr { Ppi RO G1 G1_�R-0 Gt Gt >I__� Gf RA { R-A 11VR/t 1.T�{itli rT -Gf JI R° �-- _ r RA RSFJ�� � 1 —---L_!I .. �_�isra v � L ' I I. 1.7 LI Ia annP-za SUBJECT PROPERTY RA SfU DR lIt I SELLERS t _ OLN5rORE1 MOftE I dl 'I' ' Overview Legend _ -'-- Subject Property Master Street Plan ----� RZN04-1166 Boundary Fraeway{Expessway Pnnapal Arterial © Planning Area Streets �000a s minor Anenal '�� E+tistirg o Overlay District i ell,, collector 000000 - - ' Planned Outside City 0%, Hlstone collector 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0-hies •YAki0U:l01Jm: - .........::::.:::........ .......... Ell 1 \ .Y$ STAFF REVJ% FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLAON x AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: FROM: Dawn T. Warrick Planning Name Division ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance Approval. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: October 5.2004 Department RZN 04-1 166: Rezoning (Sloan Properties, pp 477): Submitted by Raymond Smith for property located east of Broyles Avenue and south of Persimmon Street. The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 22.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, four units per acre. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1:P=T1 Department Director Approval d Date [ME -2o.oc` Finance & Internal Services Dir. Date Received in Mayor's Office Cross Reference: Previous Ord/Res#: Orig. Contract Date: lam�'G Orig. Contract Number: Officer Date New Item: Date a�/a�F Date �O� Yes No FAYETTEVtLE 0 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS City Clerk Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8323 Fax: (479) 718-7695 city—clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Dawn Warrick Planning Division From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman* City Clerk Division Date: October 25, 2004 Re: Ordinance No, 4625 The City Council passed the above ordinance, October 19, 2004, rezoning RZN 04-1166 containing approximately 22.94 acres. I have attached a copy of the ordinance. 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: LaDawnya Cossey, Planning John Goddard, IT Scott Caldwell, IT Clyde Randall, IT Ed Connell, Engineering FA r A CC PUBLICATION I, 11/i 0 , /1UF1(04ta/ , do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that from -my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, that advertisement of: 1L( 12U,1 G5- was inserted in the regular editions on OL' S, roc r�l ** Publication Charge: $ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2✓7r` day of 2004. ORDINANCE NO. 46M AN `ORDINANCE REZONINGTHAT PROPERTY • DESCRIBED IN REZONING PERnON RZN lX 1166AS Ta t"'^�'tf/I/rr ", SLOAN MPROPERTI17ED BY SVfFOR0PR0 ERTYSMITH ON BLOCATEEDye %0 \ j y�/* Notary Pubic FAST OF STREETS AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY Aq KAN5A5, n ,ia y 1 , 11 yl EAST STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY i z t3f I I t �) 22.94 ACRES FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ( ' FOUR UNITS PER ACRE . My Commisslori Expires: Arl 1 Nf' rk:r1 (,RpntYires Q✓,. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OUNCE. OF TXE CITt,OP PATETTE111LLH, ARKAN8A8: Ct (:IS' CDn1mi��.ien r:x o 9 _ . :cCf4[C«�KFKts P %/p5 ,` Section l: That lha zone classification of inefotlaving tlescnbed propeM is hereby cnergetl As foibvis: 4C (<cCc(Ktc<C(c[ Q(<t<' From R-A, Residential Agricultural to SSF-4, Residential Single -Family,- 4 Units Per Acre as shovm In *` Please do not pay from Affidavit. E.hibit•A• attached herato and made a MIT herefol. .An Invoice will be sent. Section 2. That the official zoning map of Pn GN of FayetteWle,Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning charge provided in. Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 191h day of October, 2004. RECEIVED OCS 2 v7 2004 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE EXHIBIT 'A' RZN 04-1166 PART OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 AND PART OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, T16N, R31W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 NW 1/4 THENCE 997'02'10'E 2607.55 FEET, THENCE S02'23'33'W 335.02 FEET, THENCE N87L09'41' 785.46 FEET, THENCE S02055'40'W 224.40 FEET, THENCE N85'56'3YW 518.52 FEET, THENCE N52°54'42-W 470.00 FEET THENCE NW31'26"W 300.00 FEET, THENCE S86006'38Nd 620.46 FEET, THENCE 1402'38'10"E 358.93 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 22.94 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700 NORTHWINT ♦ ♦ ♦ • t 0axicifte RECEIVED NOV 04 2W My OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 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: _ fl?e'( ) �/& was inserted in the regular editions on J PO# ** Publication Charge: $ /C//SS Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of fiPl9v 2004. Notary Public My Commission puregatherinesau Washington I >i My Commission Expires 02/27/051 �i6i f " Please do not pay `A`ifl fd�ff`ccccccccccccscc! ..An invoice will be sent. ORDINANCE NO. 46M AN -ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTYFay. DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION FZNNB ALFOF evl e. AS SUBMITTED DESCRIBED IN BY RAYMOZONING P SMITH ON BEHALF 66 SLOAN PROPERTIES FOR_P13OPERW LOCATED. EAST OF BROYLES AVENUE AND SOUTH OF PER- - ARKANSAS , , SIMMON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 22.94 ACRES FROM R-A, RESIDEN11AL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-0, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE. FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER ACRE - BE R:ORDAINED.EY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT' OF FC/ETTILVILLE, ARNANSA6: Section 1: That the zone classification of the following describetl properly is hereby clanged as follows: From R-A, Renderso A96cultural to RSF-4, Residential Single-Famiy, 4 Units Per Acre as shown In Exhilzt "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That the olfdal zoning map of the City of Fayonwile, AMansas, is hereby amended to reflect I I the zoning. Uange provided. in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 191h day of October, 2004. allIBTF "A" - r RZN 04-1166 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 AND PART OF. THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECT R31W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICI RIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 NW 1/4 T � In"F canT ss FFFT THFMr..F %19'91'11"W ITS R2 FEET THENCE. N61.4R0941"W 038'10"E 358.93 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 22.94 EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 FAYETT'EVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 (501) 442-1700