HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4881 iiii iiiiii iii ii iiia iiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii ii i iiii
Doc ID : 010122270007 Tvoe : REL
Recorded : 06/30/2006 at 11 : 03 : 25 AM
Fee Amt : $26 . 00 Paas 1 of 7 f
Washlnaton Countv . AR
Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk
F11erOO6-00026525
ORDINANCE NO, 4881
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 06-2028 FOR
APPROXIMATELY 22.68 ACRES, LOCATED WEST OF I-540
AND SOUTH OF BETTY JO DRIVE, FROM R-A,
RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL, C- 1 , NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL, AND RMF-24„ RESIDENTIAL MULTI-
FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE TO C-2 THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL.
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, C- 1 , Neighborhood
Commercial, and RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, 24
units per acre to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial, as shown
on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the rezoning is subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the
applicant and shown as Exhibit `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 3 : That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. ,,,I11 11,,,,,
V Y R SG•
PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of June, 2006. ;h> ;'cit �F '• �'�';
APPROVED: ATTEST: ; FAYETTEVILLE ;
By: By: _
DAN GOODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 06-2028 PARCEL 1, 2, AND 8
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "1" C-1 TO C-2)
PART OF THE NEI/4, NWl/4 AND PART OF THE SEI/4, NW1/4 OF SECTION 18, T16N,
R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SEI/4, NWl /4 THENCE
SOUTH 584.44 FEET, THENCE WEST 453.75 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE
S84009'20"W 2. 11 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 1347. 16 FEET, SAID
CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1275.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF
N36006' 50"W 1285 .36 FEET, THENCE N66022 ' 59"W 92.26 FEET, THENCE NO300354311E
204.01 FEET, THENCE S86055 '01 "E 1069. 13 FEET, THENCE S10032143 "E 3 .06 FEET,
THENCE S17049' 52"E 210.49 FEET, THENCE S21040111 "E 323 . 12 FEET, THENCE
S56005 '41 "W 145 . 17 FEET, THENCE S25005122"W 703 .02 FEET TO THE P.O.B.;
CONTAINING 16.38 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "2" RMF - 24 TO C-2)
PART OF THE NW1 /4, NWl /4 OF SECTION 18, T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT
THE NE CORNER OF SAID NW 1 /4, NW 1 /4 THENCE SOUTH 59.76 FEET, THENCE WEST
3 . 16 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE S03003 '43"W 840.94 FEET, THENCE N66022159"W
58.23 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 101 .80 FEET, SAID CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S32054104"W 101 .62
FEET, THENCE NO2026' 00"E 907.38 FEET, THENCE S87035 '25"E 115 .05 FEET TO THE
P.O.B. ; CONTAINING 2. 14 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "8" R-A TO C-2)
PART OF THE NEIA, NWIA AND PART OF THE SETA, NWIA OF SECTION 18, T16N,
R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SEI /4, NWl /4 THENCE
S02057558"W 541 .99 FEET, THENCE S84009'20"W 427.95 FEET, THENCE N25005 '22"E
703 .02 FEET, THENCE N56005 '41 "E 145 . 17 FEET, THENCE S14047503"E 137.78 FEET TO
THE P.O.B., CONTAINING 4. 16 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Bill afAssumrtx EXHIBIT "B"
Page 1 of 4
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning
reclassification, the owner(s), developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter
"Petitioners") Reserve, LLC., hereby voluntarily offer this Bill of Assurance and
enter into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
The Petitioners expressly grant to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/ ,
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioners or Petitioners'
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioners acknowledge that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonably rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioners' rezoning request.
R
Petitioners hereby voluntarily offer assurances that Petitioners and
Petitioners' property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioners' rezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1 . The use of Petitioners' property described in Exhibit " A" attached
hereto shall be limited to those uses permitted by right and by conditional
use in the C-2 zoning district, with the exception of the following:
Permitted Uses to be excluded:
a. Unit 20: Commercial recreation, large sites
b. Unit 33: Adult live entertainment club or bar
Conditional Uses to be excluded:
a. Unit 21: Warehousing and wholesale
b. Unit 28: Center for collecting recyclable materials
c. Unit 32: Sexually oriented business
d. Unit 36: Wireless communications facilites
2. Further, the use of the petitioner's property described in Exhibit " A"
attached hereto shall exclude the following uses in the Use Unit 17
designation:
Buses, Manufactured home sales, used car lots, farm supplies and
equipment and repair, auctioneer, cabinetmaker, tattoo services,
taxidermist, tool sharpening service and motor repair.
Bill of Assnrana
Page 2 of 4
3. The use of the Petitioner's .property described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto shall exclude the following specific uses in the Use Unit 19
designation:
Bowling alley, slot car track, skating rink.
4. Petitioners specifically agree that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of
Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit
Clerk's Office after Petitioners' rezoning is effective and shall be noted on
any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of
Petitioners' property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and
conditions stated above, we, Reserve, LLC., as the owners, developers or buyers
(Petitioners) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign our names below.
Date Printed Na e
Address �^�. •�
1 S ature
Date Printed Name
Address
Signature
Bill ofAssmmim
Page 3 of 4
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS }
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON }
And now on this the -.S— day of 2004 appeared before
me, TNma , and after
being placed upon his/ her oath swore or affirmed that he agreed with the terms
of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his name above.
jM2!&1 n
N ARY PUBLIC
My-Commission Expires:
O
\ TEP4/j'
j :w aOTAqA,
� •
!ip'Sjlot
'P,
,��'�.�SON �.44•`'��,,,.
Bill ofAssuranm -
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT `.'A"
RZN 04-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Parcel "1" C-1 to C-2)
Part of the NEI/4, NW1/4 and part of the SE1/4, NWI/4 of Section 18, T16N,
R30W in Washington County, Arkansas and being described as follows:
Commencing at the NE Corner of said SEI/4, NW1/4 thence South 584.44 feet,
thence West 453.75 feet to the P.O.B., Thence S84°09'20"W 2.11 feet, Thence along
a curve to the left 1347.16 feet, Said curve having a radius of 1275.00 feet and a
chord bearing of N36°06'50"W 1285.36 feet, Thence N66°22'59"W 92.26 feet,
Thence NO3°03'43"E 204.01 feet, Thence S86°55'01"E 1069.13 feet, Thence
S10032'43"E 3.06 feet, Thence S17049'52"E 210.49 feet, Thence S21°40'11"E 323.12
feet, Thence S56°05'41"W 145.17 feet, Thence S25°05'22"W 703.02 feet to the
P.O.B.; Containing 16.38 Acres more or less.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Parcel "2" RMF - 24 to C-2)
Part of the NW1/4, NW1/4 of Section 18, T16N, R30W in Washington County,
Arkansas and being described as follows: Commencing at the NE Corner of said
NW1/4, NW1/4 thence South 59.76 feet, thence West 3.16 feet to the P.O.B.,
Thence S03°03'43"W 840.94 feet, Thence N66°22'59"W 58.23 feet, Thence along a
curve to the left 101.80 feet, said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet and a chord
bearing of S32°54'04"W 101 .62 feet, Thence NO2°26'00"E 907.38 feet, Thence
S87035'25"E 115.05 feet to the P.O.B.; Containing 2.14 acres more or less.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Parcel "8" R-A to C-2)
Part of the NE1/4, NW1/4 and part of the SE1/4, NW1/4 of Section 18, T16N,
R30W in Washington County, Arkansas and being described as follows:
Commencing at the NE Corner of said SE1/4, NW1/4 thence S02°57'58"W 541 .99
feet, thence S84°09'20"W 427.95 feet, thence N25°05'22"E 703.02 feet, thence
N5600541 "E 145.17 feet, thence S14°4703"E 137.78 feet to the P.O.B., Containing
4.16 acres more or less.
11 ,
' 1 • 1
MOUNTAIN RANCH
Ra
T�'1'�F -
��
Mal
I*CAW
Y
N
s1 Y f
& �k .�• ,T B , ,,y Y iri C. ".2n-d ���y 3u 'N� �] �} Y'k � $ y '' Y.
} 1�4�
VIPmm"
1
I �
-
-
1 11 11 ill 11 . 11
MOO
M 1 City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form � 8�
City Council Agenda Items
or /IT ► Pl
Contracts
6-Jun-06
City Council Meeting Date
Jeremy Pate@ Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
l
Action Required:
RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch, 440): Submitted by Tom Terminella for property located west of I-540 and South of Betty Jo
Drive. The property is zoned C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial, R-A, Residential-Agricultural, and RMF-24, Residential Multi-
Family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 22.68 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial.
$0.00 n/a n/a
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category / Project Name
n/a n/a n/a
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program / Project Category Name
n/a n/a n/a
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a
Departmen Direct Date Original Contract Date: n/a
Original Contract Number: n/a
A
City Atter
Received Cle 's Office
5 jG U
Fina ce and Internal Service Director Date
Received in Mayor's Office E
3 106
mayor Date
Comments:
City Council Meeting of June 06, 2006
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: May 11 , 2006
Subject: Rezoning for Mountain Ranch (RZN 06-2028)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance rezoning approximately 22.68 acres
of property from C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial, RMF-24, Residential Multi-family 24
units per acre and R-A, Residential Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,
subject to a Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant on the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject property contains three separate areas that total approximately 22.68 acres,
located at the southwest intersection of Shiloh Drive and Persimmon Street, west of I-540
and south of Betty Jo Drive. Each of the three areas (Parcel Nos. 1, 2 and 8 as indicated
in the attached maps) are adjacent to improved Collector streets at this time. Parcel Nos.
1 and 8 are furthermore located primarily within the Design Overlay District and are
subject to the restrictions as established therein.
The Future Land Use Plan designates this entire site for Residential use, though recent
zoning actions by the City Council recognizes the need for both residential uses and
services to support those uses in close proximity, while limiting the chance for adjacency
of incompatible land use. The majority of rezoning requests for the Mountain Ranch
project is consistent with the land use plan for future residential uses and is compatible
with surrounding properties that are developed residentially or commercially. While the ,
commercial zoning requests near Persimmon and Shiloh are not perfectly consistent with
the Future Land Use Plan, staff finds that the significant changes in character of this area
of the city in the past 3-5 years warrants a commercial node to allow for commercial
services within close walking or driving distance of rapidly developing residential areas.
The applicant proposed a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate the future
development of a supporting commercial area for planned residential growth. The request
is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff originally had
reservations about the request, and met with the applicant to address these concerns.
Following, a Bill of Assurance was offered by the applicant to restrict some of the more
potentially objectionable uses found in a C-2 zoning district. This detailed Bill of
Assurance that has been offered is identical to the one offered with other rezoning
requests in this area in past approvals by the City Council.
City Council Meeting of June 06, 2006
Agenda Item Number
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission on May , 2006. There was no
public comment. The Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to forward this item to the City
Council with a recommendation in favor of the rezoning, subject to the offered Bill of
Assurance.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING
PETITION RZN 06-2028 FOR
APPROXIMATELY 22.68 ACRES, LOCATED
WEST OF I-540 AND SOUTH OF BETTY JO
DRIVE, FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL-
AGRICULTURAL, C- 1 , NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL, AND RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE TO C-2
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL.
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, C-11
Neighborhood Commercial, and RMF-24,
Residential Multi-Family, 24 units per acre to C-2
Thoroughfare Commercial, as shown on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2 : That the rezoning is subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant
and shown as Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 1 ..
Section 3 : That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this—day of J 2006.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 06-2028 PARCEL 1, 29 AND 8
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "1" C-1 TO C-2)
PART OF THE NEI /4, NWl /4 AND PART OF THE SEI/4, NW 1/4 OF SECTION 18, T16N,
R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SETA, NWl/4 THENCE
SOUTH 584.44 FEET, THENCE WEST 453 .75 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE
S84009120"W 2. 11 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 1347. 16 FEET, SAID
CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1275.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF
N36006' 50"W 1285.36 FEET, THENCE N66022159"W 92.26 FEET, THENCE NO3003 '43"E
204.01 FEET, THENCE S86055301 "E 1069. 13 FEET, THENCE S1003214333E 3.06 FEET,
THENCE S17049' 52"E 210.49 FEET, THENCE S21 °40' 11 "E 323 . 12 FEET, THENCE
S56005 '41 "W 145 . 17 FEET, THENCE S25005122"W 703 .02 FEET TO THE P.O.B. ;
CONTAINING 16.38 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "2" RMF - 24 TO C-2)
PART OF THE NWl /43 NW1 /4 OF SECTION 18, T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT '
THE NE CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4, NW 1/4 THENCE SOUTH 59.76 FEET, THENCE WEST
3 . 16 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE S03003 '43"W 840.94 FEET, THENCE N66022559"W
58.23 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 101 .80 FEET, SAID CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S32054'04"W 1014.62 '
FEET, THENCE NO2026.'00"E 907.38 FEET, THENCE S87°35 '25"E 115.05 FEET, TO THE! '
P.O.B.; CONTAINING 2 . I4 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "8" R-A TO C-2)
PART OF THE NEI/4, NWl/4 AND PART OF THE SEI/4, NWIA OF SECTION 18, T16N3
R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESGMBED'AS
FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SETA, NW 1 /4 THENCE
S02057' 58"W 541 .99 FEET, THENCE S84009120"W 427.95 FEET, THENCE N25005522"E
703.02 FEET, THENCE N56005 '41 "E 145 . 17 FEET, THENCE S14047' 03"E 137.78 FEET TO
THE P.O.B., CONTAINING 4. 16 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
a e teville
ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of May 08, 2006
125 W. Mountain St.
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: May t , 2006 May 09, 2006
RZN 06-2028: (MOUNTAIN RANCH, 479): Submitted by TOM TERMINELLA for property
located at WEST OF I-540 AND SOUTH OF BETTY JO DRIVE. The property is zoned C-1,
RMF-24, RSF-4, and R -A, containing approximately 47.48 acres. The request is to adjust
existing zoning lines and to rezone certain parcels of the property in the manner indicated with
the attached maps and descriptions.
PROPOSED
Planner: Jeremy Pate
Parcel
Existing
Zoning
Proposed Zoning
Acres
Percentage of Land
1
C-1
C-2*
16.38
34.5%
2
RMF-24
C-2*
2.14
4.5%
3
RSF-4
RMF-24
0.28
0.5%
4
RMF-24
RSF-4
1.17
2.4%
5
C-1
RMF-12
5.28
11.1%
6
C-1
RSF-2
4.92
10.4%
7
R -A
RSF-2
3.99
8.4%
8
R -A
C-2*
4.16
8.8%
9
R -A
RMF-18
8.73
18.4%
10
C-1
RMF-18
0.43
0.9%
TOTAL
- 47.48
100%
* With Bill ofAssurance offered by the applicant
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning for Parcel Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 based
on the findings included as part of this report (see chart above to reference requested
zoning districts).
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning for Parcel Nos. 1, 2 and 8 subject to
the offered Bill of Assurance limiting the potentially incompatible uses located within the
C-2 zoning district, but allowing uses that are located for convenience and accessibility
along major thoroughfares and do not present a threat to the integrity or compatibility of
adjoining neighborhoods. The same Bill of Assurance was offered and accepted by the
Planning Commission and City Council with the previous rezoning requests to C-2 in this
area.
K: IReports120061PC Reports 105-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch -Term inela).doc
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning.for Parcel Nos. 9 and 10 to RMF-18
based on the findings included as part of this report (see chart above to reference requested
zoning districts), finding also that with the adoption of the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District
by the City Council, the applicant and staff have the ability to work together to both
preserve and protect sensitive hillside while allowing for development at appropriate
densities by clustering and encouraging reduced setbacks and land disturbance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
Date: May 08, 2006 ✓ Approved O Denied
9-0-0
COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
June 06, 2006 (1" reading if recommended)
O Approved O Denied
BACKGROUND:
Property description: The subject property contains approximately 48 acres in total, located west
of Shiloh/I-540 and south of the future Persimmon Street. The site consists of flat areas along the
frontage of Shiloh Drive and the future Persimmon Street and hillside that rises up a portion of
the mountain to the west. In 2005, the Planning Commission recommended. and the City. Council
approved an overall rezoning of this area for 350 acres, with a range of zoning districts from
RSF-2 to C-2. The majority of the property was originally requested to be rezoned RSF-2,
constituting much of the hillside area. The zoning district boundaries followed closely with the
topography of the site, delegating less intense, least dense development in those areas that are the
steepest and most appropriate for low density; higher intensity multi -family and commercial
development along the arterial/collector street systems that allow for ease of vehicular traffic in
and out, as well as close pedestrian/vehicular access from the surrounding residential uses; low
to medium density residential uses in those areas that have the least amount of significant slope
and where there is the ability to develop at a higher density; and commercial areas that are
located near major collector street intersections, creating a small neighborhood commercial node
to support surrounding residential uses.
The applicant has also previously submitted a concept masterplan prepared for the property in
question, stating his intentions to develop this mountain and surrounding land with a mixture of
densities and uses, which was received favorably by the Planning Commission and City Council.
At this time, more detailed analysis of the location of the primary streets that will traverse the
K:IReports120061PC Reports105-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Tenninella).doc
mountain, connecting to Persimmon, Shiloh and Old Farmington in the future has been
completed, and it has been determined that moving the north/south street further east, down the
hill, is more appropriate than originally anticipated for the terrain and future development.
Subsequently, placing the future street in this location would split existing zoning districts,
placing some commercial districts and multi -family districts farther up the mountain than
desirable, and causing incompatible adjacent land uses. For these areas, the applicant has
requested a zoning to match those adjacent and uphill (parcels # 4, 6, 7), essentially downzoning
or rezoning to residential single family districts. In other areas, the potential for development is
beginning to be realized; some multi -family areas are not desired to be so large and are
subsequently requested to be decreased, while frontages along Shiloh Drive and I-540 are more
desirable for commercial applications, rather than residential. These requests are reflected in the
remaining zoning parcels. Parcel No. 5, currently zoned C-1, is proposed to be downzoned to
RMF-12 as a transition between the residential single family uses to the west and the commercial
zoning to the east. The submitted rezoning requests continue to support the originally presented
masterplan, containing a mixture of uses and density based on access availability and existing
topography, among other factors.
Proposal: The applicant proposes rezoning the 48 acres in 10 separate and distinct parcels, as
outlined in the table above. Some requests simply constitute a zoning boundary adjustment (2, 3,
4, 6), while others introduce a zoning district for consideration (1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10).
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
Direction
Land Use
Zon'in .
North
Multi-family development,
Persimmon Street
RMF-24
South
Single family, commercial, mixed
two-family and multi -family
development, agricultural
RSF-4, RMF-24, C-2, R -A
East
Commercial, I-540, Undeveloped
C-2, R -A
West
Single family,
Undeveloped
RSF-2, RSF-4
PUBLIC SERVICES: I ;::
Streets: Currently the site has access to Shiloh Drive, a collector, and Persimmon Street,
also a collector. Road improvements required for both Shiloh Drive and
Persimmon Street may include: right-of-way dedication and sidewalks per the
Master Street Plan, pavement width as determined, curb and gutter, and storm
drainage. These will all be evaluated by staff as development occurs.
Water: Public water is adjacent to or near several of the areas in question, but not readily
available without additional extensions. Some of the developments currently
under construction or approved will extend water even closer to these properties.
A 36" main supply pipeline runs along Shiloh Drive. There is also an 8"
K:IRepores l20061PC Reportsl05-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Terminella).doc
waterline that runs along Betty Jo Drive to the north. Water service would need
to be extended to the pioperty at the time of development. Approval of the
Mountain Ranch Phase I development will supply an additional connection point
for water. Minimum size of new water mains is 8". Additional connections are
required to complete a looped system. There are some long range water
distribution system improvements planned in the area along Rupple Road and
Persimmon Road, some of which are cost shares with developers in the area.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available on the site. Improvements to the sewer system may be
required dependent upon the demand placed by the development. Sewer service
will need to be extended within the property at the time of development. There is
an 18" sewer force main along Shiloh Drive. New sewer lines will be located
near the site with the completion of Mountain Ranch Phase I. Sewer will need to
be extended to and within the property to serve the development. A study of the
downstream system shall be completed prior to the submittal of construction
drawings.
Fire: The Fayetteville Fire Department has reviewed the request and has estimated that
the response time from Fire Station #7 (Rupple Road) to the site would be
approximately 4 minutes for a distance of 1.6 miles. It is anticipated that when
Persimmon is extended west from Betty Jo Drive, the response time will be
decreased to 3.25 minutes. These times do not include any of the planned
extensions or access points from Rupple and Persimmon, which should greatly
enhance response time and level of service for this area once constructed.
Police: The following information was submitted with the original rezoning request. No
further information has been provided regarding the present request, though it
should be noted that it is much smaller in area than the. original. The Fayetteville
Police Department responds that a substantial increase in population from that
which is currently present is anticipated, due to the nature of the current zoning
of Residential Agricultural changing with any type of development on this
property. Subsequently, street improvements in the area will need to occur with
future development, in order to maintain safe and adequate levels of traffic
movement and safety, as well as allow for an efficient response to calls for
service, including preventative patrol, criminal investigations, traffic enforcement
and other police services. Currently it is not possible to accurately predict how
much these rezonings will increase the calls for service. However, in comparisons
to historical data, an estimate can be derived. In comparing the requested RSF-4,
RSF-2 and RMF-24 zoning districts to similarly developed areas in the city, an
anticipated 0.7% increase, 1.4% increase and 1.5% increase in calls for service,
respectively, is anticipated with maximum build -out of the property in question.
This does not take into account, however, the time it takes to build out a
development or the improved infrastructure required as part of the development.
As more information is gathered and a more comprehensive methodology
established for evaluating both impact to the Police Department, and what that
K lReports120061PC Reports105-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Terminella). doe
ultimately means in personnel, etc., this information will be updated for the
Planning Commission and City Council. Based on information of the future street
plans for this area, the completion ofRupple Road, Persimmon Street and
potential connection with Old Farmington Road from the I and Jsections should
aid with traffic congestion in the area.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that the commercial
rezoning and subsequent development will not cause any major issues in regard
to call volume of traffic congestion, especially with street improvements in this
area allowing for alternate means of ingress/egress.
LAND USE PLAN: The Future Land Use Plan designates this site, along with all other property
west of I-540 between Hwy 62 and 16, with the exception of two intersections, for Residential
use. The majority of rezoning requests for the Mountain Ranch project is consistent with the
land use plan for future residential uses and is compatible with surrounding properties that are
developed residentially or commercially. While the commercial zoning requests near Persimmon
and Shiloh are not necessarily consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, staff finds that the
significant changes in character of this area of the city in the past 3-5 years warrants a
commercial node to allow for commercial services within close walking or driving distance of
developing residential areas, thereby accomplishing many other goals of the General Plan 2020
by decreasing vehicle dependency and traffic and locating commercial and support services near
residential areas in a compatible manner.
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. majority of the proposed rezoning requests is consistent with current
land use planning objectives and policies and is compatible with adjacent
properties in the same district. Surrounding properties are very mixed in
use, containing multi -family commercial, agricultural and single family uses.
Adjusting the zoning lines west of the proposed- street on the steeper slopes to
RSF-2 is highly desirable, as this zoning district is appropriate for a lower
density development that protects the hillside. Similarly, zoning those areas
that are less steep but still located on or near the mountain to RSF-4 allows
for residential development that provides a transition between adjacent
existing and proposed uses. Additionally, Parcel No. 5 is requested to be
down -zoned from C-1 to RMF-12, which will provide a transition between
the low density single family development planned to the west and the more
intense commercial development planned to the east along the major
transportation corridors. With the adoption of the hillside/hilltop overlay
district, hillsides within this district are afforded additional protection,
including less disturbed area, higher preserved tree canopy, etc. while
K.: IReports(20061PC Reportsl05-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Terminella).doc
allowing the developer to be more flexible with building setbacks and street
design standards to create clustered; more dense development as opposed to
spreading it over the site as is typical on more flat land. For these reasons
staff supports the proposed RMF-12 zoning requests. Parcels 9 and 10 are
requested to be zoned slightly higher, to RMF-18. Staff finds that the amount
of hillside in these areas are insignificant, and those that are will represent
the most desirable for preservation at the time of development.
Staff is recommending for the rezoning of Parcel Nos. 1, 2 and 8 to the C-2
zoning district, with the offered Bill of Assurance that limits the more
intrusive uses of a C-2 district. This Bill of Assurance mirrors that which was
discussed in detail and itemized certain uses by Use Unit through the
Planning Commission review of previous zoning requests in this area. In
discussions with the applicant regarding staff's initial findings against the C-
2 zoning, the uses intended for this property do not include many of those
allowed within the zoning district, and thus have been offered to be removed,
subject to approval of the rezoning. Staff finds that a limited neighborhood
commercial zoning area at this important future east terminus of Persimmon
Street with supporting office, retail and restaurant services for the
surrounding, developing residential areas is appropriate and warranted.
The original proposal for Tracts 7, 8, 9 and 10 was a request from R -A to
RMF-24. At the time of the request, staff could not recommend this rezoning,
finding the existing hillside, without adequate protection measures in place
and a City Council directive to establish a hillside protection district, was not
appropriate for high density multi -family use with current development
practices. Staff recommended that the request for rezoning to RMF-24 be
modified for area E (see attached diagram labeled "Mountain Ranch") east,
generally along the western boundary of the I-540 Design Overlay District.
Staff supports a higher density/intensity use along Shiloh Drive, finding that
this area is not appropriate for single family or agricultural uses, and should
be utilized for those uses that generate higher volumes of traffic, given the
proximity to I-540. The applicant's request has moved the zoning line to the
east, almost to the 1-540 boundary, and requested the area west be zoned ..
RSF-2 (Parcel #7). Parcel 8, with direct access to Shiloh, is requested to be C-
2, and falls within the Design Overlay District. Parcels 9 and 10 are
requested to be zoned RMF-18 instead of RMF-24; staff can support these
requests, given the recent adoption of the Hillside/Hilltop overlay district (see
attached), and finding these uses will provide an appropriate transition
between single family and commercial uses planned in this area.
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 justified in order to promote orderly and consistent
s
K: IReportsl20061PC Reports105-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Terminelia).doc
development patterns. The General Plan 2020 Guiding Policies for
Residential Areas includes "site new residential areas accessible to roadways,
alternative transportation modes, community amenities, infrastructure and
retail and commercial goods and services." The proposed master planned
community will include all of these services, including. increased accessibility
with improvements to surrounding streets and the construction of
Persimmon Street, access to the Boys & Girls Club and walking distance to
the new Rupple Road School, along with proposed neighborhood commercial
areas and easy access to I-540 to travel to larger regional and community
commercial centers within Fayetteville. The use of the property for
agricultural means is no longer desirable or needed, and rezoning the subject
property will allow for development of property already within the city limits
with access to existing infrastructure and support services. Those parcels
that are requested to be adjusted will further these goals of creating
appropriate transition zones of single family to multi -family to commercial
areas, all within close proximity. Though a conceptual Planned Zoning
District may have been more desirable, with regard to evaluating overall
land use and densities, the applicant's goals of land use do fit existing zoning
criteria. Additionally, had a PZD been approved indicating the previous
zoning areas, it is very likely that a modified PZD would have had to be
processed again with these changes, much like the current rezoning requests.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion. .
Finding: Future development on the overall 350 acres will create traffic in the area.
However, the proximity of the property to Shiloh Drive and I-540, along with
the construction of Persimmon Street through from Rupple Road, is positive
for the development of this property at the density and intensity requested..'
Additional street improvements and access points will be required as
development proceeds, and a connection south to Hwy 62 via Rupple Road to
the west will eventually provide a western north -south connection. Traffic
danger and congestion should be minimized if the appropriate improvements
to surrounding streets; and,interconnectivity is required at the time of
development.
4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density
and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and
sewer facilities.
Finding: The proposed zoning would not substantially alter the population density in
the area from the zoning that is existing and that which is proposed. Public
service providers have responded accordingly:
Police — Comments from original rezoning proposal. This rezoning will substantially
K. IReports120061PC Reportsl05-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch- Tenninella).doc
alter the population density, and increase the numbers of calls for service.
While difficult to project the future calls for service, developments of similar
densities and size, when compared, total approximately 3.5% of the total
annual calls for service. In comparing the requested RSF-4, RSF-2 and
RMF-24 zoning districts to similarly developed areas in the city, an
anticipated 0.7% increase, 1.4% increase and 1.5% increase in calls for
service, respectively, is anticipated with maximum build -out of the property
in question. This does not take into account, however, the time it takes to
build out a development or the improved infrastructure required as part of
the development. Based on information of the future street plans for this
area, the completion of Rupple Road, Persimmon Street and potential
connection with Old Farmington Road from the I and J sections should aid
immensely with traffic congestion in the area.
Fire — The Fayetteville Fire Department has reviewed the request and has estimated
that the response time from Fire Station #7 (Rupple Road) to the site would
be approximately 4 minutes for a distance of 1.6 miles. It is anticipated that
when Persimmon is extended west from Betty Jo Drive, the response time
will be decreased to 3.25 minutes. These times do not include any of the
planned extensions or access points from Rupple and Persimmon, which
should greatly enhance response time and level of service for this area once
constructed.
Engineering — There are currently water lines and sewer lines adjacent to several of the
areas in question, though not all. A sewer analysis will be required at the
time of development, in order to determine if capacity is available at that
time for downstream lift stations. Both water and sewer lines will be required
to be extended into and within the development, by the developer.
5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses I
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: %Reports120061PC Rep orts103-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch- Terminela).doe
C
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
City-wide
uses by right
Unit 8
Single-family
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.
Units per acre 2 II
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Lot width minimum
100 ft.
Lot area minimum
21,780 sq. ft.
Land area per dwelling unit
21,780 sq. ft.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
30 ft.
15 ft.
30 ft.
(F) Height regulations.
Building height maximum I 35 ft.
(G) Building area. None.
(Code 1991, §160.045: Ord. No. 3792, §4, 5-17-94; Ord. No.
4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord, No. 4178. 8-31-99)
161.07 District Rsf-4, 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
City-wide
uses by right
Unit 8
Single-family
dwelling
(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 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Single-family
dwellings
Two-family
dwellings
Units per
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
dwellin unit
8,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
25 ft.
8ft.
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.
K:IReporlst20061PC Repor1s105-08-06IRZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Tetminetia).doc
161.11 District Rmf-12, Residential Multi -
Family — Twelve Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RMF-12 Multi -family
Residential District is designed to permit
and encourage the development of multi-
family residences at a moderate density that
is appropriate to the area.
(B) Uses.
(I) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 26
Multi -family 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 11
Manufactured home park
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Professional offices
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Units per acre I 4 to 12
(3) Land area per dwelling unit.
Manufactured home
3,000 sq.
ft.
Apartments:
No bedrooms
One bedroom
Two or more
bedrooms
1,700 sq.
1,700 sq.
2,000 sq.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
1,000 sq.
ft. per resident
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
25 ft.
8 ft.
25 ft.
Cross rcterence(s)--Vanances, Ch. 156.
(F) Height regulations. Any building which
exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set
back from any side boundary line an
additional distance of one foot for each foot
of height in excess of 20 feet.
(G) Building area. None.
161.12 District Rmf-18, Residential Multi -
Family — Eighteen Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RMF-18 Multi -family
Residential District is designed to permit
and encourage the development of multi-
family residences at a medium density that
is appropriate to the area.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. (B) Uses.
(I) Lot width minimum. (1) Permitted uses.
Manufactured home park
100 ft.
Lot within a manufactured home park
50 ft.
Single family
60 ft.
Two-family
60 ft.
Three and more
90 ft.
Professional offices
100 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum.
Manufactured home path
3 acres
Lot within a manufactured
home park
4,200 sq.
ft.
Townhouse:
.Development
.Individual lot
10,000 sq. ft.
2,500 sq. ft.
Single-family
6,000 sq.
ft.
Two-family
7,000 sq.
ft.
Three or more
9,000 sq.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
2 acres
Professional offices
1 acre
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 26
Multi -family 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 11
Manufactured home park
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Professional offices
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Units per acre I 4 to 18
K.lReportsl2006lPC Reports 105-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Tenninella).doc
(D) Bulk and area regulations. (B) Uses.
(1) Lot width minimum. (1) Permitted uses.
Manufactured home park
100 ft.
Lot within a manufactured home
park
50 ft.
Single-family
60 ft.
Two-family
60 ft.
Three and more
90 ft.
Professional offices
100 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum.
Manufactured home park
3 acres
Lot within a manufactured home
park
4,200 sq.
ft.
Townhouse:
•Development
•Individual lot
10,000 sq. ft.
2,500 sq. ft.
Single-family
6,000 sq.
ft.
Two-family
7,000 sq.
ft.
Three or more
9,000 sq.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
2 acres
Professional offices
1 acre
Unit I
City-wide uses by right
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 26
Multi -family 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 11
Manufactured home park
Unit 25
Professional offices
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Units per acre I 4 to 24
(3) Land area per dwelling unit. (D) Bulk and area regulations.
Manufactured Home
3,000 sq.
ft.
Apartments:
No bedrooms
1,700 sq.
ft.
One bedroom
1,700 sq.
ft.
Two or more
2,000 sq.
ft.
bedrooms
Fraternity or Sorority
1,000 sq.
ft. per resident
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
25 ft.
8ft.
25 ft.
Cross reference(s)--Variances, Ch. 156.
(F) Height regulations. Any building which
exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set
back from any side boundary line an
additional distance of one foot for each foot
of height in excess of 20 feet.
(G) Building area. None.
161.13 District Rmf-24, Residential Multi -
Family — Twenty -Four Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RMF-24 Multi -family
Residential District is designed to permit
and encourage the developing of a variety of
dwelling types in suitable environments in a
variety of densities.
(1) Lot width minimum.
Manufactured home park
100 ft.
Lot within a Manufactured
home park
50 ft.
Single-family
60 ft.
Two-family
60 ft.
Three or more
90 ft.
Professional offices
100 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum.
Manufactured home park
3 acres
Lot within a mobile home
park
4,200 sq.
ft.
Townhouses:
•Development
•Individual lot
10,000 sq. ft.
2,500 sq. ft.
Single-family
6,000 sq.
ft.
Two-family
7,000 sq.
ft.
Three or more
9,000 sq.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
2 acres
Professional offices
I acres
(3) Land area per dwelling unit.
Manufactured home
3,000 sq.
ft.
Apartments:
•No bedroom
•One bedroom
•Two bedroom
1,700 sq.
1,700 sq.
2,000 sq.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
1,000 sq.
ft. per resident
K:IRepons120061PC Reportst05-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-7erminella).doc
I.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
2511.
aft.
2511.
Cross reference(s)--Variance, Ch. 156.
(F) Height regulations. Any building which
exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set
back from any side boundary line an
additional distance of one foot for each foot
of height in excess of 20 feet.
K:IReportsl20061PC Reportrlll5-08-061R7R 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Terminella).doc
161.16 District C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial
District is designed primarily to provide
convenience goods and personal services for
persons living in the surrounding residential
areas.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-in
restaurants
Unit 25
Professional offices
(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 34
Liquor stores
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a
residential district
10 ft.
Rear
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations. There shall be no
maximum height limits in C -I District,
provided, however, that any building which
exceeds the height of 10 feet shall be
setback from any boundary line of any
residential district a distance of one foot for
each foot of height in excess of 10 feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the
total area of such lot.
161.17 District C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial
District is designed especially to encourage
the functional grouping of these commercial
enterprises catering primarily to highway
travelers.
(B) Uses..
(I) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping oods
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 17
Trades and services
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations & drive-in
restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 25
Professional offices
Unit 33
Adult live entertainment dub or bar
Unit 34
Liquor store
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 21
Warehousing and wholesale
Unit 28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 32
Sexually oriented business
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a residential
district
15 ft.
Rear
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any
building which exceeds the height of 20 feet
shall be set back from any boundary line of
any residential district a distance of one foot
for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
No building shall exceed six stories or 75
feet in height.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the
total area of such lot.
K:IReports120061PC Reports105-08-061RZN 06-2028 (Mountain Ranch-Tenninella).doc
1
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E.
3/28/06
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Planning Dept.
Re: Mountain Ranch Phase 2
Enclosed herewith please find the applications and documents for the rezonings of
portions of the Mountain Ranch project. The rezonings are explained as follows;
1) Parcel #1 existing zoning is C-1 and the request is to zone to C-2
2) Parcel #2 existing zoning is RMF-2 and the is to zone to C-2
3) Parcel #3 existing zoning is RSF-4 and the request is to zone to RMF-21 due
to slight change in road alignment
4) Parcel #4 existing zoning is RSF-24 and the request is to zone to RSF-4 due to
change in road alignment
5) Parcel #5 existing zoning is C-1 and the request is to zone to RMF-12 to
provide a buffer between the commercial and the residential
6) Parcel #6 existing zoning is C-1 and the request is to zone to RSF-2 due to
change in road alignment.
7) Parcel #7 existing zoning is R -A and the request is to zone to RSF-2.
8) Parcel #8 existing zoning is R -A and the request is to zone to C-2
9) Parcel #9 existing zoning is R -A and the request is to zone to RMF-18 to
provide a buffer between residential and commercial.
• STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS •LAND SURVEYING •
10) Parcel #10 existing zoning is C-1 and the request is to zone to RMF-18
All property will be served by water and sewer that will be extended into the subdivision.
Access will be from Persimmon Street, Shiloh Dr., Old Farmington Rd and Mtn. Ranch
Blvd.
Thank you.
• Sincerely;
bavid L. Jorge en, P.
.
Bill of Assurance •
Page 7 of 4
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning
reclassification, the owner(s), developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter
"Petitioners") Reserve, LLC., hereby voluntarily offer this Bill of Assurance and
enter into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
The Petitioners expressly grant to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioners or Petitioners'
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioners acknowledge that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonably rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioners' rezoning request.
Petitioners hereby voluntarily offer assurances that Petitioners and
Petitioners' property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioners' rezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1. The use of Petitioners' property, described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto shall be limited to those uses permitted by right and by conditional
use in the C-2 zoning district, with the exception of the following:
Permitted Uses to be excluded:
a. Unit 20: Commercial recreation, large sites
b. Unit 33: Adult live entertainment club or bar
Conditional Uses to be excluded:
a. Unit 21: Warehousing and wholesale
b. Unit 28: Center for collecting recyclable materials
c. Unit 32: Sexually oriented business
d. Unit 36: Wireless communications facilites
2. Further, the use of the petitioner's property described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto shall exclude the following uses in the Use Unit 17
designation:
Buses, Manufactured home sales, used car lots, farm supplies and
equipment and repair, auctioneer, cabinetmaker, tattoo services,
taxidermist, tool sharpening service and motor repair.
Bill ofAssumam •
Page 2 of 4
3. The use of the Petitioner's property described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto shall exclude the following specific uses in the Use Unit 19
designation:
Bowling alley, slot car track, skating rink.
4. Petitioners specifically agree that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of
Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit
Clerk's Office after Petitioners' rezoning is effective and shall be noted on
any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of
Petitioners' property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and
conditions stated above, we, Reserve, LLC., as the owners, developers or buyers
(Petitioners) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign our names below.
Date2 %
Address Z�d -7
Date
Address
Printed Na e
Printed Name
Signature
Bill ofAssumnm •
Page 3 of 4
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
now on this the day of
me,
being
placed
upon his/her oath swore or
affirmed that he agreed with the terms
of the
above
Bill of Assurance and
signed
his name above.
2006, appeared before
and after
My Commission Expires:
Bill of Assurance • •
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 04 -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Parcel "1" C-1 to C-2)
Part of the NE1/4, NW1/4 and part of the SE1/4, NW1/4 of Section 18, T16N,
R30W in Washington County, Arkansas and being described as follows:
Commencing at the NE Corner of said SE1/4, NW1/4 thence South 584.44 feet,
thence West 453.75 feet to the P.O.B., Thence S84°09'20"W 2.11 feet, Thence along
a curve to the left 1347.16 feet, Said curve having a radius of 1275.00 feet and a
chord bearing of N36°06'50"W 1285.36 feet, Thence N66°22'59"W 92.26 feet,
Thence N03°03'43"E 204.01 feet, Thence S86°55'01"E 1069.13 feet, Thence
S10°3243"E 3.06 feet, Thence S17°49'52"E 210.49 feet, Thence S21°40'11"E 323.12
feet, Thence S56°05'41"W 145.17 feet, Thence S25°05'22"W 703.02 feet to the
P.O.B.; Containing 16.38 Acres more or less.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Parcel "2" RMF - 24 to C-2)
Part of the NW1/4, NW1/4 of Section 18, T16N, R30W in Washington County,
Arkansas and being described as follows: Commencing at the NE Corner of said
NW1/4, NW1/4 thence South 59.76 feet, thence West 3.16 feet to the P.O.B.,
Thence S03°03'43"W 840.94 feet, Thence N66°22'59"W 58.23 feet, Thence along a
curve to the left 101.80 feet, said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet and a chord
bearing of S32°54'04"W 101.62 feet, Thence N02°26'00"E 907.38 feet, Thence
S87°35'25"E 115.05 feet to the P.O.B.; Containing 2.14 acres more or less.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Parcel "8" R -A to C-2)
Part of the NE1/4, NW1/4 and part of the SE1/4, NW1/4 of Section 18, T16N,
R30W in Washington County, Arkansas and being described as follows:
Commencing at the NE Corner of said SE1/4, NW1/4 thence S02°57'58"W 541.99
feet, thence S84°0920"W 427.95 feet, thence N25°05'22"E 703.02 feet, thence
N56°05'41"E 145.17 feet, thence S14°47'03"E 137.78 feet to the P.O.B., Containing
4.16 acres more or less.
u
Fayetteville Fire
Department
To: Suzanne Morgan, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher
Thru: Chief Tony Johnson
Battalion Chief, Bud Thompson
From: Captain Dale Riggins
Date: May 1, 2006
Re: May I Zoning Review — Fire Department Comments
PZDO62O&The Maples)
These 1.91 acres eyed by Engine 2 at 700 N Garland.
It is 1.2 miles from the stTiot.wth an expected response time of 3.75 minutes.
The Fire Department anticipates MS — 2 Fire/Other) calls for service per year once
the development is completed and maxim wild -out has occurred.
Measured Hydrant Flow in this area is 1565 ga11ThsLmjnute.
The service impact of this development will typically to eighteen months after the
development is started, and the units begin to be occupied, to r. There should be no
adverse effects on our call volume or response time to this development.
RZN020QjOld Wire Investors)
These 34.51 acre ' vered by Engine 5 at 833 N Crossover.
It is 3.1 miles from the staiThmwih an expected response time of 6.25 minutes. When the
new station 5 is put in service at Csgyr and Old Wire the distance will be reduced to
.7 miles and the response time will decrease .25 minutes
The Fire Department anticipates 31 (19 EMS — l/Other) calls for service per year
once the development is completed and maximum buiiao has occurred.
There has been no measured hydrant flow conducted in this a
The service impact of this development will typically take eightSir months after the
development is started, and the units begin to be occupied, to occur. There should be no
adverse effects on our call volume or response time to this development.
y( RZN06-2028 (Mountain Ranch)
These 229.53 acres is covered by Engine 7 at 835 N Rupple.
It is 1.6 miles from the station with an expected response time of 4 minutes. When
Persimmon is extended past Betty Jo, the response time should be decreased to 3.25
minutes and even less time and distance when Persimmon is extended to Rupple Road.
There has been no measured hydrant flow conducted in this area.
We do not figure calls for service on property where the request is to modify the
boundary of the zoning districts.
RZQ-2O48 ('Petra Investments)
These 1. es is covered by Engine 6 at 900 S. Hollywood.
It is 1.1 miles from Cation with an expected response time of 3.75 minutes.
The Fire Department antics s 7 (4 EMS — 3 Fire/Other) calls for service per year once
the development is completed and iimun
There has been no measured hydrant floti
The service impact of this development will
development is started, and the units begin to be occupid$p occur. There should be no
adverse effects on our call volume or response time to this development.
build -out has occurred.
in this area.
take eighteen months after the
RZ4O6-2O49
These Gres is covered by Engine 1 at 303 W Center.
It is 1.9 mil�frqrp the station with an expected response time of 4.75 minutes. When the
proposed Station 3 1 tin service at Happy Hollow and E Huntsville, the response time
will decrease to 2.25 minut .
The Fire Department anticipates 204 EMS — 133 Fire/Other) calls for service per
year once the development is completed maximum build -out has occurred.
There has been no measured hydrant flow c�btted in this area.
The service impact of this development will typid�ilake eighteen months after the
development is started, and the units begin to be occupied, to occur. There should be no
adverse effects on our call volume or response time to this development.
RZNo6OSO (Wales)
This I .42ires400vered by Engine 5 at 833 N Crossover.
It is 2.1 miles from ation with an expected response time of 5.5 minutes. When the
new station 5 is put in serv1S.Crssover and Old Wire the response time will increase
to 6 minutes. Measured Hydrant Flow ' is area is 835 gallons/minute.
There are no anticipated calls for service for aoi�jg this small and there should be no
adverse effects on our response time to this annexatio .
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
@afe cR,iggins
479-444-3448
Fayetteville Fire Department
Aumn P-evrt •
RZ11
-0.
- �UNDED. GNSTiZM�t('ION% - -
O
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 54
Ostner: The next items on our agenda are Rezoning requests for one large piece of
property or many pieces of property conjoined. We will talk about them
as one item and vote on theme independently. RZN 05-1560, Mountain
Ranch Al; RZN 05-1561, Mountain Ranch A2; RZN 05-1562 Mountain
Ranch B; RZN 05-1563, Mountain Ranch C; RZN 05-1564, Mountain
Ranch D, F, H, 1, J; RZN 05-1565, Mountain Ranch E; RZN 05-1566,
Mountain Ranch G. These are all of the items that Jeremy is going to
cover in his staff report.
Pate: First, I would like to mention that you don't have to make a motion
separately on each one of these. Some of those that are recommended for
approval you can make a motion for that and the ordinances will reflect
that that go to City Council. If you recommend denial I would
recommend that you specifically call out that rezoning to recommend
denial on that one. Just as an option here for these iezonings, because
there are so many, I would like to keep them together when
recommending for approval. Whoever makes that motion for or against
or modified keep that in mind. Actually, staff is recommending three
different things on this so you might get to make three different motions.
This property is located within Fayetteville. It is west of 1-540, south of
Persimmon Street, north of 6th Street. It covers a lot of property there.
There are a number of different zoning requests with five different zoning
districts requested on this particular piece of property. You may
remember this most recently by the approval of the subdivision directly to
the west, Mountain Ranch Phase I. That is a single family residential
subdivision that was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting
with some pretty unique design features that this Commission saw.
Additionally, in August, 2004 the area to the west of this, 80 acres was
approved for Annexation and Rezoning. to RSF-4 to allow for single
family development in that location. This is approximately 450 acres of
development that will be under the Mountain Ranch name in some point
or another. On page 15.3 there is a chart detailing the zoning districts.
They are called out in letters, Al, A2, B, C and all the way through J
• indicating what zoning districts are requested. Those include C-2 with a
Bill of Assurance that is offered by the applicant. I have included in your
report what those offerings are to limit the uses to prohibit some of the
more objectionable within that district. C -I, Neighborhood Commercial
and all of the uses located within the C-1 district would be allowed. That
is a more neighborhood oriented commercial type of development. Area
B would be RMF-24, Area C is requested as RSF-4, Residential Single
Family, four units per acre. D, F, H, I and J is requested to RSF-2,
Residential Single Family, two units per acre. That is the majority of the
property with 52.3% requested for RSF-2. Area E, RMF-24. As noted,
staff is recommending modifications to this request. I believe in speaking
with the applicant after this report was published that he does have some
comments regarding that as well. Area G, RSF-4 containing 41.48 acres
• •
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 55
for a total of approximately 370 acres give or take. With regard to access,
some of these tracts have extremely adequate access and some will have to
be built into the property. Access to Shiloh, a collector, Persimmon Street,
which is also a collector, to the north. Improvements will be required to
both Shiloh and Persimmon as needed and as indicated by the Planning
Commission based on the development plans submitted. Those may
include right of way dedication, sidewalks per the Master Street Plan,
widening of streets, etc., the typical things that you do see with
Preliminary Plats and Large Scale Development. Additionally, there is
access to Old Farmington Road with potential access to 6th Street. Those
will be evaluated as well by potential off site improvements. Public water
is adjacent to or near most of the area in question, not readily available
without additional extensions, but as development occurs with the school
to the west and Phase I of the applicant's property those become more
readily available. There are some long range water distribution
improvements planned in the area along Rupple Road with upsizing the
water lines as well as along Persimmon, some of which is cost sharing
with the developers in the area. Currently the site does not have
immediate access to sanitary sewer but, much like water, access will be
provided adjacent to or nearby with development that is continuing at this
time. There is an 18" sewer force main along Shiloh Drive and several
points of discharge to which the applicant and developer could connect for
the sewer discharge. A study of the downstream system will be conducted
as part of the development process. The Fayetteville Fire Department has
reviewed the request and estimated fire response time from the Fire
Station #7 on Rupple Road would be about three to five minutes.
However, at this time Rupple Road south of Persimmon and Persimmon is
not constructed so therefore, they have no means right now to understand
what the timing would be. They actually went around and so that is the
longest time that they could access this property. Those times would be
shortened by direct access to Rupple and Persimmon. The Fayetteville
Police Department responds that with a substantial increase in population
that they will have more service calls. That is a logical conclusion and
something that we've discussed several times at Planning Commission and
at City Council. Obviously, it is an increase over the R -A zoning district
that it is now with one unit per two acres. There is some comparison that
the Police Department compared these developments to. One being
Barrington Parke and another in this area, those were similarly developed
densities, one of which was about 2.2 dwelling units per acre and one that
was a little higher, those are the two units per acre and four units per acre
that. are requested. The Future Land Use Plan designates this site for
residential use and a majority of the rezoning request for the Mountain
Ranch project staff finds is consistent with the Land Use Plan for future
residential uses and• is compatible with surrounding properties that are
developed residentially or commercially. There are zoning districts
directly adjacent to some of these properties that are zoned C-2 and RMF-
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 56
24 and R -A and RSF-4 and RMF-24. Obviously, the size of the property
will dictate some of that. There are some commercial zoning requests
near Persimmon and Shiloh. Those are not necessarily consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan that was adopted in 2001. However, things have
changed in this area since 2001. At that time we did not have a Boys and
Girls Club, we did not have a Fire Station and we did not have a School.
With the development that we are seeing, I don't believe that Rupple Road
was even constructed in 2000. Things have changed dramatically in this
area. We typically look for small node commercial development to
supplement and support residential development nearby. Staff finds that
these two collector streets are ideal for that location directly adjacent to
multi -family development. It would allow for ingress and egress currently
with existing infrastructure. Persimmon is currently built at a 36' wide
cross section and Shiloh is also developed as an arterial in that area. With
regard to findings, they are extremely long in this case. This is a very big
Rezoning application. It is the biggest that I'm aware of in the last 11
years since CMN was rezoned to C-2. It is a big decision and that is why
we have taken a lot of time and looked at these individually. With the
findings, staff finds that the rezoning requests are justified in order to
promote orderly and consistent development patterns meeting our
development standards that the Planning Commission and City Council
have adopted. We do not feel that the Rezonings would create or
appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion if the improvements
required of the developer are consistent with the improvements typically
required of development. The proposed zoning would substantially alter
the population density above what is allowed by the R -A zoning district.
However, RSF-2 is extremely low density.. That is 52.3% of the property,
almost 200 acres would yield a maximum of 400 units developed at it's
entire maximum allowed density. With those findings staff does support
Rezonings A2; B;C;D;F;G;H;I and J listed in your staff report based on
the findings included as part of this report. With regard to the second
recommendation, staff is also recommending approval of the requested
Rezoning of the Al tract from R -A to C-2 subject to the offered Bill of
Assurance that the applicant has offered verbally and with some written
documents, but it is not signed yet, limiting the potentially incompatible
uses located within the C-2 zoning district but allowing uses that are
located for convenience and accessibility along major thoroughfares and
do not present a threat to the integrity or compatibility of adjoining
neighborhoods. If you will note on page 9, I have stricken the uses that
are currently offered as being removed. I believe the applicant has
concerns with Use Unit 17 and Use Unit 19 so we wjll deal with that in
more detail with the applicant's discussion with the Commission.
Additionally, staff is recommending denial of one of the requests in it's
current configuration. We have spoken with the applicant about this as
well. Our primary concern is with Area E rezoning that to RMF-24 on the
slope area. While we understand that this was an area that was sparred by
I.
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 57
fill and excavation materials from the creation of I-540 and some of the
interchanges here, it does still present a challenge with regard to our slope
in this area. As you know, the city is looking at some development
ordinances that would help protect hillsides so that staff could confidently
recommend RMF-24 because it would have those hillside protection
ordinances in place. We do not have that however and simply rezoning
that straight out to RMF-24 is something that staff feels that the Planning
Commission nor the City Council is looking for in this case. Our findings
do not support that. We would recommend that multi -family zoning is
appropriate in some of these locations. Density is perfectly appropriate
next to schools, next to public centers like the Boys and Girls Club, close
to infrastructure that is adequate currently to meet the needs as well as
infrastructure that is being improved to the west. Potentially, it is our
finding that multi -family development zoned RMF-24 is appropriate, not
necessarily though on those hillsides. We would respectfully request that
that zoning line be moved to the east currently to about the DOD
boundary. With the development we could look at a PZD potentially to
allow for appropriate development on the hillside sometime in the future.
With those three different recommendations, I am available to answer
questions.
Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present?
Terminella: I am Tom Terminella with Terminella & Associates here in Fayetteville at
24 E. Meadow. It is a big project, there is a lot of history behind it. There
are a lot of things that we need to move forward with and get done for the
welfare of everybody that adjoins and owns property out that way
pertaining to the Persimmon and the Rupple improvements that need to be
done in order to deal with the mass amount of development going on in
that part of the world. I do want to step aside. There are a few neighbors
here that I have not had an opportunity to visit with. I want to make sure
that we hear their concerns if any. There are four or five people that did
contact me that adjoin our farm, the ranch out there. Either through
Council or our staff at the office they were able to explain and overcome
any concerns that they had over the last week or ten days. I'm not sure if
my neighbors want to voice their concerns but I sure want to give them the
opportunity before we jump in the middle of this. With that, I will step
aside and you can open it up to public comment.
Ostner: We will hear public comment. Please introduce yourself and share your
comments.
Marinoni: My name is Paula Marinoni. We sold a large portion of that property to
Tom Terminella. My family owns a lot of property on the west side of
town and with that comes the responsibility of stewardship. We are not
developers. Many of you know that I have been to thousands of city
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 58
planning meetings over the years laboriously trying to figure out what to
do with the property. How to help the family transition it into something
that would benefit our community. We have asked for help from the city
and we haven't gotten it. We have asked for direction and so we tried to
do this ourselves. With this property we offered it to Mr. Terminella under
the requirement that it must be a Planned Zoning District. That was in our
contract with him. It went on and on and on and on and on of dragging it
out for almost a year. Finally, it looked like it is going to take a long time.
There is nothing in place right now, it is going to have to be staged, the
city is going to have to figure this out. We had him put that in writing to
us that he would promise us that that would be a Planned Zoning District
and we closed on it. All of this time since last November I have been told
and lead to believe that that is going to be a Planned Zoning District.
Needless to say, I was very disappointed, shocked and upset to read about
this in the paper yesterday of cutting it up like a piece of pie. We sold this
to him at a good price and we looked him in the eye as an old family
friend of some of the family and told him "We have faith in you. You
have the ability to do this right. You take this to the city. You plan this
whole big piece and make it beautiful and make my father proud. Make it
make sense and be good to the community." We put it into the hands of
the city under the Planned Zoning District that the city would then have
the ability to scrutinize and make sure that it came within the Fayetteville
Vision 2020 Guiding Principals #1, a Naturally Beautiful City, our
Mountains and Hills. I.cannot believe that the city staff is recommending
approval for this with only the question of that one RMF-24 on a slope. It
is only two units per acre on 196 acres of it. That 196 acres is a mountain
side! Some of it is so steep that you have to crawl up it. He is going to
butcher it!
Ostner: We are going to try to talk about this land and not about Mr. Terminella.
Stop accusing the land owner.
Marinoni: When the PZD process started the city pointed out that the Planning
Commission was trying to go outside of their authority in telling people
how to develop property. You were trying to design it and what is it going
to look like and what are the materials and you didn't have the legal right
to do that. All you had the legal right to do was to say does it fit that
zoning and to allow it to zone. They could come in with all of the pretty
pictures that they wanted and after they left here they could throw them all
in the trash. That is why the city went to the PZD which gave the people
the opportunity to see what was going to happen. He can still do that. It
can still be phased in. Steele Crossing was 305 acres and that was a
mistake. At the point that they gave blanket zoning the city lost control
and then they came back and they said now we need a four lane, now we
need this, no, we aren't going to preserve those trees. You know what
happened as a result of that. There was no control anymore. I personally
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 59
do not- believe that he is going to do this. I think he will have the ability to
get the zoning and then flip it and sell it off to somebody else who doesn't
have to follow his plan. This is 368.9 acres. There is no reason on this
earth to give him the zoning on all of that at one time, especially that
mountain. You will really look back on that and say we messed up if you
allow that to happen. There is no way that you can put homes on there V2
acre each and it not be a disaster. We wanted this to be unique. You said
he is giving a Bill of Assurance. He gave us a Bill of Assurance, he gave
us his word multiple, multiple times.
Ostner: Ms. Marinoni,
you
are talking about
your relationship with Mr.
Terminella, you
need
to talk about this piece
of property.
Marinoni: It is a mistake! Nothing like this has ever come through and it is really sad
that it is at 9:00 at night. How is it possible that there aren't people to
address this here? Is it because they don't understand what this means? I
have told people all along you don't have to worry, it is going to be a
PZD. They will do -it in phases and it will be done nice. Now it is not. If
you zone this in the seven chunks like this it will just be sold off and it
will come back to you piece by piece and piece by piece you will say that
was a mistake. I am sorry. This makes me sick to my stomach to have to
stand here, to have to come here tonight and do. this and have to
potentially watch that mountain be butchered when we were promised
something different. I'm sorry, I don't even want to hear the discussion
on it. I will leave it in your hands.
Hecox: My name is Tom Hecox, I'm with TWH Consulting and I've been. asked
to speak to you on behalf of Karen Greenway and Phyllis Pope who are
unable to attend this meeting. Karen Greenway has lived on a five acre
tract at the end of Dinsmore Trail for over 20 years. Her mother owns
another five acre tract just to the south of that. The adjoining tracts of land
are Tracts I to the west and Tract J to the south. When Karen was first
aware that the adjoining property was being purchased she met with the
owner and it was her understanding that this was going to be developed in
five acre tracts. Now we are here at a rezoning to make this ''A acre lots
open for development there. Karen wasn't notified. She did not know
about this rezoning, even though her property was adjacent to Tract I, she
found out through a letter that her mother had received on this.
Obviously, this is not the type of adjacent development that one desires
when you move out to the country. You expect to be in the country, to
have a lot of wooded area, green space, open space. Also, the sole access
to Tract I is going to be Dinsmore Trail at this point. That is pretty much a
single lane from the last route up to the mountain. It has a single lane low
water bridge on it and there is going to have to be extensive infrastructure
work done for this to work. It is not going to adequately handle a large
subdivision development with 1/2 acre lots at the end of it. It doesn't have
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 60
that kind of capacity. The low water bridge is right as Dinsmore Trail
exits Hwy. 62. As you head up the mountain the trail becomes more
winding and more narrow. The last turn on it is actually a hair pin turn to
get up to the property that you are talking about there. There will be some
issues on it. We are not suggesting that no type of development be done
here. As has already been pointed out, there is a lot of wildlife habitat up
there. It is going to be impacted. This is a very natural area, a very
beautiful area there on the mountain. Naturally, they would like to see it
remain that way. At this point all we are asking is to keep the zoning as
R -A for now. The main tract that is adjoining their property is Tract 1.
Tract J is a huge piece of property that has access off of other roads. Tract
I is accessed off of Dinsmore Trail. We would like to see that zoning
remain as R -A.
Ostner: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak?
Bottoms: I am Bill Bottoms, I live at 2828 Old Farmington Road. My main concern
is the traffic problems. As we all know, Fayetteville has a traffic problem.
We got Wal-Mart and Lowe's and it has become a bottle neck out here for
people coming into Fayetteville and going out of Fayetteville. To try to
get into town from 7:30 is almost impossible. There is a wreck out there
everyday. They use Old Farmington Road as a cut through. This is a very
narrow road. There are elderly people who walk on it. There are no
sidewalks, no shoulders, it is just black top and ditch. That is my main
concern. If this development is going to use this road for access, make this
road wider and get some sidewalks there. They are going to use that as a
cut through because that is the only way they can get to the motels and
stuff out there.
Sloan: I am Charlie Sloan, one of the land owners and I live out by this project
just to the west of it. I admire Mr. Terminella for taking on such a large
project. It does take a lot of vision to decide where you want to put things.
We looked it over, I represent the McBride's next to them. Looking at this
layout, it is very logical for what we had once looked at this property too
potentially. I think you have to do some multi -family and you need some
commercial there at Persimmon. That is a growing area out there, as you
all know. I know some of the traffic problems exist, we are working with
Mr. Terminella about Rupple Road extensions and things like that. I know
he is working on Persimmon extension to the east now. We are for the
project. I know it takes multiple facets of zoning up there. I don't know
what projects or promises were made as far as whether it should be a PZD
or whatever, but in order to design something this big he needs to know
what zonings he can use, where he can have zonings at. I know we are
working on a conceptual PZD with the city, but once again, I think that is
still in committee so we can't bring a PZD to you to let you see a concept.
To fully engineer a project of this size he would be forever designing
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 61
every road and every path and everything in place like it needs to be.
Before he goes to that expense I understand that he needs to know what he
can do with this project and what is your vision. I think tonight is sort of
where you will hash out the zoning by breaking it up whether or not you
agree with what his vision is.
Ostner: Would
anyone else
like to speak
to
this issue? I am going to close it to
public
comment and
bring it back
to
the Commission.
Terminella: For those of you who have followed this process for the last 19 months
since we acquired this property, put it under contract and brought it to the
city as a PZD and spent in excess of nine months and six figures doing the
overall master plan for this particular subdivision and land use plan. We
attempted to move it forward under that understanding. As you are aware,
our current PZD vehicle to do that level of planning requires me, as the
developer, to civilly go to the point of unknown. When you have 200, 300
or 400 acres of ground and civilly do land planning, land use and then
walk back into this chamber with no assurance of approval, you can see
why we have taken our preliminary road design, which is totally
preliminary, with the exception of our first phase RSF-4 site that was
approved through this body. We have to have an understanding of land
use and it's density in order to do the civil aspect. I will use Phase I as an
example. We have RSF-4 zoning there. We have 2.17 units per acre. It is
the flattest part of the development. We could have got four units per acre
with 70' lots. We could have land harvested the ground and got maximum
density with no consideration to anybody but the almighty dollar. We
chose not to do that. We came up with what we feel is a community
driven development. Ms. Marinoni's comments, I'm saddened and
disappointed at her behavior and how she handled herself this evening.
Paul Marinoni III works in my firm. He represents this project. He has no
issues with it. I am sorry that others are uninformed and working from
bad information. We are simply doing as the city asked and requested of
us. This would not fit the R-PZD under the current plan that is in place as
an ordinance. With regard to Dinsmore, there is no access from this
preliminary plan off of Dinsmore. The only thing that Dinsmore serves is
my home at 3425 Dinsmore on the top of the mountain. In regard to the
gentleman that just spoke, Ms. Pope has been up there a long time. I
would have reservations on any plan of anybody that owned land on all
three sides of me. I have gotten along with her. I can assure you our
intended use for the lion's share of this farm is half the density that Mt.
Sequoyah is today._ Our desire is simply to provide the necessary
commercial services and the RMF density that has been requested by the
members of this Commission in what we feel makes sense with RMF
areas in the areas of schools and minor and major road arteries. Pertaining
to Old Farmington Road, it is under improved, it is a cut through, there is
tremendous traffic. There are things that will be done to that road with the
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 62
LSDs on Hwy. 62 and all of that land that has gone under contract. Some
of that land adjoins Old Farmington Road. Old Farmington Road in the
very southern end of the project on the bottom of the page will be 4-6
years out as far as this development. Certain things will happen.
Collectively city staff, which has done an excellent job of meeting with
me, we understand the need for connectivity between the Hwy. 16 and
Hwy. 62 valley. Mr. Sloan spoke positively on it. We are working with
the city. We are dealing with cost share. We are providing right of way.
We are gifting of land. We are doing all of those things with the common
goal of working in tandem and solving the problems that we see coming
on line for the western part of this city. I grew up in this part of town on
Hall Street. Paul Marinoni III works for me. He has a vested interest in
this farm. We think we have done what has been asked of us. This is
what we can make the best sense of and respectfully, as far as staff is
concerned, the one issue that they cannot fully agree with and agree at this
point, we respectfully withdraw that rezoning request on the 16 acres of
RMF to leave it as R -A until we are able to civilly make a clear
understanding of where that road right of way is going to go and how it
would visually impact I-540 and the DOD. With that, I will be happy to
answer any and all of your questions. Thank you.
Myres: Are you talking about E?
Terminella: It would be RZN 05-1565 the request to go from R -A to RMF-24 with
16.88 acres. That particular parcel, my issue with this, this is C-2 and this
is RMF-24, you tell me what needs to be done there. I'm only trying to
make some sense of it. I am already surrounded by some intense
development there. I will work with staff on that issue. I respectfully pull
that one and leave it as R -A, when we get our civil work done to that point
then we will make some sense of it.
Anthes: We do not have the Bill of Assurance before us but we have the intent of
it. You said that there were some questions on Use Unit 17 and Use Unit
19. Staff, what sorts of things are included under Use Unit 17 Trades and
Services and Use Unit 19 Commercial Recreation Small Site? Then could
I hear from Mr. Terminella about why you might want to be leaving those
in now?
Pate: Certainly. Use Unit 17 carries a lot of our trades and services that you
typically see in commercial districts, especially retail districts. It includes
things such as medical, orthopedic appliances, everything from rug repair,
re -upholstery, auctioneers, auto washes, motor repair. Some uses that are
not necessarily that impact in the area. It does include things such as
automotive sales, service and repair shops, manufactured home sales,
truck sales including service and repair, used car lots and things at that
nature that at these arterials at a very visible location within the 1-540
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 63
Design Overlay District. We believe with the applicant, who is looking
more for uses that would support the project that he is looking for. With
the Bill of Assurance that Mr. Terminella has offered initially he had
indicated that Use Units 17 and 19 might not be something that he would
be utilizing any uses in. I think that has changed somewhat. Especially
looking at specific uses that could be located within those Use Units. Use
Unit 19, Commercial Recreation Small Site includes things such as
billiard and pool parlors, bowling alleys, skating rinks, video arcades,
indoor theaters. Some of those things are included in a lot of your
"lifestyle centers", if you will, that you see across the country and they.are
going in now so I don't think that is necessarily objectionable either,
specifically Use Unit 19. Some of the ones in Use Unit 17 however, I
think will need to be looked over with a little more detail.
Anthes: Mr. Terminella, can you speak to those two items?
Terminella: Yes Jill. There are certain things based on my upbringing that I wouldn't
have anywhere on the property. That would be adult entertainment, adult
bookstores and things of that nature that I feel are offensive to me and my
family and my beliefs. Some of the things that we got into after review it
with Council. In the C-2 pod we have a motel group from out of state that
is wanting to build a Class A or Class B facility. In that they could have
an arcade or something of that nature that if we just agree to it carte
blanche, wide open, it is going to create some problems for some potential
franchisees in the future. Before we have a definitive game plan in place I
will get with staff and strike the usages that I feel are offensive and would
be offensive and detrimental for our overall land plan. It has a whole list
of them here and I don't perceive a need for an auctioneer or a tattoo
service. Some of this stuff is woven into the fabric of the overall guideline
for usage and we just respectfully are asking for a little bit of time to sift
through those and find the ones that don't make good sense to us. We
don't see any car dealerships or repair shops. The price of the ground has
gotten to the point out there where those things don't work. Topography
doesn't lend itself to a bunch of that stuff being built and constructed.
Anthes: Mr. Whitaker, how would we act on this item without that list being
developed to see it? I am talking about Tract Al which is the one from R-
A to C-2. How can we make a recommendation to City Council without a
full understanding of what is being offered in the Bill of Assurance.
Whitaker: If you don't believe that at this point saying approve it now we'll work on
it later, you don't want to make that leap of faith then you probably should
vote against recommending it.
Anthes: Is tabling appropriate in that case? I would think that we would just be
looking for that clarification.
L.
•
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 64
Whitaker: Tabling is certainly an option if you believe that they are within days or a
couple of weeks of having this document but I don't know how close they
are.
Terminella: I can identify all of the ones that Jeremy handed to me before the meeting
if you want to put it in the motion, I can identify the ones that I would
strike and wouldn't allow within that area if that would be acceptable.
Anthes: Can we do that verbally or do we need the written gill of Assurance?
Whitaker: You don't have to have the written Bill of Assurance but you can make it
a condition of approval or of your recommendation based on that
condition and then it goes to the Council with that in it.
Anthes: I am confused because we are not talking about omitting whole Use Units.
We are talking about going line item by line item within a Use Unit. I
have never seen us do that before so I don't know how to handle it.
Pate: We have done that in the past. Again, Bill of Assurance is offered by the
applicant and not requested or required. The applicant has offered a Bill
of Assurance to ensure C-2 zoning in this parcel. Currently the one that
we have staff is supportive of and I believe that with a little more detailed
look at the things in trades and services and things in commercial
recreation small site, those are things that we could potentially look at
tonight and forward with a recommendation. I think you have a number of
options. You can recommend for denial, you can recommend for tabling,
you can recommend for approval based on what the applicant is offering
verbally, which is to include Use Units 17 and 19 if you feel that is
appropriate and of course, it would exclude everything else that has been
eliminated from Use Unit 17 and 19. It is about your comfort level and
how you feel.
Anthes: Mr. Terminella, can you verbally list what you would strike from Use
Units 17 and 19?
Terminella: Use Unit 17 the things that we would be striking would be auctioneer,
linen supply and industry laundries, tattoo services, taxidermist, motor
repair, tool sharpening and repair services, I don't believe we will have
any cabinet makers on the interstate. The rest of them seem reasonable for
a community or a residential area as far as services. Use Unit 19, 1 don't
believe we are going to have another skating rink on the property. I feel
certain that there won't be a spot car track and there are only about six
items there that fall within that Use Unit category. One would be billiards
and a pool parlor, I think I would leave that in primarily for the hotel user
who has identified this property for a development. I'm not sure what their
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 65
intent is for the amenities of the hotel so I am operating cautiously on that.
Bowling alley, I don't see there ever needs to be a bowling alley. Skating
rink, I don't see that happening. Video arcade and indoor theater, possibly
inside something of a resort type property. I would request that those stay
in there. Skating, Slot Car, Bowling Alley would be extracted from that.
MOTION:
Anthes: I would like to move that we recommend approval of the requested
rezoning, Al, from R -A to C-2 subject to the offered Bill of Assurance
omitting Use Units as stated, permitted Uses 20, 33 and those portions of
17 and 19 offered by the applicant and Conditional Uses 21, 28, 32 and
36.
Myres: Second.
Ostner: You excluded Use Unit 21, 28, 32 and 36?
Anthes: Yes.
Ostner: My question is on Use Unit 17 you mentioned the items that you wanted
removed. Would you mind going over the items that remain because we
don't have that list in front of us.
Terminella: The ones that could potentially remain would be these, a lot of which I
don't see happening, but I wouldn't feel comfortable striking them tonight
without further dialogue and thought. Automotive sales, service and a
body shop, that kind of goes with a car dealership like Landers or anything
else there on I-540. Busses, I don't see that happening and I'm not even
sure what that means. Manufactured Home Sales, I don't believe there is
any of that area that would yield itself for manufactured home sales.
Motorcycle sales, I think we just rezoned Mr. Bill Eddy's property in the
old Hank's location to allow that happen, which is 1-540 frontage in the
Overlay so that is a possibility but doubtful. Truck Sales, Service and
Repair, Trailer Sales, Camping, Hauling, Travel. Here again, I never see
that happening, especially for my intended use for Mountain Ranch but
here again, that is something that could happen. Farm supply equipment
and repair. I don't think the property yields itself as far as price point, for
that. Direct selling (general merchandising established) I'm not sure the
intent of that but I don't think that is going to be happening. Then it goes
on to say Animal Hospital, Packing and Crating, Rug Cleaning, Tool
Sharpening, Auto Wash, Electrical Repair, Radio and Television Repair,
Rug Repair. I can see some simple retail. I can see some R -O, Residential
Office or physician base, whether it is dentistry or whether it is services
geared toward a community driven planned area. I can't see to the end
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 66
game but I can visualize a 30 acre or 40 acre pod along 1-540 that has
services like that that would compliment the residential aspect of it.
Ostner: Thank you. We have a motion and a second, is there any further
discussion? This is a big project. Call the roll.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of the
request to rezone from R -A to C-2 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
MOTION:
Anthes: I would move to recommend approval of requested Rezonings A2, B and
C based on staff findings.
Trumbo: Second.
Ostner: We have a motion and a second on Tract A2, B and C. Is there further
discussion? Call the roll please.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of the
Rezoning requests included for Tracts A2, B and C was approved by a
vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Anthes: On the items that the applicant chose to withdraw do we need to take any
action?
Whitaker: No, his request is gone since he withdrew.
Anthes: The reason I stopped here is this deals with property adjacent to the
highway and to Persimmon Street and to the development that has
currently been passed and cleared that off the table for discussion about
the rest of the pieces and I think that there may be some comments that we
need to hear related to the neighbor's comments and about density and
hillsides and things like that that we want to discuss so I thought we could
clean out the easy ones and then we could work on this.
Vaught: I like RSF-2 here. Granted, I don't think it will develop to that due to the
terrain. It is very steep. I didn't like leaving it R -A before when we left it
here. For instance, someone could put a mobile home park in here by
right now. Rezoning it to something to a RSF-1 or RSF-2 zoning would
definitely be more favorable to me. RSF-2, I think it is nice to see
someone bringing that forward so I'm in support of RSF-2. I think
J
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 67
anything above that would have been out of line but I think RSF-2 is a
good place for this to fall. I doubt that it will develop to two full units per
acre after parkland dedications and roadway right of ways and tree
preservation and things are counted.
Ostner: Mr. Terminella, since we are talking about vision, how do you envision
this parcel being developed? We are talking about the steeper areas in
RZN 05-1564 encompassing areas D, F, H, I, J.
Terminella: After looking at the overall topography of the property one must keep in
mind that Mt. Sequoyah, Skyline, Oklahoma Way, all of the roads on top
of Mt. Sequoyah in years past were developed with density greater than
RSF-4. It can be done. Is it the highest and best use of that particular
challenged topography? I don't think so. I currently live on top of the
mountain. I have walked or drove all of this land at one time or the other
over the past few years. Why you see so many lines moving and jagging
and pieces and pods, that was taken into consideration when we came
before you asking for our zoning and entitlement process. Things we put
forward are, in my eyes as a land planner and a developer, realistic. Those
yields would have the least impact on the land mass. Could we do more?
Yes. Could we have done more in PhaseI with four unit per acre density?
Yes. At this point I think my actions speak louder than anything that I can
say at this microphone tonight. The intended use of this farm is to create
the next regional mountainous area called Mountain Ranch which will be
equivalent to what we have seen develop on Rockwood Trail and the other
mountainous areas off of Hwy. 45. The density that we are requesting
approval for is less than what was constructed and developed and built in
the areas that I just referenced. We feel like we have a good handle on it.
I'm the one that lives on top of the mountain in the middle of it. I see
some of my other neighbors here that didn't have a comment. They may
be asking themselves about density and things of that nature but the city
right now doesn't have an RSF-2.2 or RSF-1.5, RSF-2.6. I am simply
asking for approval on the tools that I was given to work with and as you
can see, we have developed 2.2 units per acre in a RSF-4 zone. I think my
actions speak louder than my words. That is our intent in the mountainous
area we can get two units per acre. Do I think for a minute that we are
going to have two units per acre in those RSF-2? No. I think it is more
like one unit per every acre or acre and a half ground. Do we have the
tools for me to articulate that under our current zoning classifications? I
would say not. The request is for greater density with an understanding
that lesser density will come through. I am only working within the
guidelines of what I have to work with right now.
Vaught: Several of these phases will be years off unless the developer hurries.
Hopefully our hillside ordinance won't take as long as these developments
and we will have some more definition for the developer in designing it
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 68
also as we pass these things on what will happen on some of these steep
portions of the property. I guess my hope is that the hillside ordinance is
only months away instead of years.
Ostner: I hope so too. On that note, for Mr. Whitaker, with the current draft
proposal, how might that affect some of these steep areas or are you even
familiar with that?
Whitaker: I have not seen the draft of that.
Trumbo: I don't believe there is one.
Terminella: I can speak to the issues that jump out as far as my concerns. A lot of the
things that Design Workshop, Staff, and the group have championed in the
preliminary draft ordinance, a lot of things that make sense to me are
moving the utilities to the front of the lots along street ways so we don't
disturb the canopy on the backside of lots for simply putting in a line. The
other things that make a great deal of sense to me is the street widths of
some streets in mountainous areas. The thing that probably made the most
sense to me is variations in setbacks in steep areas to where we are not
creating the need to go in and bench and remove a bunch of canopy and
basically layer the mountain. There are all sorts of bad examples around
town of that. I am encouraged about the process we have made on that. I
have been there at every meeting. It is very important to me. I think I'm
oneof less than a handful of people that own 500 acres of mountainous
area within the city limits of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Growing up on that
side of town, playing on Markham Mountain, running around on this farm,
riding motorcycles, living on Hall Street, going up and down Cleveland,
Sang, Hassle, I have vested interest. I am a green developer. This .is
where I've grown up. Those things are important to me and I feel like I've
been in and out of several committees and several failed attempts to get
something past but I'm as encouraged as I've ever been with the collective
spirit of trying to get something that works both for the city, the residents
and the development community. I think we are well on the way. In
saying that, I think there are steps being made that would minimize the
impact on our mountainous area and they are making sense to me.
Ostner: I appreciate that.
MOTION:
Myres: I move that we approve the remaining items which I believe are D, F, G,
H, I and J.
Trumbo: I will second.
• •
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 69
Ostner: Is there discussion?
Anthes: I believe your intent for this property is right. Don't question that I'm
questioning that. I am just having some trouble with the order these things
are happening in. We are all saying that this makes sense with the hillside
ordinance, this makes sense with what we are working on. This makes
sense if we do it this way. But we don't have that ordinance in place yet.
We don't have the thing that protects this hundreds of acres of hillside. I
don't know what phases you plan to do first and next and next. I know
what you are doing first, that is the one that went through a few weeks
ago. Can you tell us about the timing of this and what is the urgency to
rezone these last sections right now before we have the other pending
legislation with the PZD ordinance and the hillside ordinance that could
inform us about how these would develop on this other piece of property?
I am going back to a rather heart felt and passionate plea to us this evening
by the previous land owner and I'm trying to figure out how we can go
through this in a way that is beneficial to everybody.
Terminella: I'm the gentleman that collectively purchased the land with the intent of
bringing it through this body as a PZD. Due to certain things well out of
my control that couldn't happen. I spent the time, I've spent the money,
I've spent one year of debt servicing 474 acres sifting in neutral trying. to
navigate through these ordinances that the city has. In order for me, Tom
Terminella, the Reserve, LLC, the Ranch, to move the project forward
there have been certain things asked of me to cost share one mile of road
running east and west, to cost share %2 mile road running north and south.
To take into consideration of giving the land that I purchased, some six
acres, for right of way for all of this to happen.. I understand that. I do it
in seven different cities, three counties and some 2,000 acres of it in this
community. The thing that I have to have as the guy that put it on the line,
the risk taker, the gambler, the poker player, whatever you want to call
me, I have to have the reassurance that I can do what I need to do to
• recapture my investment. I can't stand here tonight and agree to anything
other than absolute understanding of my entitlement and zoning. Others
are asking me to pay, wait, give, donate, pay for certain things in order for
all to benefit from. I simply ask this body and the Council to give me my
entitled powers, zoning, and the entitlements that I need to move my
project forward. It has to be a two way street. There has to be
consideration given for development. A developer has to have
consideration for the city. I have went beyond the call of duty sitting in
neutral patiently and working with staff and others to achieve the things
that needed to be achieved in order to move it forward. I don't feel good
about leaving this body with part of my business done. I have agreed to
do certain things with the city and the school district, so they can achieve
their goals. I would simply ask for the Planning Commission and the City
Council to give me the same consideration. Give me the reassurance that I
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 70
can land plan and develop my property in a civilly, educated manner and
without the entitlement I can't do that. Without an understanding of the
land use I can't do that. I have got almost all of the pieces but not all of
them. That is how I would speak to that.
Allen: Regarding the same thing that Commissioner Anthes said, you have
almost all of the pieces and we, as Planners, have concerns about what
might happen in the future. That is the point of Planning. I am not clear
as to why you need it all when we feel like we are close to being able to
have an ordinance in place that would make us feel better about
development of the last part of the property.
Terminella: The last part of the property is RSF-2 and the flat spots on top of the
mountain are RSF-4. I have backed away from density and vertical
development and things of that nature that was offensive to staff on the top
of that mountain. In R -A, what it is currently zoned, I can do one house
per acre right now as it exists. Most of this area is topography challenged,
it. has one way in and out. There is going to have to be some concessions
and understanding of street widths. I don't look at it as offensive. I look
at it as something other. I concur with Mr. Vaught that leaving it R -A and
the things that could be put on it at that level of zoning would be far more
worrisome to me than an RSF-2 or RSF-4 zone. That is me personally.
Why is it so important for me to understand it? There again, I am the
fellow that has been here for a year in neutral wanting an understanding
that I can do something with my farm other than run cattle on it. It has
become real expensive to run cattle on that amount of real estate and sit in
neutral. I am not willing to come back and back and listen to public abuse
and under educated people slam me in this public forum that don't fully
understand the development plan. I have taken that up with the city staff,
with the mayor of the city, I have taken it up with the folks that have all
the vested interest in making this happen out there. I simply want the
reassurance that I can develop my farm. There are others in the city that
want the reassurance that I am going to cost share, donate, build, pay for
and give right of way and money to make that happen. I don't think it is an
unreasonable request for everybody to win. That is the number one rule in
my company is everybody wins that is involved in a particular deal. That
is all that I am asking for. I don't think any of it is intrusive. I don't think
there is zoning that is offensive on top of that mountain that would destroy
view shed. If I could make it pretty and put all the streets in there and
there was 100% certainty I would. In order to do that on 474 acres, that is
a large amount of civil investment for no reassurance on anything. I have.
been there and done that and this is what our city staff, the Planning
Department, asked me to do. If I can't get an RPZD approved because of
the technical aspects of the ordinance, then bring it through in pods of
your intended zoning. That is what I have done. Through this whole
process I wouldn't say it has gone as smooth as silk but it hasn't been
Planning Commission •
June 27, 2005
Page 71
burlap. I have done what I said I would do. I am continuing to do that.
The main issue comes down to me being able to fund and finance the
project. I can fund and finance a piece of real estate that has the
entitlement and the zoning in place. I can't fund and finance a 474 acre
cattle farm with no reassurance in this city that I can do anything other
than put one house per acre or run cattle on it. That is why I'm asking.
That is why it is important. As far as the evolution of development, where
it goes from A to B Jill, it starts on Persimmon and goes south through
multiple phases over eight years. Absorption will tell us the real pace and
time line on this thing. Based on what I'm seeing out in the valley and
other subdivisions, the absorption rate of Mr. Sloan and Mr. Nock and Mr.
Walker and the other folks that are developing within that community, the
absorption is good. The demand is there. The• need is there. What is
lacking is infrastructure. I've spent weeks, days, months and hours talking
with others planning and collectively gifting paying for and cost sharing in
order for this city to achieve it's goals. I don't think it is out of the realm
of reality for me to leave here tonight knowing what I can do with my
property. That is why I'm asking for the mass zonings. That is how it got
here. I wish I could've got my PZD approved a year ago and then I
wouldn't be here tonight. I'm not willing to go back through this another
dozen times. As you can tell, the young lady that was here earlier was one
of seven heirs. The other heirs talk to me on a daily basis and still run
cattle on my farm. I am disappointed, I'm saddened by her behavior. It is
what it is and hopefully you are seeing everything.
Allen: Did you talk with her and the other neighbors that were unhappy?
Terminella: She is not a neighbor. She owns no real estate on the west side of I-540 to
my knowledge. .I have talked to three neighbors that adjoined some
portion of the farm this week that have called me. I noticed my neighbors
that live closest to me are here in this chamber tonight that had no
comment. I noticed the ones that had no financial risks or responsibility or
reliability were speaking the loudest. The one that I just wrote the check
to. It is real easy to sit on the side lines and call somebody a land
harvester or butcher when it is not you. I don't go for that for a New York
minute. I don't believe anything that was conveyed. She obviously does
not have a clear understanding of the evolution and the responsibilities
that the city put on me to get to this point. I did agree to buy it as a PZD
but staff is recommending that the way that I need to bring this through
because of the massive size is individual zoned pods then that is what I'm
going to do. I'm going to go along with what staff recommends and
hopefully get approval based on their recommendations. Here again, I'm
not going to beat the drum. It is what it is. Those are my reasons. That is
why I requested it. That is why we switched gears after I was tabled on a
simple 21 acre rezone for Phase 1. At that point I made the decision if we
are going to participate at the level that the city wants us to on cost shares
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 72
and miles of roads, I simply need my reassurance before I voluntarily gift
my land and participate in these cost shares. I respectively ask you to
move it forward and approve my request tonight and I'll be here until the
questions stop coming.
Allen: Can you calculate how many acres we have already rezoned?
Ostner: Remaining if D, J, H, I, J, and G. I believe we have more than '/z
remaining.
Pate: You have 235 acres remaining.
Ostner: We have rezoned 140 and another 235 are before me.
Anthes: I think Commissioner Allen and I were getting at the same thing. With
what Mr. Terminella was saying about his timing, he is going to work
from Persimmon and go down over eight years. We just looked at 120+
acres that exactly fit that development pattern that we recommended
approval on to City Council. When I look at the rest of the acreage I'm
excited about the fact that the way you have zoned this is not just by
putting a grid on the map but by looking at the topography. I have a GIS
generated file here that shows your parcels laid over slopes and it is very
cleat that you have been responsive to that in laying this out and I really
appreciate that. It is not just a bubble diagram. That is why my comment
was I believe your intent is exactly right. We are just haggling because we
would love to have this in a logical order where we know that these things
that we know are in the pipeline are in place. I think that that will happen
with the development taking the amount of time that it will to develop the
property. I just know that we have looked at other pieces of property and
said we are going to hold off on that because there is not development
pressure on that parcel right now that says we have to take action before
something else that is in the pipeline is finished. I appreciate that the
clearing on the top of the mountain is being held down. I am comfortable
with G in that respect and I'm probably pretty comfortable with the rest of
it as RSF-2. I just wish we had a different order that these things were
happening in. Staff, with the RSF-2 in what you have seen coming
through with the ordinances, are you thinking that these are highly
compatible?
Pate: Very much so. I guess in response, there has been a lot of discussion
about the hillside ordinance tonight, but the initial impression from
Council when we first looked at anything about hillside protection was to
downzone the multi -family to something conducive to hillside
development which would be RSF-2 or RSF-4. That is what we initially
looked at doing is rezoning to exactly what this rezoning request is
requesting. Clearing an entire''/z acre is not the intent of this developer. It
Planning Commission
June 27, 2005
Page 73
would not meet our grading ordinances currently that we have. We have
grading and tree preservation ordinances in place right now for RSF-2
zoning districts without the hillside development that I feel would protect
that hillside whether we had that ordinance in place now or in two years.
Those are things that we took into consideration when we made our
recommendation. The fact that the city is going to look at development of
this very nature on Mt. Sequoyah which is zoned at a much higher density
and would not be appropriate. That is the very reason that we had the
discussion about the RMF-24 on the hillside tonight. There are ways that
you could do that inappropriately very easily. The density proposed at two
units per acre is extremely low density for this Commission and Council to
look at. To my knowledge, there has only been one or two other rezoning
requests to RSF-2 since it was created two years. It is just not utilized
very often. The V2 acre lot and 100' width minimum are inherently things
that protect that property. We expect Mr. Terminella would comply with
our city ordinances just as anyone else would. That is what it came down
to in our evaluation of that RSF-2 on the hillside.
Ostner: I would like to agree with Mr. Pate. I am on the hillside taskforce and
need to stick up for it. I think I am sticking up for the hillside taskforce
because one of the first things that we deliberated was let's rezone the
hillsides to RSF-2. In fact, we talked about RSF-4 which is twice what he
is proposing. That proposal is off the table. Right off the bat, one of the
quickest methods to protect hillsides he is already addressing. All of the
design regulations that we are getting embroiled in with the hillside
taskforce are important and I would love them to be implemented. But the
number one method municipalities have used to protect hillsides is
• density. The second thing is that big tracts of land are good. They are
scary and it is hard to look at it and think about it at once but our services
• can look at that and say we know what is going to happen for the next
eight years. We do have a budget to promote to the Council because we
know that this will happen and when. I do think this is good and would
like to see this happen tonight.
Clark: I call the question.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to call the question was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Ostner: There is no more discussion and the motion was to forward the rest of the
items and was seconded. Call the roll.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of the
remaining rezoning request for Mountain Ranch was approved by a vote
of 9-0-0.
• 350-AcR,a tie -U
P4 uI cr` ' 2005
MOUNTAIN RANCH
e �V RCF.4 RSF 4`
v `
SF; tt,l. o>'PnR
T .� ..
wi f h
,.. t .t9' Private Op
rJ RS E b RS RSF-0
T no Ra;F24➢ a,I J.!..,III"""iii
rt�C pth IWCD RaF-0o
+
:r ♦ _ Rfa]F24 O t G2
C2
RA P'AF24 ftiAF 79 RFiF 249 _ ,_ ;F-0Ri:2- pC-1 �.
02' Cl P1 _
RMr24 'O �f�yO)a'r ..RMF 14� �� RQ -� —. �` gl "4Sq•.2�: Ye
iA ^°o% cD c_2 Mixed Use. . . _
Overview Legend
Boundary Master Street Plan
_ —7.;
Subject Property � Freeway/Expressway
Planning Area
p000g PrinNpal Arterial
❑ Streets. o c Overlay District
�
000cco fMinot Arterial
''. edsung jvv Outside City
,� ••S ,. Collector
Planned
`- ---- -' ����� Historic Collector
0 300 600 1,200 1,800 2,400
Feet
ORDINANCE NO. 4855
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT HILLSIDE/HILLTOP PRESERVATION AND
PROTECTION, ESTABLISH A HILLSIDE/HILLTOP
OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY AND MAP,
AND APPROVING THE HILLSIDE/HILLTOP OVERLAY
DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS
A GUIDE
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville values its unique Hillside/Hilltops; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is committed to having appropriate and desirable
development occur on the Hillside/Hilltops; and,
WHEREAS, developments that are compatible and harmonious with the
Hillside/Hilltops, do not have a negative effect upon the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Hillside/Hilltop Best Management. Practices Manual will provide a
guide for the development on the City's Hillside/Hilltops; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville determines that its Hillside/Hilltops need additional
protection and preservation enhancements to lessen grading, drainage, and stormwater problems
and to preserve the Fayetteville's beauty, clean water and clean air.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That Chapter 161: Zoning Districts is amended by inserting
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in sections; § 161.07 RSF-4, § 161.13 RMF — 24,
and § 161.15 R -O, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
Section 2. That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection is amended to include
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in section § 167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit
"B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 3. That Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to include
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in sections § 169.02, § 169.03, § 169.04, § 169.06, §.
169.07, § 169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 4. That Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion
Control is amended to include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in sections § 170.01,
§ 170.36, § 170.05, § 170.10, a copy of which marked Exhibit "D" is attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
Section 5. That Chapter 172: Parking . and Loading is amended to include
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in section § 172.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit
"E" is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 6. That Chapter 173: Building Regulations is amended to include
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in section § 173.02, a copy of which is marked
Exhibit "F' is attached hereto and made a part hereof:
Section 7. That Chapter 151: Definitions are amended by adding the following
definitions:
Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage
volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply.
Cisterns are generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the
capacity of 10,000 gallons. On -lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an
opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water utility costs.
Green Roof (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that are entirely covered with a thin
soil and vegetation layer.
Height. (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) Building height shall be measured from the
lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of
the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is
measured from the historic grade.
Hillside/Hilltop Development Manual. (Zoning) The best management practices
document that supplements the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District and illustrates desirable
Hillside/Hilltop development practices.
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. (Zoning) Lands located within the City that generally
have slopes in excess of 15 %. The Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District is shown on the City's
official zoning map. The development regulations in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District
supersede the underlying zoning district.
7
Hilltop. Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) Land located above the Hilltop line which
contains less than 15% slope and is completely surrounded by Hillside/Hilltop < 15% slope.
Historic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any development.
Parking Pad. (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) Parking areas for multi -family
residential, residential office, and commercial use in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District.
Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural drainage and
migration of water into the earth by permitting water to drain through, the surface itself or
through spaces between the pavers.
Plinth. (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) A foundation or base, usually on the upslope
side of the Hillside/Hilltop, on which a house is. located. Most often a plinth is constructed by
erecting a retaining wall at the meet with backfill creating a level building pad for the home.
Rain Barrels. (Stormwater) A stormwater containment vessel that captures runoff
generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usually include a hole at the top to
allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By
holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve
potable water.
Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with perennial
native plants. It is a bowl -shaped garden, designed to absorb stormwater run-off from impervious
surfaces such as roofs and parking lots.
Section 8. That the Hillside/Hilltop map attached as Exhibit "G" is adopted to delineate
the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District in which the regulations found in the preceding Exhibits are
applicable.
Section 9. Severability. In accordance with § 150.13 of the U.D.C., if any section, part,
word or phrase of this ordinance shall be determined to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions, section, and language of
this ordinance.
PASSED and APPROVED this 18th day of April, 2006. ,e":\j Y
;FAYETTEVILLE;
ATTEST: �:• ;
�'s9s'9RkANSP�'• �'
.,�'GTON
By:
��nauuun,.,
SONDRA SMITH, ity Clerk
3
EXHIBIT "A"
To be inserted in Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations:
§161.07. District RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units/acre.
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Single-family
Two-family
dwellings
dwellings
Lot minimum
70 ft.
80 ft.
width
Lot area
8,000 sq.
ft.
12,000
sq.
minimum
ft.
Land area per
8,000 sq.
ft.
6,000 sq.
ft.
dwelling unit
Hillside/Hilltop
60 ft.
70 ft.
Overlay District
Lot minimum
width
Hillside/Hilltop
8,000 sq.
ft.
12,000
sq.
Overlay District
ft.
Lot area
minimum
Land area per
8,000 sq.
ft.
6,000 sq.
ft.
dwelling unit
(E) Setback requirements. Single Family Dwellings
FRONT
SIDE
REAR
25 ft.
8 ft.
20 ft.
HHOD Front
HHOD Side
HHOD Rear
15 ft.
5 ft.
15 ft.
§161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family — Twenty -Four Units Per Acre
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
25 ft.
8ft.
25 ft.
HHOD
Single
Family Front
HHOD
Single
Family Side
HHOD
Single
Family Rear
15 ft.
8ft.
15 ft.
HHOD Two
Family Front
HHOD Two
Family Side
HHOD Two
Family Rear
15 ft.
8ft.
15ft.
il
HHOD
Family
Two
Front
HHOD
Family
Two
Side
HHOD Two
Family Rear
15 ft.
8ft.
15 ft.
HHOD
Family
Multi
Front
HHOD
Family
Multi
Side
HHOD Multi
Family Rear
15 ft.
8ft.
15 ft.
Cross reference(s)—Variance; Ch. 156.
(F) Height regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back
from any side boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess
of 20 feet except for the HHOD. Within the HHOD the maximum building height is 60 ft. as
measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the
highest point of the structure, allowing 3 stories on the uphill side and 4 stories on the downhill
•side of the building. If the building is placed on a graded pad, then the height of the building is
reduced, allowing a maximum of 3 stories as measured from the historic grade, pre -development
§161.15 District R -O, Residential Office
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
30 ft.
Front, if parking is allowed
50 ft.
between the right-of-way and the
building
Front, in the Hillside/Hilltop
15 ft.
Overlay District
Side
10 ft.
Side, when contiguous to a
15 ft.
residential district
Side, in the Hillside/Hilltop
8 ft
Overlay District
Rear, without easement or alley
25 ft.
Rear, from center line of public
10 ft.
alley
Rear, in the Hillside/Hilltop
15 ft.
Overlay District
(F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits in R -O Districts except for the
HHOD, provided, however, that any building that exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set-
back with any boundary line of any RSF or RMF District an additional distance of one foot
for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. In the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District the
maximum building height is 60 ft. as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the
historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure allowing 3 stories on
the uphill side and 4 stories on the downhill side of the building. If the building is placed on a
5
graded pad then the height of the building is reduced allowing a maximum of 3 stories as
measured from the historic grade, pre -development.
6
EXHIBIT "B"
To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection:
§167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development
(A)Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisions, and large
scale developments required by other chapters of the Unified Development Code to go
through the city's permitting process. Persons seeking to build one single-family dwelling
unit, or duplex, are specifically exempt from the provisions of this section except when the
land is located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District; then all the provisions of this
ordinance shall apply. Planned Zoning Districts should meet the percent minimum tree
canopy based upon their primary use, but may be allowed a lesser tree canopy requirement as
part of the overall Master Plan approved by the City Council.
(5) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Undeveloped land located within the Hillside/Hilltop
Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation
plan with the preliminary plat or site plan. Single and two family residential development
shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a
building permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree
preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at
the site inspected and approved.
(C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within
the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all
other improvements listed above, trees shall be preserved as outlined in Table I under
Percent Minimum Canopy, unless the Applicant has been approved for On -Site
Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth in subsections 1. & J. below. The square
foot percentage of canopy area required for preservation in new development is based on
the total area of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval; less the right-
of-way and park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be required to plant trees in
order to reach the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land where less than the
minimum exists prior to development, unless trees have been removed.
Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
PERCENT
MINIMUM
CANOPY
RA, Residential Agriculture
25%
RSF-.5, Single-family
25%
Residential — One Half Unit per
Acre
RSF-1, Single-family Residential
25%
— One Unit per Acre
RSF-2, Single-family Residential
20%
— Two Units per Acre
RSF-4, Single-family Residential
25%
— Four Units per Acre
RSF-7, Single-family Residential
20%
— Seven Units per Acre
R -O, Residential —Office
20%
RT-12, Two and Three-family
20%
Residential
RMF-6, Multi -family Residential
20%
— Six Units per Acre
RMF-12, Multi -family
20%
Residential — Twelve Units per
Acre
RMF-18, Multi -family
20%
Residential — Eighteen Units per
Acre
RMF-24, Multi -family
20%
Residential — Twenty -Four Units
per Acre
RMF-40,Multi-family
20%
Residential — Forty Units per
Acre
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
20%
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
15%
C-3, Central Business
15%
Commercial
C-4, Downtown
10%
I-1, Heavy Commercial and
15%
Light Industrial
I-2, General Industrial
15%
P-1, Institutional
25%
All residential zoning districts and C-1 districts within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall
have their percent minimum canopy requirements increased by 5% to a total requirement of
either 30% or 25%.
(F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions.
(3) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Individual parcels or lots . located within the
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundary shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation
plan as set forth in 167.04 (H)(3) indicating the location of the structure and the
preservation of the minimum tree canopy requirement.
(a) Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development, such as a PZD,
0
open space instead of being required on the individual lots. The open space set aside
during cluster development shall be placed in a permanent easement or land trust
with all future development rights removed from the property.
(1) Request for on -site mitigation
(c) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie backs for roads in the
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall be mitigated by reforesting a minimum of 25%
of the tie backs pursuant to the landscape manual.
(d) Planting trees in non -canopy areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy
requirements for the site is not allowed in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District.
(L) Continuing preservation and protection under approved tree preservation plans.
(1) In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or any subsequent
purchasers of the subject property are put on notice as to the existence and extent of an
approved tree preservation plan, tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the
easement plats for large scale developments and the final plats for nonresidential
subdivisions. This shall be accompanied by a narrative statement describing the nature of
the protection afforded, and bearing the signature of the landscape administrator. Lots in
residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these requirements. If it is impractical
to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be preserved on the easement plat, or final
plat itself, a note cross referencing an accompanying document shall suffice.
9
EXHIBIT "C"
To be inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration ofLand:
§169.02 General Requirements
(D)Restoration. Land shall be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its
original conditions so far as to minimize runoff and erosion. are concerned. Previously
forested areas shall follow the City's Landscape Manual for mitigation of forested areas.
§169.03 Permits Required/Exceptions
(A)Permit required. No grading, filling, excavation, or land alteration of any kind shall take
place without first obtaining:
(4) A grading permit is required by the City for any development occurring within the
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundaries. If a parcel of land is divided by the
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundary, then only that portion of land lying within the
boundary is subject to the requirements of this chapter.
(B) Exceptions where no grading permit is required. Grading permits are not required for the
following:
(4) Single-family/duplex. Construction of one single-family residence, or duplex not located
within the 100 year flood plain, the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, or on a slope 15 %
or greater.
(C) Grading permit application and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until the
grading plan, endorsed by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer, is approved
by the City Engineer. A separate permit shall be required for each site; it may cover both
excavations and fills. Grading permits may be issued jointly for parcels of land that are
contiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project completion. Any
application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted concurrently
with the application and calculations for a drainage permit if such a drainage permit is
required by §170.03., coordination with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection is
required.
§169.04 Minimal Erosion Control Requirements
If exempt under §169.02, If exempt under 169.03, a grading permit is not required.
However, exempt as well as non-exempt activities shall be subject to the following minimal
erosion and sedimentation control measures.
(A)Natural vegetation.
The potential for soil
loss shall be minimized by retaining
natural
vegetation wherever
possible. Development
in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District
should
10
comply with the recommendations of the Hillside/Hilltop Best Management Practices
Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation on Hillside/Hilltops.
(B) Stabilization. All graded and otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabilized within 15 days
immediately after the grading or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such
as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment basins,
matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used.
(D)Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or so near streams and
other stormwater drainage systems where it may be washed downstream by high water or
runoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized immediately with erosion, control
measures.
§169.06 Land Alteration Requirements
(C) Cut or fill slopes.
(1) Finish grade. Cut or fill slopes shall have a finish grade no steeper than 33% (3.00
horizontal to 1 vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District may have cut or fill slopes with a finish grade no steeper
than 50% (2.00 horizontal to I vertical) with approval of the City Engineer.
(4) Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall be reviewed by the City
Engineer for purposes of assessing safety, stability, and drainage problems: (See
illustrations). Setbacks from property lines may be filled or cut if a grading plan is
submitted jointly by the owners of both properties.
(e) Public rights -of -way. Cuts adjacent to public rights -of -way shall be setback a
minimum of 25 feet, excluding driveways or access roads.
(F) Erosion and sedimentation control
(c) 15% to 20% grade: The slope shall be covered with landscape fabric and planted
with groundcover as set forth in (b) above.
(d) More than 20% grade: Any finish grade over 20% shall be stabilized with retaining
walls, cribbing, terraces, landscape fabric, vegetation, or riprap. If riprap is used the
slope's stability and erodibility must be equivalent to or better than its
predevelopment state.
(e) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District..Revegetation of lands within the Hillside/Hilltop
Overlay District shall be planted immediately after the physical alteration of the .land
with complete and uniform ground cover. Sod, erosion fabric, herbaceous
groundcover (in wooded areas), and/or a hydroseed with warm season grasses is
required. Re -vegetation requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy. Cut and Fill tie -back slopes shall be re -vegetated with appropriate tree
species to achieve a minimum of 25% tree canopy at maturity.
II
In §169.06 (G) Undisturbed land requirements. After the table add the following:
In the development of Large Scale Developments and lots within the Hillside Overlay
District, the minimum amount of undisturbed land shall equal the percent minimum tree
canopy pursuant to §167.04 (C). Planned Zoning Districts shall show undisturbed areas, but
may be approved by the City Council with lesser percentages of undisturbed area than
required above.
§169.07 Grading Plan Specifications
(A)Grading plan The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows:
(2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line contours and proposed
grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the
proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two
feet. Spot elevations shall be indicated.
§169.08 Grading Plan Submittal
(B) Final grading plan. No subdivision may be finalized, nor large scale development plat
approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved.
The final grading plan and the final plat of land located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay
District shall have the following plat note stating: "Property and lot owners of lands located
within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District are strongly encouraged to have a geotechnical
analysis of their property prior to any development in order to identify potential geological
hazards and determine appropriate techniques to mitigate against hazards such as the
swelling and shrinking of soils, slumping, Hillside/Hilltop creep, and seeps."
12
EXHIBIT "D"
To be inserted in Chapter] 70 Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control:
§170.01 Intent
(A)Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Fayetteville by:
(5) Requiring that erosion control measures are implemented and function on a lot -by -lot
basis.
(6) Encouraging the use of storm water best management practices to reduce runoff. These
measures would include permeable pavers, green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and rain
barrels for irrigation use.
§170.05 Permit Application
A storm water management, drainage, and erosion control permit application shall be
submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms as provided by the city. An applicant
may apply jointly for contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as the erosion control measures
are in place until project completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient information
and plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project complies with the
requirements of this chapter. The specific items to be submitted for a permit application shall be
in the form and follow the procedures as described in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 1,
Drainage Report Checklist. Submittal information and plans shall include, but not be limited to
the following:
§170.10 Environmentally Sensitive Mitigation Methods for Storm Water Management
(A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of storm water generated by
development shall be encouraged, especially in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Methods
may include but, are not limited to, rain gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for
the collection and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc.
13
EXHIBIT "E"
To be inserted in Chapter172.: Parking and Loading:
§172.04 Parking Lot Design StandardsError! Bookmark not defined.
(E). Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District.
(1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi -Family. Office, and Commercial Development.
Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking
pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area.
(2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with
retaining walls to minimize disturbance.
(3) Maximum number of spaces per parking lot for multi family and office use. Parking pads
shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad.
(4) Parking lot location with multi family and office structures. When the building is located
adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi -family structure
is located off of the street, a minimum of 35' of undisturbed area shall separate the building
from the street.
(5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay
District are encouraged to refer to the Hillside/Hilltop Best Management Practices Manual
for guidance and direction in the design of their project.
14
EXHIBIT "F"
To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations:
§173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building Code
(B) Amendments, additions, and deletions to the Building Code. The Building Code shall be
amended as follows:
(2) Footings and Foundations.
Building, structures, and parts thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design,
or conventional construction methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters of the
Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and this section.
15
Overview
Streets
N. Edsting
d
PI
Boundary
'1: Planning Area
o 00o g Overlay District
00000
Outside City
anne Legend
0 200 400 600 1,200 1.600
Feet
06 so
2ooL
MOUNTAIN RANCH
Close Up View
2
1
____ 1�^ T - •'•t
3 LTY[� xp�Y3 F � � � ry - (Ti � rr •o Y 't" T
Ys ��i�G>,• `- � .y ( y.. y .:^ ' a` !,W' t '?Fa T5y. !i. U i .a.3y� �, d f
[�'SrfN, iW k.W�L�Fi.. ,yY } \ rV Y�'.Lxri= Y y ) •S Y3�Yf
5
I.
_ ++,�
.Ni. ,�iv � 1�' ti` 9�`V`�
a*ov!N..`.:Sy r2 ! c ��F ory�341;9/� .y-
' �t t YY1 V prix ' Pjl !
aiata
10 I2W¼it!
Y` sue+, f Jjil"Z" S .i aiyt
a y
e Zf. > -f' �
BTJ yF � I "!F
•.Y -j.( ' Y. S
IIn.Y
Overview
0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600
C__'
ayeetevll1e
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Mayor Dan Goody, City Council a�
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: May 31, 2006
SUBJECT: Mountain Ranch SUBJECT: Mountain Ranch Rezoning
Please find the following zoning comparison charts, which should reflect the existing C-1
zoning district uses and the C-2 zoning district uses, as requested. The uses that have been
excluded with the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant are indicated by those which
have a stcex over the use. Additionally, the Bill of Assurance goes into detail of
excluding particular uses, specifically Use Unit #17 and #19. A chart is included itemizing
those uses specifically excluded within these allowed Use Unit categories, again reflective of
the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant.
&-- w-i-- - - I
161.16 District C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial
District is designed primarily to provide
convenience goods and personal services
for persons living in the surrounding
residential areas.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13
Eating places
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-in
restaurants
Unit 25
Professional offices
(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 34
Liquor stores
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a
residential district
10 ft.
Rear
20fL
(F) Height regulations. There shall be no
maximum height limits in C-1 District,
provided, however, that any building which
exceeds the height of 10 feet shall be
setback from any boundary line of any
residential district a distance of one foot for
each foot of height in excess of 10 feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the
total area of such lot.
161.17 District C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial
District is designed especially to encourage
the functional grouping of these commercial
enterprises catering primarily to highway
travelers.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural:and•fedieatiohgl facilities
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
,Unfta14
Hotelfmoteland;amusementfacilities
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping goods
Unit16
Shopping- oodd
Unit 17
Trades and'seniices '4
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations & drive-in
restaurants
Unit'19
Commercialtecreatioh;*small.sites'.'
Unit 20
Commercial rocrcatipn, large sites
Unit 25
Professional offices
Unit 333
Adult livo cntortainmont club or bar
pr1ih34
Li uor store
These uses have been further limited, see below.
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit -24
Warehousing and wtiolesalo
Unit28
Cent
Unit 32
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a residential
district
15 ft.
Rear
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any
building which exceeds the height of 20 feet
shall be set back from any boundary line of
any residential district a distance of one foot
for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
No building shall exceed six stories or 75
feet in height.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the
total area of such lot.
(Q) Unit 17. Trades and services. (S) Unit 19.- Commercial recreation, small sites.
(1) Description. Unit 17 consists of
establish-ments engaged primarily
in providing household and
automotive maintenance and
similar services which fulfill
recurrent needs of residents of
nearby areas, but are generally
incompatible with primary retail
districts because they break the
continuity of retail frontage.
(2) Included uses
Retail trade
•Automotive sales,
establishments, general:
service and repair,
including body shop'
•Buses
•Manufactured
-home
sales
•Motorcycle sales,
including service and
repair
•Truck sales, including
service and repair
•Trailer sales, camping,
hauling, travel
•Nsed caFlots
General merchandise
•Direct selling
establishment:
Merchandise vending
machine operations
Institutional furniture and
furnishings
Marine craft, sales &
•Boats and accessories
service:
Medical and orthopedic
appliances
Personal help:
•Animal hospital
-Auctioneer
•Bindery
•Body piercing
•Gabineknaker
•Frozen food locker
•Drapery service
'Linen supply and
industrial laundry
•Packing and crating
•Rug cleaning
-Tattoo sew Gas
•T-Axidermist
` oo! sharpening -repair
oewiee
•Armature rewinding
•Auto wash
•Electrical repair service
-Furniture repair
•MBtG"epalr
•Radio and television
repair
•Reupholstery
•Ru re air
(1) Description. Unit 19 consists of
commercial amusements which
ordinarily do not require large sites and
often seek location in or near developed
commercial areas.
(2) Included uses.
... ..['I I
I .-•'•- I
..-
i Clarice Pearman - Ords. 4875, 4877, 4878, 4881 thru 4886 Page 1i
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Pate, Jeremy
Date: 6.15.06 3:55PM
Subject: Ords. 4875, 4877, 4878, 4881 thru 4886
Jeremy,
Attached are the ordinances the City Council passed June 6, 2006. Sorry it has taken this long. As you
know the mayor was out of town all last week and I finally got them back. Have a good day.
Thanks.
Clarice
CC: Audit; GIS
NDRTNWEST ARKANSAS EDITION
Benton County Daily Record
P. O. BOX 1607
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702
PHONE: 479-571-6415
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Elizabeth Wax, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County
Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and
reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of:
Ordinance 4881
Was inserted in the Regular Editions:
June 21, 2006
Publication Charge: $168.63
Subscri ed an worn to before me
This/day of? , 20 6.
Notary Public
Sharlene D. Williams
Notary Public
State of Arkansas
My Commission Expires: My Commission Expires
October 18, 2014
**NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit.
Invoice will be sent.
RECEIVED
JUN2320C.5
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ORDINANCE NO. 4881 - ( t ,
i AN ORDINANCE' REZONING THAT PROPERTY I
I DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 06- aye
r
� �/�
2028 FOR APPROXIMATELY 22.68 ACRES, LOCAT /N�1' C C
ED WEST OF 1540 AND SOUTH OF BETTY JO
DRIVE, FROM R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTUR-
AL, Cl, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; AND •) . ARKANSAS
RMF-2q RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS '
.PER ACRE TO C-2 THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. , -.n .,g ..
'l11 1
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAVETTEVILLE.
ARKANSAS:
Sao 1: That the zone classification of the following described propertyis hereby changed as
follows:
Simi;;
Residential-Agricultural,C-1, Neighborhood Comme units per sue to C-2 Thoroughfare Curnlercial, as de a part hereof.2: That the rezoning Is subject to the Bill of AssurExhibit'B' attached hereto and made a part hereof.3: That the official zoning map of the Clry of Fayettevzoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED end APPROVED this 6th day of June, 2006.
APPROVED. BY: DAN M H, ity
ATTEST By: By.S SONDRA SMITH, City Cleric
• EXHIBIT L
RZN 06-2020 PARCARC EL 1, 7, 2, AND 8
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "t" C•1 TO C•2)
PART OF THE NEI/4. NW 1/4 AND PART OF THE SE1/4, NW1/4 OF SECTION .1 B, T1GN, R30W IN
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE NE CORNER OF SAID SE1/4, NW114 THENCE SOUTH 584.41 FEET, THENCE WEST 453.75
FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE S84°09'20 -W 2.11 FEET. THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT JJ
1347.16 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1275.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF
N36°06.50 -W 1285.36 FEET, THENCE N66°22'59 -W 92.26 FEET, THENCE NO3°0343 -E 204.01 I
FEET, THENCE SB6°55'01'E 1069.13 FEET. THENCE SI0°32d3'E 3.06 FEET, THENCE
S17°4952E 210.49 FEET, THENCE S21 °40'l 1'E 323.12 FEET, THENCE S56°05'41 W 145,17 FEET, {I1
j,
THENCE 525°05'22W 703.02 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 16.38 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "2" RMF -24 TO C•2)
PART OF THE NW1/4, WW1/4 OF SECTION 18, T16N, R30W 1N WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF I
SAID NW1/4, NWI/4 THENCE SOUTH 59.76 FEEL THENCE WEST 3.16 FEET TO THE P.O.B.,
THENCE S03°03'43'W 840.94 FEET, THENCE N66°22'5WW 58.23 FEET, THENCE ALONG A
CURVE TO THE LEFT 101.80 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET AND A
CHORD BEARING OF 532°54.04W 101.62 FEET, THENCE NO2°26E 907.38 FEET, THENCE
S87°35'25'E 115.05 FEET TO THE P..0.8.; CONTAINING 2.14 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PARCEL "O" RA TO C-21 •' '
PART OF THE NE1/4, NW114 AND PART OF THE 5E114, NWT/4 OF SECTION 18, T16N, R30W IN
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE NE CORNER OF SAID 5E114, NW1/4 THENCE S02'57'5BW 541.99 FEET, THENCE
S84°0920W 427.95 FEET. THENCE N25°0522 -E 703.02 FEET, THENCE N56°05'41E 145.17
FEET, THENCE S14°47'03"E 137.76 FEET TO THE P.O.B., CONTAINING 4.16 ACRES MORE OR
LESS. •-
Exhibit ' may be 'awed in the Office of the City Clerk. t
RECEIVED
JUN23 3 2006
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE