Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5153 Doc ID : 012427460002 Tvoe : REL Recorded : 08/11/2008 at 02 : 34 : 52 PM Fee Amt : $20 . 00 Paoe 1 of 2 Nashinoton Countv . AR Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk File2008-00026486 ORDINANCE NO, 5153 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 08-2971 , FOR APPROXIMATELY 304.3 ACRES, BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BOULEVARD, HUNTSVILLE ROAD, MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, 15TH STREET, AND SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE FROM RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, AND P- 1 , INSTITUTIONAL TO NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL, RMF- 18, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE, AND MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. 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 RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, 24 units per acre, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and P- 1 , Institutional to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, DG, Downtown General, RMF-18, Residential Multi-Family, 18 units per acre, and MSC, Main Street Center, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of July, 2008. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: DAN COODY, ayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City CIB . ie surer ONN 11�s 'c o FAYETTEVILLE ; tiN � 11 : - • � • • � a".n�[[))�0 .. � MAW An of ■ �� � �illil� � Q l® g going will City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form J`��J 3 City Council Agenda Items � 2 /vd,?d l Z/ or Contracts QrL 1 -Jul-08 City Council Meeting Date Karen Minkel Long Range Planning Operations Submitted By Division Department Action Required: RZN 08-2971 : (Walker Park Neighborhood): Submitted by the City of Fayetteville. The subject properties are roughly bounded by Archibald Yell Blvd., Hunstville Rd., Morningside Dr., 15th Street and South School Avenue. The properties are zoned RMF-24, Multi-family - 24 units/acre. C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and P- 1 , Institutional and contain approximately 304.3 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, DG, Downtown General, RMF-18, Multi-family - 18 units/acre and MSC, Main Street Center. Action Required : n/a n/a T I 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 og D^epar/ment Di ctor Dale Original Contract Dale: n/a Original Contract Number: n/a 6 13 - 04K ity Attorney pp Received in Office �PC14 o. • - t3 lJy l�� Finance and Internal Service Director Date Received in Mayor's Officely FNfER Mayor l Date Comments: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 08-2971 , FOR APPROXIMATELY 304.3 ACRES, BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BOULEVARD, HUNTSVILLE ROAD, MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, 15" " STREET, AND SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE FROM RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, AND P- 1 , INSTITUTIONAL TO NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL, RMF- 18, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE, AND MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. 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 RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, 24 units per acre; C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and P- 1 , Institutional to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, DG, Downtown General , RMF- 18; Residential Multi-Family, 18 units per acre, and MSC, Main Street Center, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2 : That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2008. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH , City Clerk/Treasurer WALKER ' RK NEIGHBORHOO tie 1p, tit Ell MIN n . �� Hca •� �cr i Ron �NOli B , i=mom■ � ,�� _ _ GI All PER MR loin PREMIUM mono out �� � � ■ �i�w������n���� NINEOEM ���� ml � 1111 am NINE kkk J: City Council Meeting of July 1 , 2008 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor. and City Council Thru : Gary Dumas, Director of Operations From : Karen Minkel, Interim Director of Long Range Planning Date: June ] ] , 2008 Subject: Rezoning for the Walker Park Neighborhood (RZN 08-2971 ) RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recormnend approval of rezoning the Walker Park Neighborhood. The properties are zoned RMF-24, Multi-family - 24 units/acre, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and P- 1 , institutional and contain approximately 303 .45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Conservation ( 123 . 71 acres), DG, Downtown General ( 101 .98 acres), RMF- 18, Multi-family - 18 units/acre (.48 acres) and MSC, Main Street Centcr (28 .62 acres.) BACKGROUND The subject properties are roughly bounded by Archibald Yell Boulevard, Huntsville Road, Morningside Drive; 15'h Street and South School Avenue. The surrounding area to the north includes a mix of single-family and multi-family dwelling units as well as commercial properties. An open pasture is east of the property, and the surrounding area to the south includes multi-family dwellings and industrial properties. Single-family dwellings and industrial properties are located to the east of the Master Plan area. As discussed in the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan adopted by the City Council, the City of Fayetteville proposes to change the zoning of the property identified above in order to accurately reflect existing uses as well as maintain a sustainable balance of commercial ; residential and institutional uses within the neighborhood. The proposed zoning draft was included in the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan adopted by the City Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 19-08. This draft has been modified slightly during the Planning Commission review of the rezoning. Postcard notices about the proposed rezoning were mailed to property owners within the Walker Park Neighborhood before the Planning Commission meeting on April 28, 2008 and June 9, 2008. Long Range Planning staff also held an open house April 14 through April 22 at the Planning office so that property owners with questions could view the maps and proposed zoning districts and discuss concerns with staff. City Council Meeting of July 1 , 2008 Agenda Item Number DISCUSSION This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission meeting on April 28, 2008, May 12, 2008 and June 9, 2008 . The Planning Commission held a separate work session on May 6, 2008 to address concerns expressed by commissioners and members of the public. A table of the properties in question and the rationale for the work session recommendations, which were approved by the Planning Commission, is attached. The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend forwarding this rezoning request to the City Council with a recommendation for approval . Commissioner Trrumbo commented that a drawback to the Neighborhood Conservation zoning district was that it did not allow multi-family dwellings as a conditional use; the original Downtown Master Plan proposal from the Planning Commission allowed multi-family as a conditional use, and Commissioner Trumbo stated that the Neighborhood Conservation zoning district should be amended to include this additional conditional use. BUDGETIMPACT None. Planning Commission Work Session Discussion May 6, 2008 NC=Neighborhood Conservation DG=Downtown General MSC='Main Street Center Area of Concern Question(s) Proposal Discussed Morningside Is the DG (blue) Commissioners proposed keeping the NC block Drive zoning too big or too because it reflects the existing uses as well as the small? Illustrative Plan. The NW corner of Morningside and 15` ' Street was changed from DG to MSC (teal) in order to encourage a predominantly commercial node along a major corridor. The DG area extending south from Huntsville Road along Momingside Drive was left as originally proposed. Huntsville Road Would it be This area was discussed as the gateway to the and 6°i Street appropriate to change neighborhood from the east, and the Illustrative from NC (green) to Plan showed greater density at this intersection. DG in order to create The NE and SE corners were changed from NC to another node? DG . In order to emphasize the significance of Jefferson Square, the NW and SW corners were left as NC. Willow Avenue Should this block Changing this block from NC to DG was between 6'h change from NC to determined to be appropriate in order to enhance Street and 7'h DG to complete the sense of enclosure on both sides of Willow Street Jefferson Square? Avenue and complete the Square. 4" Street and Should this area While this area may later be appropriate for more Washington change from NC to dense and intense development, NC was Avenue DG in order to reflect determined as being appropriate at this time; NC the Illustrative Plan? reflects the existing uses within this area. 11 ' Street and Is the mix of DG and This area was left as proposed. The Illustrative Willow Avenue NC appropriate at this Plan shows row houses as part of the large parcel intersection? north of the Housing Authority property. However, the zoning is tied to parcels and changing this large parcel to DG would be incompatible with the single-family dwellings across the street. Commissioners decided not change the DG to NC at the SE comer, since the DG reflects an existing use. K:IRepa tv120081PC Repoi-rs109-Alai: 121RZA708-2971 (IValker Pw k Nei,hborhood).dx Block of Locust Should the area The proposed zoning was left as originally between 5'h change from DG to proposed because the DG serves as a transition Street and 6°i NC? area between the MSC (existing zoning) and NC Street zones. South School Should the proposal The commissioners supported the original Avenue show a greater area of proposal , which concentrates more dense and MSC? intense development at the intersection of 15°i Street and South School Avenue rather than dispersing it over a larger area. Trey Morrison : 2 Should the property The commissioners proposed changing these two parcels at the SE owner' s parcels parcels and the parcel at the NE comer of 7"' Street corner of change from NC to and Church Avenue from NC to DG because the Church Avenue DG? Illustrative Plan showed the vacant parking lot and 61" Street developing with more density than what is allowed in NC and changing these parcels would provide for greater compatibility between both sides of Church Avenue. Mark Sugg: 3 Should the property In order to highlight Jefferson Square, the parcels on 7'h owner' s parcels commissioners proposed to limit the DG area to Street between change from NC to the Square area and key intersections along 6`h Wood Avenue DG? Street. and Willow Avenue Dorothy Should the property This parcel was included in the discussion about Ashworth : 1 owners parcel change the intersection of 6°i Street and Wood Avenue. parcel on the NE from NC to DG? The commissioners decided to limit the DG are to corner of 7'h the two parcels at the NE and SE corners of the Street and Wood intersection. Avenue Marc Crandall: Should the property The property owner has an existing multi-family parcel on owner' s parcel change dwelling on the parcel with 7 units. Zoning the Wood Avenue from NC to DG? property DG would be a form of spot zoning, between 7'h which is discouraged in the City' s Unified Street and 15"' Development Code. The commissioners decided to Street kee the varcel NC. A:Utepowsl100SV'C Repwvsl09-Aiav /RRGV 05-1971 /Walker Pai k Neighborhood).do Planning Conunission April 28, 2008 Page 9 of 18 RZN 08-2971 : (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEV ILLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD., HUNTSVILLE ROAD, MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, 15TH STREET AND S . SCHOOL AVENUE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE, C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND P- 1 , INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 303 .45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Commercial ( 128 . 19 acres), DG, Downtown General (107.41 acres), and MSC, Main Street Center ( 19.94 acres.) Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner, gave the staff report, recommending forwarding the rezoning to City Council . Minkel reviewed the comments received by staff from property owners in the area, some of which would like to see changes to the map. Public comment: Dorothy Ashworth, citizen, owns property at 636 S. Wood Ave. and stated that she had never received information about this. She opposes the rezoning for her property, which is a house on one acre currently zoned RMF-24. Her family purchased the house as an investment, and the proposed zoning would not allow her to develop. Alan Ostner, citizen, and president of Jennings Plus Neighborhood Association, stated that lie represents a great number of neighbors and that this proposal is progressive and more accurately represents the way the area has developed. The neighborhood is primarily single-family residential on small lots, 2 '/2 times the density of conventional subdivisions. As neighborhood president; this map was reviewed by the Jennings Plus association, with 35-40 members present. Certain parts got unanimous approval, while others did . not. Residents were in favor of almost all green (Neighborhood Conservation) areas. Blue (Downtown General) was supported around Jefferson almost unanimously. The response to blue along Hwy 71 was mixed. Some thought it was appropriate, while some thought it should be more dense. The intersection at 15'x' and 71 B received nearly unanimous approval . People who lived in Bayat were not happy at all . They felt that the blue between Wood & Willow was too dense. The blue at Huntsville & Morningside was perceived as too large. The Blue area behind Walgreens received nearly unanimous disapproval . Nearby neighbors thought that Walgreens being commercial and the Sycamore Lofts were sufficient and zoned appropriately, but to domino across Locust on this east side was inappropriate. This area is mostly low-slung apartments or single-family homes that have been there a long time. The group thought it would be more fair to make the area dark green down to 6'h. It seemed more appropriate to keep the area south of 6°i green. Other things the neighborhood talked about included : ] )When asked if they only had a yes or no vote, most people said it was not perfect, but yes, the proposed rezoning was better than the current situation. If they had a chance to alter it, they said they would, in different ways. 2) Residents also commented on being perplexed by the recent addition and subsequent removal of crosswalk on Archibald Yell and South St. 3 ) They asked if the street designations were changing with this rezoning or if that was later? They thought several streets really had a problem with dangerous cut-through traffic. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 10 of 18 Aubrey Sheperd, citizen, stated he owns a tiny house on a tiny lot on E. South Sl. He agreed that the small single-family lots downtown are a wonderful thing. He discussed neighborhood involvement, flooding, drainage, disturbance, and what this involves with future connections between human uses and vegetation. He liked the MasterPlan effort and is glad it was done locally. There is a reason where in every case you should try to minimize the amount of ground disturbed, in order for it to control stormwater naturally. He was not sure people around Jefferson were aware of the rezoning and counseled the City to proceed with caution. Trey Morrison, citizen, owns lots 107 or 109 on 6`h Street, and stated that he had been working on a project for 8 months with staff. He added that changing the zoning would make him start over. He requested that the property be rezoned to Downtown General instead of Neighborhood Conservation to salvage some of the work he has done. Mark Sugg, citizen, owns property in planned area. He first had questions for staff regarding new roads and lots in the Walker Park area. He stated that he participated in the City Plan 2025 charette, with which city staff did an outstanding job. He owns some property east of Jefferson Square. between 6'h & 7"i. He stated that the east side of Willow should be Downtown General to complete the square block. He questioned the Neighborhood Conservation zoning on the east side of Morningside. With a high school potentially locating east, he thought that Downtown General might be more appropriate. He saw no reason for the block at Huntsville and Morningside to be zoned Downtown General. The southeast corner, a large Downtown General area, is already developed with senior housing. He stated that along 15'h and Morningside, Downtown General is appropriate, but not as deep into the neighborhood as it will be at Huntsville and Morningside. He did not see a need to have Downtown General that deep into the neighborhood. He did hope that the rezoning would go forward. Pat Antell, citizen, lives in the area, on College Ave. She stated that the area is single-family homes and asked how close her property would be to development zones. She stated that the area is a neighborhood, which is why she had lived there so long. She could stand on her porch and talk to neighbors on both sides and wanted to know more about how neighborhood could develop , what' s appropriate, and what is not. Her home is paid for, and she would like to see value added. Her main concem is proliferation of inexpensive rental units, which will increase the traffic. She stated that these streets are not made for that type of traffic. She also valued the trees in the neighborhood. She would like to be involved and kept aware of events in the future. Lib Horn, citizen, stated that she was one of 200 that participated in the charette. She commended staff for the job they did. She lives on 6`h Street in the Walker Park neighborhood and takes pride in the neighborhood. She stated that they have front porches and they visit. She stated that they need affordable and mixed housing due to a problem of providing housing to people who need help. No additional public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo asked about nonconforming uses. Planning Commission April 28, 1008 Page 1I of 18 Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, described the ordinance. The Plan tries to make most uses conforming,.but some will be nonconforming. A provision exists where if a non-conforming use is destroyed, it cannot come back forward . The goal is to make more uses and structures that are conforning. Commissioner Trumbo asked about Mr. Morrison' s concerns. Pate stated it was something for the Planning Commission to consider in their decision. Commissioner Trumbo asked about the area on Morningside, and the areas that are RMF-24 that will become Neighborhood Conservation. Minkel stated that 10 units per acre was the maximum density allowed in Neighborhood Conservation for only single and two-family units by right. Commissioner Trumbo asked about Downtown General zoning on Huntsville Road, in regards to why it is so deep at Huntsville and Morningside, and why it is necessary. Minkel stated that the Downtown General at Huntsville and Morningside; and the Downtown General that extends north from 15"', were to reflect existing uses within those areas. Commissioner Trumbo asked about street designations. Minkel said they would be changing after the rezoning has gone through. At that point, staff would go back and look at the streets. Commissioner Anthes brought up confusion about the zoning designations and what they mean. Several comments about Downtown Commercial indicated a perception of Downtown General as a commercial zone, which it is not. Its purpose is a flexible zone and has a mix of uses that are not allowed in straight residential zoning. It is meant to be more intense than Neighborhood Conservation but still primarily residential . She wondered if staff could comment on the zoning districts and clarify them for the audience. There were also comments made about this being a development plan and not wanting apartment buildings next to a single-family property. This is actually a downzoning in most areas; which also broadens uses allowed; so it is not a single-use zoning district anymore. Also, staff has done an incredible job of getting the word out about the planning process and the rezoning. Minkel described the existing zoning, and the proposed zoning districts. Commissioner Anthes stated she would like to hear comments about nonconforming uses and existing structures. Pate discussed how property owners could always request a conditional use permit, variance, or Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 12 of 18 rezone on a case by case basis. Commissioner Anthes stated she thinks staff has done an excellent job and has fornialized the intentions of the illustrative plan. She hoped residents would read the zoning descriptions and asked to discuss some of the discrepancies between the map and the zoning proposed. Minkel stated the illustrative plan was conceptual only, and there were a few instances where, if Neighborhood Conservation allowed rowhouses it would certainly be appropriate. The concern was that there were some areas that are shown as having rowhouses — there were some key areas in the Illustrative Plan that had rowhouses — but staff didn't feel it would necessarilybe appropriate to have a restaurant in the middle of that neighborhood. That is why blue does not extend father up into those key areas that did show greater density or different uses than you see in Neighborhood Conservation. There was a decision that had to be made as to whether you extend Downtown General zoning into those neighborhoods and then see whether a professional office or restaurant came in place of the rowhouses, which served as a borderbetween the single-family homes and more dense uses conceptually in the illustrative master plan. Commissioner Anthes stated that on 6"' St, coming from Huntsville heading west, as you cross Wood and head towards Jefferson Square, is an area with a higher density pattern shown on the Illustrative plan. In her mind, that area is one of those areas that could handle perhaps a higher density than Neighborhood Conservation. It is what's happening there and that will be a major intersection. She would like to see staff look at something more intense. She also discussed the Morningside Drive property, which will likely be more dense. It is the site recommended for a high school, but it is only a matter of time before that property develops and will likely have a higher density level. Blue along its length is a valid consideration. At the intersection of 11"and Washington Avenue, there are areas that link blue with the park and she wondered if there was any way to look at that as an intersection. She stated that she understood the comments about Walgreens, but in looking at Downtown General, she didn't see that the zoning would be too high. Staff could also focus in on the area east of Jefferson Square and perhaps make nodes that would make sense with the illustrative plan. Commissioner Trumbo agreed with Commissioner Anthes regarding Morningside, saying we need to look at the future use there, especially if it's a high school coming in, and concurs that 6"' & Wood seemed like a place for a commercial node, or a more intense use than Downtown General. He stated that he appreciates staff looking at this. If the area continued to be built around the existing RMF-24 density it would not be the type of neighborhood desired by the community. Commissioner Anthes stated that she liked the fact that 15"' & S. School is called out as having higher traffic, as the Main Street Center zoning reflected a commercial node there. The Downtown General was good as a transition zone along S. School. She asked a question regarding specific areas that the Planning Commission would like looked at further and whether staff would prefer for the Planning Commission to look at these are more closely or allow the City Council to do that. Minkel stated that ideally the more concerns addressed now meant less later on. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 13 of 18 Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to table the rezoning until the May 12"i, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 4 of 8 New Business: RZN 08-2971: (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD., HUNTSVILLE ROAD, MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, 15Th STREET AND S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE, C-2. THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND P-1. INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 303.45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Conservation (128.19 acres), DG, Downtown General (107.41 acres), and MSC, Main Street Center (19.94 acres). Planner: Karen Minkel Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner, gave the staff report, stating that the Planning Commission conducted a work session on May 6, 2008 to discuss issues from the last Planning Commission meeting. The following areas were included in the discussion: 1) Morningside Drive (Downtown General too large or too small); 2) 6111 Street and Wood Avenue (Downtown General appropriate to create a node); 3) Willow Avenue and 6°i Street (Downtown General appropriate to complete Jefferson Square); 4) 4th Street and Washington Avenue (Downtown General appropriate to match Illustrative Plan); 5) 11th Street and Willow [not an existing street] (Downtown General appropriate to match illustrative plan, too much Downtown General); 6) Parcels behind Walgreens (Downtown General or Neighborhood Conservation); and 7) South School Avenue (Main Street Center area made larger). Individual parcels that were brought to staffs attention by property owners were also discussed: 1) Trey Morrison —2 parcels SE corner of Church Avenue and 6th Street; 2) Mark Sugg — 3 parcels on 7th Street b/w Wood and Willow; 3) Dorothy Ashworth — I parcel NE comer of 7°i Street and Wood Avenue; and 4) Marc Crandall — 1 parcel on Wood Avenue between 7th Street and 15th Street. Staff' is recommending that if the zoning map is changed, staffwould like to re -mail the neighbors to give ample notification. Randy Nix, citizen, stated he lives at 1372 S. College Ave, and wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. He said that the concept of neighborhood is very important in this city. He and his wife looked for 2 years for a permanent and last home, and found exactly what he wanted in the Walker Park Neighborhood. It is a multi -generational, multi -ethnic neighborhood, and suits iheir style. The affordability of the neighborhood was very attractive to them. They were able to buy a home, bring it up to City standards, while keeping it small, which is often hard to find in this city. A smaller home and smaller yard means a large discretionary income for us at the end of a month. It is close to the town center and close to the University. The rezoning will continue to enhance the sustainability of a true neighborhood. Rob Lewis, citizen, stated he was the owner of the City Lumber Company on S. School Ave. He wanted to make sure his business is still in compliance with the rezoning. It's been on S. School since 1959 and has been in Fayetteville for 82 years. He said his understanding is that Downtown General is primarily residential, with some businesses allowed. This may be the case with the Jefferson School area but it is not the same for S. School, which is all businesses. According to the Downtown Master Plan, Main Street Center was to be a core area that had a 1/2 -mile radius; if 15th & School, and 6th & School are to be Main Street Center, then a half -mile radius would overlap. This Plannug Commission May 12, 2008 Page 5 of 8 would place City Lumber in a Main Street Center zone. Rick Woods, representative for Marc Crandall, who owns 900-914 S. Wood Avenue stated that he was not here to challenge the rezoning in its broad scheme, but was here to discuss the spot zoning comment. He asked that Mr. Crandall's property be zoned Downtown General to reflect the existing use, which is multi -family. The proposed rezoning would affect the ability to finance, sell, and will alter the property value. He cited a zoning case in Little Rock where the zoning ordinance was challenged and considered a taking. He wanted these properties to be Downtown General to save trouble and further legal costs. Commissioner Graves asked if staff could address the City Lumber question regarding the use. Minkel stated that staff is researching the use currently to determine if the use is industrial or commercial, the latter of which would be allowed by a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Graves asked if the City Attorney could speak to the rezoning of a property that creates a nonconforming use, when it is conforming now. Kit Williams; City Attorney, discussed compatibility and spot zoning. The Planning Commission needs to look carefully at each property owners situation and how fair or unfair it is to change the rules for a property owner. Normally a down -zoning is not considered a taking on undeveloped land. As long as substantial value remaihs in the property, the Supreme Court has found typically that it is not a constitutional violation. The Planning Commission needs to look very carefully at each case and try to work with property owners that have existing property that is developed. Commissioner Anthes asked Mr. Woods if some of the units are separate lots and have been sold. Woods stated that they were sold as condominiums, not separate lots. Commissioner Winston asked if it is possible to split the units into separate lots. Marc Crandall. owner, stated it was not possible, that he has attempted that option. Commissioner Anthes stated that in the downtown rezoning there was more up -zoning than down - zoning. She asked if the City has allowed multiple property owners to come together and rezone with one application and fee. Williams stated that yes, the City has allowed this in the past, but this is a neighborhood rezoning and so now is the time to review these cases, instead of placing the burden on the property owner later. The Planning Commission did not want property owners to come back again. No ordinance says you can't spot zone. You can take that into consideration, but it is not the only thing. You can take the development into account also. You must ask if the existing use is compatible with what is around it. Planning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 6 of 8 Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed incompatibility of uses within various zoning districts and stated that these decisions are policy decisions. The challenge with a Downtown General zoning district in this particular area is not that multi -family is incompatible but other uses that are allowed may be. For example, would a City Lumber be appropriate in this location, surrounded by single family residential uses? This is staffs concern, for the compatibility not of what is there currently, but what is allowed with a new zoning district. Williams stated that one suggestion would be to use an existing multi -family district, with a lower density. Condos would be as -of -right but you would know you wouldn't see a service station sometime in the future. Crandall stated the zoning was currently RMF-24 and he had 7 units on one-half acre. He would be amenable to a multi -family zoning that accommodates that. Commissioner Trumbo stated he would like the multi -family in Neighborhood Conservation in some cases, and perhaps it could be revisited as a conditional use permit. Commissioner Myres stated that she understood staffs concerns but was open to looking at anything that works and is most efficient for achieving the goals of the Plan, whether it's allowing multi -family as a conditional use or using some sort of multi -family zoning district. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to modify the map for the Crandall parcel to be rezoned to the lowest density of multi -family zoning available. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Commissioner Craves stated he would like to be more specific, and would recommend RMF-12. This zoning district would be slightly lower than the 7 units on one-half acre, but would likely not constitute a taking. Commissioner Anthes confirmed that this would come back to Planning Commission after the notification, so that this is not necessarily the final recommendation. Commissioner Cabe stated he was okay with Downtown General at that location and living with an eclectic neighborhood. Commissioner Anthes stated she also likes the downtown zones, but because this is so embedded in that neighborhood conservation area and the neighbors expressed strong feelings about the established neighborhood, she is thrilled that the multi -family zoning district is an option. Upon roll call the motion to modify the Crandall property to multi -family zoning of lower density passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Commissioner Trumbo stated that on the City Lumber property, we are waiting on a determination Planning Commission May 12, 2008 Commissioner Anthes made a motion to accept the changes as noted on the May 12 draft rezoning map, with the addition of the previous motion, just approved. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Commissioner Myres stated she was in favor of accepting the working group's recommendations on parcels B & C. Commissioner Graves asked about the Sugg and Ashworth properties. Minkel stated that the Ashworth parcel has a single-family residence. The Sugg property includes a parcel that is vacant and two parcels that possibly have small multi -family structures or a duplex. Trumbo asked what Commissioner Anthes' thoughts are on adding multi -family back ml Neighborhood Conservation. This might create an option for looking at properties individually. Commissioner Anthes stated that if you look at the Illustrative Plan that has been adopted, there are some areas of high density next to areas of single family detached. Obviously staff had to make a choice on what to recommend to zone these properties, and some of those don't necessarily fit exactly with the Illustrative Plan. A Conditional Use Permit for multifamily in Neighborhood Conservation would add a tool to allow the predictability, but still the mixture of housing choices. Kennedy asked if staff is going to evaluate all of the uses up and down S. School to determine if the uses there are allowed, like with City Lumber. Minkel stated that staff has notified everyone, and assumes that if no one is contacting us, that they with the rezoning. Pate stated that it is very likely many or me ousmesses up anu uown J.. cnoo' uu tium uavc Certificates of Zoning Compliance. While researching each and every one may provide more information, it may also bring up large issues of code compliance. Staff is not prepared to conduct that investigation at this time, and our enforcement policy is typically complaint -driven. Commissioner Anthes asked if there are ways to waive fees or provide relief for a time associated with this rezoning. Williams stated that yes, City Council could do that if they wanted to so. Planning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 8 qf 8 Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to table the rezoning indefinitely. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 6:33 PM. Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 4 of 12 New Business: RZN 08-2971: (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROUGLY BOUNDED BY ARCHiBALD YELL BLVD., HUNTSVILLE RD., MORNINGSIDE DR., 15'n STREET AND S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE. C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND P -I, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 303.45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Conservation (124.34 acres), DG, Downtown General (101.35 acres), RMF-I8, Multi -Family— 18 units/acre (0.48 acres) and MSC, Main Street Center (28.62 acres). Karen Minkel, Interim Director of Long Range Planning, gave the staff report, and background. She discussed questions raised by PC members in a previous meeting regarding specific properties, including correspondence received from individual neighbors. Dorothy Ashworth, citizen, owns property at 636 Wood Ave. She stated that theproperty is a little over an acre and was purchased in 2005 with the intention of someday possibly developing it. The property adjoining to the north is proposed to be zoned as Downtown General, and the property adjoining to the east is zoned as a PZD; townhomes are going in there and it's somewhat commercial. She would like to have the option to develop rather than the Neighborhood Conservation where you are more limited as to what you can do with the property. Steve Winkler, stated he has four parcels involved on the south side of South St from College to Washington, surrounded entirely by Downtown General. The nature of the property is going to be consistent with what is across the street. He purchased the land in 1995 with the RMF-24 zoning. His intent is to pursue development. The homes on the property are livable but have no future. The value of the property is in the land, not the existing single-family homes. No more public comment was received. Commissioner Anthes asked for the staff recommendation on additional requests. Minkel stated she thinks that in terms of Mr. Little's property, which is in the middle of the NC, staff would recommend leaving it Neighborhood Conservation; it is in the middle of established single-family homes. The other two cases, the Ashworth and Winkler properties, have a case to be made for either side. They are compatible with the zoning districts around them, and at the Planning Commission work session, the Ashworth property was discussed and the Planning commissioners went back and forth on it because the existing uses around it would make it compatible if it were Downtown General. In the case of the Winkler property, it was surrounded by other zoning districts where Downtown General would make it compatible, and that block has not seen the restoration work that has happened on the single family homes on the South St. block just west of it. Downtown General might allow for redevelopment in the future of that block, which might be a benefit to the neighborhood. So these are both cases where you could make a case either way and staff could be Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 5of12 comfortable with the Downtown General or Neighborhood Conservation zoning districts for those two instances. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation for approval, based on the map with changes, with the south side of South Street between College and Washington (the. Winkler property) designated as Downtown General. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the Planning Commission should be aware that the map in front of them was the one they were voting on, which included the changes that were made over the last few meetings. Commissioner Lack stated that although he wasn't at the work session where the property south of Wood and 6h was discussed, when he looked at the property there, the topography was a determining factor for him in terns of why he wouldn't necessarily recommend that it is the appropriate planning move to deepen the Downtown General. The slope there suggests that the part best suited for the Downtown General zoning would be the parcels closer to 6h St., which are already in this map depicted that way. He had some reservation about what we call the Winkler Property on South St. in that there seems to be an edge there now; the properties to the north side of South Street seem to be of a different character and not of that same residential character that the South side depicts in lot and usage. So I have some reservations about that but also go back to honoring an ideal of transect zoning and why not necessarily zoning by street, but allowing street to be compatible and usable on both sides. That's where I can find resolution with that one. Commissioner Trumbo stated that when the Downtown Master Plan was approved, the City Council took out multi -family as a conditional use, and that was a mistake. He would vote for this motion, but thought the City Council should re -look at allowing multi -family in Neighborhood Conservation. They will have a lot of people questioning the rezoning of multi -family to neighborhood conservation, so the City Council should look at that. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 1 ayeaa PP PP� • e Y e PC Meeting of June 9, 2008 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYI TTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Karen Minkel, Interim Director of Long Range Planning THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: May 30, 2008 (Update) 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 RZN 08-2971: (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD., HUNTSVILLE RD., MORNINGSIDE DR., 15TH STREET AND S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE, C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 303.45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Conservation (12434 acres), DG, Downtown General (1. 01.35 acres), RMF-18, Multi -family — 18 units/acre (.48 acres) and MSC, Main Street Center (28.62 acres.) Planner: Karen Minkel BACKGROUND: Staff first presented the proposed rezoning of the Walker Park Neighborhood to the Planning Commission on April 28, 2008. The Commission tabled the rezoning and scheduled a work session to address areas of concern expressed by commissioners and members of the public. The work session was held on May 6, 2008, with Commissioners Trumbo, Anthes and Kennedy attended. The work session's recommendations were presented to the Planning Commission on May 12, 2008. The Planning Commission voted 9-0 to adopt the work session's recommendations with the exception of Marc Crandall's property on Wood Avenue, which has existing condominiums. The Planning Commission directed Planning staff to assign the lowest density multi -family zoning district possible. Staff recommends rezoning the property to RMF-18, Residential Multi- family -18 units per acre. This zoning district would lower the allowable density but still make the existing use and density conforming. The Planning Commission also asked about the existing structures on Mark Sugg's property on 7th Avenue between Wood Avenue and Willow Avenue and whether City Lumber's current use would be allowed as a conditional use in Downtown General. Mr. Sugg currently has a multi- family development on two of his three parcels. The third parcel is vacant. A previous building pennit issued to City Lumber determined that it was Use Unit 16 Shopping Goods, which is allowed as a conditional use in the Downtown General zoning district. Planning staff received additional public comment from two property owners. The first K.' IReponsL'008PCReporlstl I -June 91R7 -N08-2971 (1L'alkar Park Neighborhood).doc correspondence was received from Dorothy Ashworth on May 21, 2008, requesting that her property at 636 Wood Avenue be rezoned as Downtown General rather than Neighborhood Conservation. The Planning Commission discussed this property during its working session and recommended leaving the property as Neighborhood Conservation. Steve and Michele Winkler also communicated by email, requesting that their properties at 157 South Street, 173 South Street and 189 South Street be rezoned Downtown General rather than Neighborhood Conservation. These properties are across the street from Downtown General and Residential Office zoning districts. Both emails are attached. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning based on findings stated herein and forwarding the proposed zoning map to the City Council for adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES• 0 Approved ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied Motion: _ Second: _Vote: Date: June 9, 2008 COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES ❑Approved ❑Denied' K:IReport.ill00811'CRepoitcU 1-June91RZN08-1971 (IValkerPark Neighborhood).doc �TP r eV� e PC Meeting of May 12, 2008 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain Si Fayetteville. AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director DATE: May 7, 2008 (Update) RZN 08-2971: (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD., HUNTSVILLE RD., MORNINGSIDE DR., 15TH STREET AND S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE, C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 303.45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Commercial (128.19 acres), DG, Downtown General (107.41 acres), and MSC, Main Street Center (19.94 acres.) Planner: Karen Minkel BACKGROUND: Staff first presented the proposed rezoning of the Walker Park Neighborhood to the Planning Commission on April 28, 2008. The Commission tabled the rezoning and scheduled a work session to address areas of concern expressed by commissioners and members of the public. The work session was held on May 6, 2008, and Commissioners Trumbo, Anthes and Kennedy attended. Several broad concepts were discussed during the work session. Jefferson Square was one of the ideas that stakeholders expressed the most excitement about during the charrette. Limiting Downtown General zoning districts to nodes on 6'h Street rather than extending the zoning along the entire length of 6'h Street is one way to encourage the development of the Square concept. This priority served as a key criterion when discussing specific areas identified in the table below. Commissioners also discussed how the Illustrative Plan is used when determining appropriate zoning. Staff conveyed that the Illustrative Plan is a loose guide that is conceptual only. The Illustrative Plan is not tied to specific parcels, so some infill development shown on the Plan was not appropriate or feasible to reflect in the zoning. Specific areas and questions were also discussed as follows: NC=Neighborhood Center DG=Downtown General MSC=Main Street Center K:\Repons 1200S1PC Reporls11-June 91RZA' 08-2971 (Walker Pa'* AVeighborhood).doc Area of Concern Question(s) Proposal Discussed Morningside Is the DG (blue) Commissioners proposed keeping the NC block Drive zoning too big or too because it reflects the existing uses as well as the small? Illustrative Plan. The NW corner of Morningside and 15th Street was changed from DG to MSC (teal) in order to encourage a predominantly commercial node along a major corridor. The DG area extending south from Huntsville Road along Morningside Drive was left as originally proposed. Huntsville Road Would it be This area was discussed as the gateway to the and 61h Street appropriate to change neighborhood from the east, and the Illustrative from NC (green) to Plan showed greater density at this intersection. DG in order to create The NE and SE corners were changed from NC to another node? DG. In order to emphasize the significance of Jefferson Square, the NW and SW comers were left as NC. Willow Avenue Should this block Changing this block from NC to DG was between 6th change from NC to deternined to be appropriate in order to enhance Street and 70' DG to complete the sense of enclosure on both sides of Willow Street Jefferson Square? Avenue and complete the Square. 4th Street and Should this area While this area may later be appropriate for more Washington change from NC to dense and intense development, NC was Avenue DG in order to reflect determined as being appropriate at this time; NC the Illustrative Plan? reflects the existing uses within this area. I]t' Street and Is the mix of DG and This area was left as proposed. The illustrative Willow Avenue NC appropriate at this Plan shows row houses as part of the large parcel intersection? north of the Housing Authority property. However, the zoning is tied to parcels and changing this large parcel to DG would be incompatible with the single-family dwellings across the street. Commissioners decided not change the DG to NC at the SE corner, since the DG reflects an existing use. Block of Locust Should the area The proposed zoning was left as originally between 5111 change from DG to proposed because the DG serves as a transition Street and 6111 NC? area between the MSC (existing zoning) and NC Street zones. K:V2epars1200SIPCReporrsl11-Jwte YIRZN08-2971 (Walker Park ANeighborhood).doc South School Should the proposal The commissioners supported the original Avenue show a greater area of proposal, which concentrates more dense and MSC? intense development at the intersection of 15°i Street and South School Avenue rather than dispersing it over a larger area. Trey Morrison: 2 Should the property The commissioners proposed changing these two parcels at the SE owner's parcels parcels and the parcel at the NE corner of 7`h Street corner of change from NC to and Church Avenue from NC to DG because the Church Avenue DG? Illustrative Plan showed the vacant parking lot and 6'h Street developing with more density than what is allowed in NC and changing these parcels would provide for greater compatibility between both sides of Church Avenue. Mark Sugg: 3 Should the property in order to highlight Jefferson Square, the parcels on 7'h owner's parcels commissioners proposed to limit the DG area to Street between change from NC to the Square area and key intersections along 6"i Wood Avenue DG? Street.. and Willow Avenue Dorothy Should the property This parcel was included in the discussion about Ashworth: I owner's parcel change the intersection of 6°i Street and Wood Avenue. parcel on the NE from NC to DG? The commissioners decided to limit the DG are to corner of 7'h the two parcels at the NE and SE comers of the Street and Wood intersection. Avenue Marc Crandall: Should the property The property owner has an existing multi -family 1 parcel on owner's parcel change dwelling on the parcel with 7 units. Zoning the Wood Avenue from NC to DG? property DG would be a fonn of spot zoning, between 7'h which is discouraged in the City's Unified Street and 15'h Development Code. The commissioners decided to Street keep the parcel NC. K:I Reports12003J'C Reports) 1) -June 91R/.N 08-297! (IVolker Pork Aroighborhood).Aoc Ta Y erTi e PC Meeting of April 28, 2008 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLG ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Karen Minkel; Senior Long Range Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director DATE: April I8, 2008 125W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 RZN 08-2971: (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD., HUNTSVILLE RD., MORNINGSIDE DR., 15TH STREET AND S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE, C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 303.45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Commercial (128.19 acres), DG, Downtown General (107.41 acres), and MSC, Main Street Center (19.94 acres.) Planner: Karen Minkel BACKGROUND: Property Description: The subject property is roughly bounded by the southern boundary of the Downtown Master Plan area, Huntsville Road, Morningside Drive, 1571i Street and South School Avenue (See attached maps.). The property consists of multiple zoning districts. Surrounding land use and zoning for each section is depicted in the following table. TABLE 1: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single-family dwellings, Commercial, Multi- family dwellin s MSC, NC, DG, R -O, RMF-24, RSF-8 South Industrial, Multi -family dwellings I-1. RMF-24, R -A East Open assure/agricultural RSF-4 West Single-family dwellings. Industrial 1-i, RMF-24 Proposal: As discussed within the adoption of the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan by the City Council, the City of Fayetteville proposes to change the zoning of the property identified above in order to accurately reflect existing uses as well as maintain a sustainable balance of commercial, residential and institutional uses within the neighborhood. The proposed zoning draft was included in the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan adopted by the City Council on February 5, 2008. Public Comment and Participation: The Walker; Park Neighborhood charrette was held September RaReportc1200SIPC Repornll.1-.lone YIRZA'08-2971 (Walker Pm'k;Veighborlrood).doc 21 to 27 in the fall of 2007. Close to 200 stakeholders participated during the process and 97 percent of the surveyed participants at the Work -in -Progress session, where the proposed zoning was first viewed, said they believed the Plan was on the right track. Of those respondents, 9 percent believed that encouraging higher density was a top priority and another 7 percent believed that mixed income housing was a top priority. Some of the comments in response to what was valued in the Plan included, "Creation of high -density mixed -use and townhouses" and "Encouraging higher density (as we are so near to the heart of town) and the mixed uses and amenities that go along with density." The survey also asked if there were elements missing from the Plan. Six comments addressed zoning specifically: • We need to know specifically what is allowed/encouraged in the proposed zoning and what incentives will catalyze development. I am concerned that single-family homes, which are not a sustainable development pattern, are being promoted proximate to downtown. • It is important to remember the neighborhood's proximity to downtown and the need for density, commercial and mixed used. • 1 don't support the creation of and preservation of single-family homes. They are inefficient and unaffordable. • The neighborhood preservation concept seems to inhibit positive development of my neighborhood. • Allowing zoning to allow lots to be divided for roads and alleys where there is none isn't V good for the existing neighborhoods. Sticking with no dividing existing lots or land holdings keeps integrity of community and keeps out developers. • Too much greenspace being changed into homes. Planning Staff mailed postcard notices about the rezoning to all property owners within the Walker Park Neighborhood as well as to adjacent property owners. In addition, Planning Staff held an open house with the proposed zoning from April 14 through April 22. During that period, several residents dropped by to ask questions. Staff also received several phone calls and one written comment from Mark Sugg and one in -person visit from Trey Morrison, both property owners in the area. Mr. Sugg would like to see several of the lots east of Willow Avenue between 6'h and 7'h Streets zoned to Downtown General rather than Neighborhood Conservation. Mr. Morrison would like two parcels east of Church Avenue between 6°i and 7°' Streets also zoned Downtown General. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Street improvements will be evaluated as developments are proposed. Water and Sewer: The Engineering Division evaluated the neighborhood in preparation for the charrette. The neighborhood has a good backbone of large diameter lines (12" or greater) for both the water and sewer system which provides sufficient sewer capacity and water pressure for the area. The one weak area in respect to water is the southwest corner of the boundary. This area, which is near the intersection of S. School Avenue and 15°i Street, will need to have additional lines placed to create loops across S. School to compensate for the lack of large diameter mains. K:IReporrs12008V'CRepaYslll-June91R7A'08-2971 (N'alkrrPork Neighboihood).doc While there is a good backbone of large diameter pipe in the area, there are also many lines that do not meet the current minimum sizes. There are numerous 1.5" to 4" diameter water lines that are serving the existing structures as well as 6" diameter sewer mains. There are also fire hydrants that are connected to 4" mains which do not provide adequate fire flow. With redevelopment of the neighborhood, each of these water and sewer lines will need to be replaced with a minimum of 8" diameter mains and water loops will need to be created where possible to provide adequate flow to each lot. Each individual development in this area will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine the extent of improvements necessary. Drainage: Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required as development is proposed. Fire: The fire department does not anticipate any additional calls for service or reduced response times based on the proposed rezoning. Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density, create an undesirable increase in load on police services, or create an undesirable increase in traffic danger and congestion. CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a City Neighborhood Area. Rezoning this property as proposed would allow for a more traditional form of residential development with narrower lots and buildings closer to the street, consistent with the City Plan 2025 Goal I for infill development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning based on findings stated herein. The new zoning brings most of the nonconforming structures into compliance and reflects the traditional layout and mix of uses within the neighborhood. Further, the zoning creates a natural extension of the Downtown zoning and promotes a City Neighborhood area, which is what is shown on the Future Land Use map. The rezoning will become the first step in realizing the vision generated by the stakeholders within the neighborhood during the charrette process. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:, Required YES ❑ Approved ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied Motion: Second: _Vote: Date: Aoril28.2008 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved ❑ Denied 11 -June 91R%rV 0S-2971 (Wlker Park 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 Future Land Use Map shows most of the proposed rezonings as City Neighborhood Areas or areas that are "primarily residential in nature"...and where..."mixed and low -intensity nonresidential uses are usually confined to corner locations." Property owned by the Fayetteville School District is shown as Civic Institutional and Civic Open Space. The proposed zoning is consistent with a City Neighborhood land use, providing a moderately dense residential area with mixed use and commercial areas proposed at key intersections. The proposed rezoning is also part of the adopted Walker Park Neighborhood Plan, which is the first complete neighborhood plan to be created as outlined in City Plan 2025. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: Approximately 30 percent of the existing buildings do not conform to the current zoning. The proposed zoning brings most of these buildings into compliance. The comprehensive rezoning also addresses neighborhood concerns about the current prevalence of multi -family zoning, which has spurred several neighborhood residents to attempt a scattershot rezoning of their properties during the past five years. The Walker Park Neighborhood will also face significant development pressure over the next several years because of its relatively affordable land values and proximity to the Downtown. The rezoning will help ensure that the area redevelops as its residents and property owners envision. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The zoning primarily reflects residential development that already exists, while planning for and encouraging redevelopment in the future. There is the potential for traffic to increase along South School Avenue and 15th Street as the area redevelops. However, the increased traffic on South School under a Downtown General and Main Street Center zoning would not be significantly different from the traffic expected to occur with redevelopment under the current C-2 zoning. Increased traffic along 15th Street will easily be accommodated by the scheduled widening of 15`h Street in the Transportation K:IRepw-rs120081PC Reponsl 11 -June 91R/.N 08-2971 (Walker Pa, A Nerghbo hood).doc Bond program. 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 could increase the population as the area redeveloped, but the existing infrastructure should be able to accommodate the growth and would be assessed on a case -by -case basis for improvements to meet the incremental increase in demand. 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 permitted under its existing zoning classifications; Finding: It is feasible to allow the property to remain under its current zoning classification. However, the current zoning would create a neighborhood of mostly multi -family residential structures and has not encouraged redevelopment of key corridors. Retaining all the multi -family zoning would damage the urban fabric of the downtown and would not contribute to the realization of a mixed -use neighborhood. 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: Not applicable. Staff recommends in favor of the proposed rezoning. K: lReports1200RIPC Reporisl I I -June 91R&V 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood).doc FAYETTEVILLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 161.21 Main Street/Center (A) Purpose. A greater range of uses is expected and encouraged in the Alain Street / Center. The Center is more spatially compact and is more likely to have some attached buildings than Downtown General or Neighborhood Conservation. Multi -story buildings in the Center are well -suited to accommodate a mix of uses, such as apartments or offices above shops. Lofts, live/work units, and buildings designed for changing uses over time are appropriate for the Main Street/Center, The Center is within walking distance of the surrounding, primarily residential areas. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Main Street Center district is a commercial zone. (13) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit I City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating laces Unit 14 Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 16 Shopping goods Unit 17 Trades and services Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 34 Liquor stores Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined with pre - approved uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 18 Gasoline services stations and drive in restaurants Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 29 Dance halls Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments Unit 36 Wireless communication facilities Unit 40 Sidewalk Cafes (C) Density. None. (D) Bulk and area regulations. (I) Lot width minimum. Dwelling (all unit types) 18 ft. (2) Lot area minimum. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between the front property line and a line 25 ft. from the front properly line. Side, facing street The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between the front property line and a line 25 ft. from the front property line. Side. internal None Rear, without easement 5 ft. or alley Rear, from center line of 12 ft. an easement or alley (F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 75% of lot width. (2) Conditional uses. (G) Height Regulations. A building or a portion of K:IRetwrts120031 PC Reports\ 11-./une 91R%N 031971 (Walker Pork Neighborhood).doc a building that is located between 0 and 15 feet from the front property line or any master street plan right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 4 stories or 56 feet; whichever is less. A building or a portion of a building that is located 15 feet or greater from the front property line or any master street plan right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 6 stories or 84 feet, which ever is less. (H) Parking regulations. No parking lots are allowed to be located in the front or side build -lo -zone facing a public right of way. (Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5029, 6-19-07; Ord. 5042, 8-07-07) 161.22 Downtown General. (A) Purpose. Downtown General is a flexible zone, and it is not limited to the concentrated mix of uses found in the Downtown Core or Main Street / Center. Downtown General includes properties in the neighborhood that arc not categorized as identifiable centers, yet are more intense in use than Neighborhood Conservation. There is a mixture of single- family homes, rowhouses, apartments, and live/work units. Activities include a flexible and dynamic range of uses, from public open spaces to less intense residential development and businesses. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Downtown General district is a residential zone. (13) Uses. (I) Permitted uses. Unit I City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 10 Three -:family dwellings Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating laces Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined with pre - approved uses. (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 14 Hotel, motel and amusement services Unit 16 Shopping goods Unit 17 Trades and services Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 36 Wireless communication facilities Unit 40 Sidewalk Cafes (C) Density. None (D) Bulk and area regulations. (1) Lot width minimum. Dwelling (all unit types) 18 ft. (2) Lot area minimum. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between the front property line and a line 25 ft. from the front property line. Side. facing street The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between the front property line and a line 25 ft. from the front property line. Side, internal None Rear, without easement 5 ft. or alley Rear, from center line 12 ft. ofan easement or alley K: Reporrs120081PC Reports]/ /-June 91RZV 08-2971 (11'alker Park N'eighborhood).doc (F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 50% of lot width. (G) Height regulations. Maximum height is 4 stories or 56 feet which ever is less. 161.23 Neighborhood Conservation (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation zone has the least activity and a lower density than the other zones. Although Neighborhood Conservation is the most purely residential zone, it can have some mix of uses, such as civic buildings. Neighborhood Conservation serves to promote and protect neighborhood character. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Neighborhood Conservation district is a residential zone. (B) Uses. (I) Permitted uses. Unit I City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-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 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Professional services Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 36 Wireless communication facilities (C) Density. 10 Units Per Acre. (D) Bulk and area regulations. ( I) Lot width minimum. Single Family 40 ft. Two Family 50 ft. Three Family 60 fr. (2) Lot area minimum. 4,000 Sq. Ft. (H) Parking regulations. No parking lots are allowed to be located in the front or side build -to -zone facing a public right of way. (Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5029, 6-19-07) (E) Setback regulations Front The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between the front property line and a line 25 ft. from the front property line. Side, facing street The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between the front property line and a line 25 ft. from the front property line. Side. internal, if 5 ft. adjoining a similar use unit. Side, internal, if 5 ft. adjoining a different use unit Rear, without easement 5 ft. or alley Rear, from center line 12 ft. of an easement or_alley (F) Minimum buildable si reel frontage. 40% of lot width. (G) Height regulations. Maximum height is 3 stories or 45 feet which ever is less. K: IRepor[v120081PC Reporusll l -June 91RZV (18-2977 (Walker Park Neighborhood).doc •1:i: [•I•I . • [(7.2CC8)tlarice Pearman - Ords. 5153, 5154 & 5155 Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 7.21.08 1:51 PM Subject: Ords. 5153, 5154 & 5155 Attachments: 5153 RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood Rezone.pdf; 5154 R-PZD 06-2299 Ru skin Heights Amendment.pdf; 5155 Amend 166.20 Expiration of Approved Plans & Permits.pdf CC: Audit Jeremy: Attached is a copy of the above ordinances passed by City Council, July 15, 2008, regarding various amendments and rezonings. Please let me know if there is anything else needed for this item. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION Northwest Arkansas Times Benton County Daily Record P. O. BOX 1607 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 PHONE: 479-571-6421 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Cathy Wiles, 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: City of Fayetteville Ordinance 5153 July 25, 2008 Publication Charge : $68.58 Subscribed and sworn to before me Thisday of J. tJ.y , 2008. Notary Public r�g__` My Commission Expires: Do not pay from Affidavit, an invoice will be sent RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2008 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ONUINAIRR NO. 5153 PROPAN ORDINANCEOXIMA REZONING ACRES. UNDER BY a e evi le DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 08-2971. FORAPPROXIMATELYYELL OU.LACRES, BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD MOR YELL BOULEVARD, HUNTSVILLE REET.. RSOUTH N AVE DRIVE, O 15Th STREET, AND SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE FROM RMF-24, REST- J , ARKANSAS DENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, C-2, THOROUG HFARE COMMERCIAL, AND P-1, INSTI- TUTIONAL TO NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, 0G, DOWNTOWN GENERAL, RMF-18, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE, AND MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER: SLIT ORDAINED BY TNt CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSA$I Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described propertyis hereby changed as fol. Iowa: From RMF-24. Residential Mulll-Family, 24 units per acre, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and P-1. Institutional to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, DO, Downtown General, RMF-18, Residential Multi�Farily, 18 units per acre, and MSC, Main Street Center, as shown on Exhibit -A' attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That he official zonIng map of the City 01 Fayetteville, Arkansas Is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. . APPROVEb: S .I ATTEST: B': By: DAN COODY, Nays - SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clwt/lSHuw Exhibit A Is a map and may be viewed In the Office of the City Clerk/Treasurer during normal busi- ness hours, ... .. .. RECEIVED CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE