HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-09 - Agendas - FinalTayelteyi;le
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 9, 2008, 5:30 p.m.
Room 219, City Administration Building
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item — Chair
B. Presentation of Staff Report
C. Presentation of request — Applicant
D. Public Comment
E. Questions & Answer with Commission
F. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion & Vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
It' you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when
the Chair asks for public comment. Public comment occurs after the Planning Staff has presented the
application and will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Members of the public
are permitted a maximum of 10 minutes to speak; representatives of a neighborhood group will be allowed
20 minutes. The applicant/representative of an application before the Planning Commission for
consideration will be permitted a maximum of 20 minutes for presentation.
Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address.
Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. He/She will direct them to the
appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Open dialogue will not be permitted:
please ask any questions, and answers will be provided once public comment has been closed. Please keep
your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone
has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning
Commission.
2008 Planning Commissioners
Sean Trumbo
Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe
James Graves Porter Winston
Audy Lack Christine Myres
Jeremy Kennedy Jill Anthes
•
aye...evi e
ARKANSAS
The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
TENTATIVE AGENDA
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 09, 2008, 5:30 p.m.
Room 219, City Administration Building
The following items will be considered:
Consent ARenda:
1. Approval of the minutes from the May 27, 2008 meeting.
2. ADM 08-3014: (VILLAGE AT SHILOH, 441): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL SPARKS for
property located 1.2 MILES S OF WEDINGTON ON SHILOH DRIVE. The request is for a one year
extension of the approval for the Large Scale Development, LSD 07-2594. Planner: Andrew Garner
Unfinished Business:
3. 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 (124.34 acres), DG, Downtown General (101.35 acres), RMF -18, Multi-
family - 18 units/acre (.48 acres) and MSC, Main Street Center (28.62 acres.) Planner: Karen Minkel
New Business:
4. R-PZD 08-2965: (AMBERWOOD PLACE, 474/475): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property
located S & E OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD. AND DOT TIPTON RD. The property is zoned R -A,
RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 39.98 acres. The request is for Zoning and
Land Use approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 182 single-family dwelling units.
Planner: Andrew Garner
THIS ITEM CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS THE
APPLICANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIRED NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CITY CODE.
5. ADM 08-3012: (ABSHIER HEIGHTS MODIFICATION): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, the
request is for major modifications to the conditions of approval for R-PZD 06-1883, Abshier Heights,
regarding street improvements and speed tables. Planner: Jesse Fulcher
6. ADM 08-3018: (BELLAFONT II): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, the request is for change in the
phasing for street improvements associated with the Bellafont II project. Planner: Andrew Garner
7. CUP 08-2995: (LAKE HILLS CHURCH_HAAS HALL ACADEMY, 255): Submitted by
RICHARD OSBORNE for property located at 2828 CROSSOVER. The property is zoned R -A,
RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.58 acres. The request is for a school
(Use Unit 4) in the R -A Zoning District. Planner: Jesse Fulcher
8. CUP 08-2993: (BRISIEL / TOWNSHIP, 330): Submitted by TIM BRISIEL for property located at
the SOUTH SIDE OF TOWNSHIP ST., EAST OF PEEL ST. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE
FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.98 acres. The request is for a tandem lot.
Planner: Dara Sanders
9. LSP 08-2992: (BRISIEL / TOWNSHIP, 330): Submitted by TIM BRISIEL for property located at
SOUTH SIDE OF TOWNSHIP ST., EAST OF PEEL ST. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE
FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.91 acres. The request is to divide the subject
property into three tracts of 0.26, 0.26, and 0.39 acres. Planner: Dara Sanders
10. CUP 08-2996: (FOGHORN'S / 15TH ST., 599): Submitted by JEFF HODGES, FOGHORN'S for
property located at 1545 W. 15TH ST., SUITE 1. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.79 acres. The request is for an outdoor music
establishment. Planner: Dara Sanders
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other
pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain
Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing
impaired are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an
interpreter, please call 575-8330.
ay vile
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: June 2, 2008
PC Meeting of June 9, 2008
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
ADM 08-3014: (VILLAGE AT SHILOH, 441): Submitted by Crafton Tull Sparks for property
located 1.2 miles S of Wedington on Shiloh Drive. The request is for a one year extension of the
approval for the Large Scale Development, LSD 07-2594.
Planner: Andrew Garner
BACKGROUND
Property Description: The subject property contains 18.09 acres and is located on the west side of
Shiloh Drive, approximately 1.2 miles south of Wedington Drive. The property is currently
undeveloped land with the western portion of the site in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District.
Background: The original Large Scale Development was approved by the Planning Commission on
June 11, 2007 for the construction of 198 townhomes with a maximum of 16 units connected
together in one pod, and a front -loaded, two -car attached garage for each unit within the RMF -24
zoning district.
Since the approval date, the applicant has installed a majority of the infrastructure, with exception of
the internal private drives, and obtained building permits for 3 buildings, a total of 32 townhomes.
The reason that the complete construction of the project has been delayed is due to the large size of
the project. The applicant intends to complete the project within the year.
Proposal.: The applicant requests to extend the approval of the Large Scale Development for one
year, to expire on June 11, 2009. The Planning Department received the applicant's extension
request on May 19, 2008, within the required one year time limit. Should this extension be granted,
all permits necessary for construction are required to be issued before the one-year extended
deadline. If the permits are not issued prior to June 11, 2009, all of the approved plans for the
project shall be rendered null and void.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of ADM 08-3014, the requested extension to the LSD 07-2594 (Village
at Shiloh), with the following conditions:
K: IReports120081PC Reportslll-June 914DM 08-3014 (Village at Shiloh).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 1 of 10
1. The applicant shall be allowed until June 11, 2009 to receive all permits and approvals
required to complete construction of the development or project. If all permits have not been
received by this time, the Large Scale Development approval shall be revoked.
2. All other conditions of approval for the large scale development shall remain applicable.
DISCUSSION
The City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 166.20(b) gives the Planning
Commission authority to extend approval of a large scale development one additional year from the
original approval. In order to extend this approval, the applicant must: (1) request the extension
prior to the one year time limit, and (2) show good cause why the tasks could not reasonably be
completed within the normal one year. If the one year extension is granted, it is within this time that
the applicant shall receive all permits and approvals as required by City, State, and Federal
regulations to start construction of the development or project.
(1) The applicant has submitted the extension request to the Planning Division on May 19, 2008,
prior to the one year time limit ending June 11, 2008.
(2) The applicant has stated that construction of the project has been delayed due to the size of
the development but that they plan to have the project completed within the year, as a
majority of the infrastructure has been installed with exception of the internal private drives.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
❑ Approved
Motion:
Second:
Vote:
Meeting Date June 9, 2008
❑ Denied ❑ Tabled
The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by
the entity requesting approval of this development item.
Signature Date
IC IReporls120081PC ReporlsV lJune 9LWDM08-3014 Village at Shiloh).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 2 of 10
CHAPTER 166: DEVELOPMENT
166.20 Expiration Of Approved Plans
And Permits
(A) Applicability. The provisions of this
section apply to all of the following plans
and permits:
(I)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Preliminary plats;
Planned zoning district developments;
Conditional uses;
Large-scale developments;
Lot splits;
Physical alteration of land permits;
Storm water, drainage, and erosion control
permits;
Tree preservation plans;
Sign permits; and,
(10) Floodplain development permits.
(B) One-year time limit.
(1) Tasks to be completed. All of the above -
enumerated plans and permits are
conditioned upon the applicant
accomplishing the following tasks within
one (1) year from the date of approval:
(a) For any renovation or new
construction, receive a building
permit; and/or,
(b) For a lot split, record a deed or
survey at the Washington County
Circuit Clerk's Office,
stamped for recordation by the City
Planning Division; and/or,
(c) Receive a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance; and/or,
(d) Receive all permits and approvals
required by City, State, and Federal
regulations to start construction of
the development or project.
(2) Extensions. Prior to the expiration of the
one (1) year time limit, an applicant may
request the Planning Commission to
extend the period to accomplish the tasks
by up to one (1) additional year. The
applicant has the burden to show good
cause why the tasks could not reasonably
K:IReporls120081PC Reportslll-June 91ADM08-3014 Village at Shilohi.doc
be completed within the normal one (1)
year limit.
Expiration. If the required task(s) are not
completed within one (1) year from the
date of approval or during an allowed
extension period, all of the above -
enumerated plans and permits shall be
rendered null and void.
(C) Three-year time limit.
(1) Tasks to be complete. All of the above -
enumerated plans and permits are also
conditioned upon the applicant completing
the project and receiving fmal inspection
approval and/or a final Certificate of
Occupancy permit within three (3) years
from the date of issuance of a Building
Permit.
(2) Extensions. Prior to the expiration of the
three (3) year time limit, an applicant may
request the Planning Commission to
extend the three (3) year period to
complete the project by up to two (2)
additional years. The applicant has the
burden to show good cause why the
project could not reasonably be completed
within the three (3) year time limit.
(3) Expiration. If the applicant fails to meet
the requirements of subsection (C)(1)
within three (3) years from the date of
issuance of a Building Permit or during an
allowed extension period, all of the above -
enumerated plans and permits shall be
rendered null and void.
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 3 of 10
Jan Gambill - PEERLESS 09051716490,PDF'
May 19, 2008
Andrew Garner
City of Fayetteville, Planning Department
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: The Village at Shiloh Road
CTSA Job No. 071024-00
Dear Mr. Garner:
atuatil
Crafton Tull Sparks
arfl eckva 1 zngirteainy
Triton Homes has requested that I petition the. Fayetteville Planning Commission for a 1 year
extension of the approval of their Large Scale Development for the Village at Shiloh Road. Based
on our records, our project was approved on June 11, 2007. Since that time infrastructure
construction has been completed with the exception of private drives and several of the buildings
have been erected with some of the units having received Certificates of Occupancy.
Multi -family projects of this size and with multiple structures typically require more than 1 year to
have building permits secured on all of the buildings because those permits are typically requested
as each building comes into the construction schedule. Construction is progressing on schedule
and sales: for these homes have been trending at a comfortable rate. The owner anticipates that
each building permit will be secured within the granted 1 year extension, if the planning commission
sees fit to grant that extension.
If there are questions that I can answer during the consideration of this request, please let me
know, Otherwise, I looking forwardto the hearing date once you have an opportunity to establish it.
Sincerely,
Craft Tull Sparks
Steven Beam, P.E,
Vice -President, Residential Development
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 4 of 10
°VA4 INcPA-. C.-0NDrn 6-K4s ce
Ps?F OJ(%L [An CLF -2,594
shown on the FATT plan within the state right-of-way.
Recommendation: Finding the proposed project complies with the Fayetteville Unified
Development Code, staff recommends approval of LSD 07-2594 with the following conditions
of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1. As discussed in the email from the Solid Waste Division attached to this report, this
development must have provisions for commercial trash service through dumpster or
compactor service and should be identified on the site plan. Single family carts are not
allowed. The location of the dumpsters shall be approved by the Solid Waste and Planning
Divisions prior to building permit.
2. Prior to building permit a lot split to create a legal lot of record for the 4.8 -acre park land lot
shall be submitted, approved, and recorded.
Parks Conditions:
3. 4.8 acres of park land with a public access easement to the park land shall be deeded to the
City prior to issuance of building permit. Additionally, the developer shall build a 12' wide
trail along Shiloh Dr. as shown on the FATT plan within the State right-of-way as part of the
development.
4. Coordinate grading on park land with Park Staff. Any disturbed areas on park land will need to
be seeded prior to issuance of building permit.
5. A deed for the 4.8 acres of dedicated park land must be submitted to the city's land agents for
their review. Once the deed is approved by the land agents, the deed must be filed with
Washington County then submitted to Parks and Recreation. Deed must be submitted to Parks
prior to issuance of building permit.
6. Coordinate with Park Staff to pick up park boundary signs, posts and hardware. Boundary
signs must be placed prior to issuance of building permits.
Tree Preservation and Landscape Conditions:
7. Mitigation is required in the amount of 64 (2) inch caliper large species trees. These trees will
be located on-site. As they do all fit on-site, staff is not in support of the on-site planting
incentive. These new trees will be a great addition to Fayetteville's urban forest and the new
housing area.
8. A bond/letter of credit/ check for $16,000 if due before the final certificate of occupancy will
be granted. This money is held for 3 years to ensure that the trees will be maintained. After
the 3 year period, the Urban Forester will inspect the site. Finding 90% of the trees healthy,
KAReparts120071PC Reporls106-11-071LSD 07-2594 (Village at Shiloh f doe
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 5 of 10
the amount is released. This can be combined with the amount due for the street trees required
under Chapter 177 if chosen.
9. Please include the Tree Preservation and Recreational Area on the Easement Plat for the Urban
Forester to sign. This will use the longer signature block which can be acquired from staff if
needed.
10. Determine and include the tracking method for the installation of the mitigation trees. Staff
would like these planted and bonded at the earliest convenience if they are not found in the
way of development. Otherwise they should be linked to the certificate of occupancy of the lot
nearest.
1. At the time of construction drawings the landscape plan must be stamped and signed by a
licensed landscape architect.
12. Under the new Landscape Regulations Chapter 177, street trees must be bonded for a 3 -year
period. This bond is for the maintenance of the trees. This amount must be deposited with the
City before signature of Final Plat.
Shiloh Trail Conditions:
13. The developer has agreed to construct a 12' asphalt multi -use trail along the east property line
for Shiloh Trail as identified on the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Master
Plan. The proposed trail will eventually follow along the west side of I-540 from north to
south Fayetteville.
14. Show Shiloh Trail connecting to the existing 6' sidewalk to the south with the additional 6'
extending out to the east at the point where the sidewalk meets the trail. Do not taper the trail
to the 6' sidewalk, continue the 12' width to the 6' sidewalk so in the future an additional 6'
can be added along the east side of the sidewalk and connect to the 12' trail.
15. Shiloh trail is to be constructed by the developer and shall comply with the ADA and City of
Fayetteville standards.
16. A 12' wide 3" raised crosswalk constructed of red colored concrete with 2' wide white
thermoplastic stripe on each side is requested at the intersection of Shiloh Trail and the two
entry roads (Road B & Road E).
Planning Commission added this condition per memo from Trails Coordinator. (06/11/07)
Standard Conditions of Approval:
17. All mechanical and utility equipment on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened.
All roof mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating
screening to the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building.
K::IReparts12007IPC Reports106-II-07ILSD 07-2594 (Village at Shiloh)doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 6 of 10
Smaller ground -mounted equipment may be screened with tall grasses or shrubs. A note
shall be added to all construction documents indicating as such.
18. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street. The trash enclosures
shall be constructed with materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed
building. A detail of the proposed screening shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of the building permit. Any additional dumpsters located on site
shall be screened from the right-of-way.
19. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size,
type, number, etc. Signs are not allowed to be placed in utility easements.
20. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance (single and two-
family exterior lighting is exempt from the lighting ordinance). A lighting plan and cut -sheets
of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning Staff prior
to building permit.
21. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the
applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western Gas,
SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
22. Provide a CD containing the proposed Large Scale Development drawings in AutoCad or
similar digital format.
23. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for
grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking
lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was
reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review
and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements.
24. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be
located underground.
25. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree
protection measures prior to any land disturbance.
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree
preservation area and all utility easements.
o Project Disk with all final revisions
d One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans
including tree preservation measures submitted to the Landscape
Administrator.
e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety
K-IReports120071PC Reports106-11-071LSD 07-2594 (Village at Shiloh).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 7 of 10
with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01
"Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all
incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve
the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Additional conditions:
27
28
Planning Commission Action: X Approval ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled
Motion: Graves
Second: Lack
Vote: 6-0-0
Meeting Date: June 11, 2007
Comments:
Approved with staff's recommendations and conditions as included in the above sta f report.
The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception
by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
Signature Date
K.iReportsl20071PC Reports106-11-0711-SD 07-2594 (Village at Shilohjdoc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Page 8 of 10
ADM08-3014
Close Up View
VILLAGE AT SHILOH
Overview
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
ADM 08-3014 Village at Shiloh
Agenda Item 2
Overview
Legend
Subject Property
ADM08-3014
Boundary
tit.,. Planning Area
,D0030,
_.3 Overlay District
Outside City
0 0.25 0.5
Legend
I= Hillside -Hilltop ON
1
M
erlay District
June 9, 20
Planning Commissi
i les ADM 08-3014 Village at Shil
Agenda Iter
8
n
h
2
Page 10 of 10
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of June 9, 2008
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 (124.34 acres), DG, Downtown General
(101.35 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
permit 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:IReports120081PC ReprnCs11]-June 91RZN 08-297] (Walker Park Neighborhood). doe
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 1 of 18
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.
/CtReports120081PC Repor/s111-.June 91RZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 2 of 18
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, 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: May 7, 2008 (Update)
PC Meeting of May 12, 2008
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 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 6th Street rather than extending the zoning along
the entire length of 6th 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:IReports120081PC Repor(slI 1 -June 9IRZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood)doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 3 of 18
Area of Concern
Question(s)
Discussed
Proposal
Morningside
Drive
Is the DG (blue)
zoning too big or too
small?
Commissioners proposed keeping the NC block
because it reflects the existing uses as well as the
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
and 6th Street
Would it be
appropriate to change
from NC (green) to
DG in order to create
another node?
This area was discussed as the gateway to the
neighborhood from the east, and the Illustrative
Plan showed greater density at this intersection.
The NE and SE corners were changed from NC to
DG. In order to emphasize the significance of
Jefferson Square, the NW and SW corners were
left as NC.
Willow Avenue
between 6"'
Street and 7th
Street
Should this block
change from NC to
DG to complete
Jefferson Square?
Changing this block from NC to DG was
determined to be appropriate in order to enhance
the sense of enclosure on both sides of Willow
Avenue and complete the Square.
4th Street and
Washington
Avenue
Should this area
change from NC to
DG in order to reflect
the Illustrative Plan?
While this area may later be appropriate for more
dense and intense development, NC was
determined as being appropriate at this time; NC
reflects the existing uses within this area.
11th Street and
Willow Avenue-
Is the mix of DG and
NC appropriate at this
intersection?
This area was left as proposed. The Illustrative
Plan shows row houses as part of the large parcel
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
between 5th
Street and 6°i
Street
Should the area
change from DG to
NC?
The proposed zoning was left as originally
proposed because the DG serves as a transition
area between the MSC (existing zoning) and NC
zones.
K:IReports120081PCReports111-June 9IRZN 08-297/ (Walker Park Neighborhood).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 4 of 18
South School
Avenue
Should the proposal
show a greater area of
MSC?
The commissioners supported the original
proposal, which concentrates more dense and
intense development at the intersection of 15113
Street and South School Avenue rather than
dispersing it over a larger area.
Trey Morrison: 2
parcels at the SE
corner of
Church Avenue
and 6th Street
Should the property
owner's parcels
change from NC to
DG?
The commissioners proposed changing these two
parcels and the parcel at the NE corner of 7`h Street
and Church Avenue from NC to DG because the
Illustrative Plan showed the vacant parking lot
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
parcels on 7th
Street between
Wood Avenue
and Willow
Avenue
Should the property
owner's parcels
change from NC to
DG?
In order to highlight Jefferson Square, the
commissioners proposed to limit the DG area to
the Square area and key intersections along 6th
Street.
Dorothy
Ashworth: 1
parcel on the NE
corner of 7th
Street and Wood
Avenue
Should the property
owner's parcel change
from NC to DG?
This parcel was included in the discussion about
the intersection of 6th Street and Wood Avenue.
The commissioners decided to limit the DG are to
the two parcels at the NE and SE corners of the
intersection.
Marc Crandall:
1 parcel on
Wood Avenue
between 7th
Street and 15th
Street
Should the property
owner's parcel change
from NC to DG?
The property owner has an existing multi -family
dwelling on the parcel with 7 units. Zoning the
property DG would be a form of spot zoning,
which is discouraged in the City's Unified
Development Code. The commissioners decided to
keep the parcel NC.
K: IReporfs120081PC Repons111-.1une 9IRZN 08-297] (Walker Park Neighborhaad).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 5 of 18
y� i
ay Leyaa
ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of April 28, 2008
THE CITY OF FAYE 1 1 EVILLE, 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 18, 2008
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 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, 1511' 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 dwellings
MSC, NC, DG, R -O, RMF -24, RSF-8
South
Industrial, Multi -family dwellings
I-1, RMF -24, R -A
East
Open pasture/agricultural
RSF-4
West
Single-family dwellings, Industrial
I-1, 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
K:IReports12008 PC Reportslll-June 9112Z 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 6 of 18
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.
• I 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
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 6th and 7th Streets zoned to
Downtown General rather than Neighborhood Conservation. Mr. Morrison would like two parcels
east of Church Avenue between 6th and 7th 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 15th Street, will need to have additional
lines placed to create loops across S. School to compensate for the lack of large diameter mains.
K:IRepor/s12008IPC Reporlsl11-June 91RZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 7 of 18
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 1 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.
K: IReporls120081PC RepartsV!-June 91RZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood). doe
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 8 of 18
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The 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.
2. 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
aboutthe 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 15`h 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 15`h Street will easily be
accommodated by the scheduled widening of 15th Street in the Transportation
K; IReports120081PC Report:I J /-June 91 RZN 08-297! (Walker Park Neighbor/rood).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 9 of 18
Bond program.
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:IReports120081PCReports111-June 91RZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighbordrood).doc
June 9, 2008
PlanningCommission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 10 of 18
FAYETTEVILLE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE
161.21 Main Street/Center
(A) Purpose. A greater range of uses is
expected and encouraged in the Main 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.
(B) Uses.
(1) Penn lied uses.
Unit 1
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 places
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.
(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
or alley
5 ft.
Rear, from center line of
an easement or alley
12 ft.
(F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 75%
of lot width.
(2) Conditional uses. (G) Height Regulations. A building or a portion of
K:IReparts120081PC Reports 11 -June 91RZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood). doe
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 11 of 18
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 -to -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
are not categorized as identifiable centers, yet
are more intense in use than Neighborhood
Conservation. There is a mixture of single-
family homes, rowhouses, apat ments, 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.
(B) Uses
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
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 places
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)
(D)
Density. None
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
or alley
5 ft.
Rear, from center line
of an easement or alley
12 ft.
K:IReports120081PC Reportslll-June 91RZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neighborhood).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 12 of 18
(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.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit1
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 andrelated services
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Professional services
Unit 28
Center for collecting
recyclable materials
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities
(C)
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
(1) Lot width minimum.
Density. 10 Units Per Acre.
Single Family
40 ft.
Two Family
50 ft.
Three Family
60 ft.
(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
adjoining a similar use
unit.
5 ft.
Side, internal, if
adjoining a different
use unit
5 ft.
Rear, without easement
or alley
5 ft.
Rear, from center line
of an easement or alley
12 ft.
(F) Minimum buildable streetfrontage. 40% of lot
width.
(G) Height regulations. Maximum height is 3
stories or 45 feet which ever is Less.
K:IReports12008I17C ReportsUl-June 9IRZN 08-2971 (Walker Park Neiglrborhood).doc
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 13 of 18
r.
Karen Minkel - 636 S. Wood Avenue, f >tteville Rezoning_
From: billy ashworth <custommachineworks@yahoo.com>
To: <kminkel@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 5/21/08 9:57AM
Subject: 636 S. Wood Avenue, Fayetteville - Rezoning
Karen,
Fayetteville Planning Commission
I would like to request our property at 636 S. Wood Ave., Fayetteville, to be rezoned "Downtown General"
rather than "Neighborhood Conservation".
As per our phone conversation today, the adjoining property to the north is rezoned Downtown General
and the adjoining property to the east is zoned more commercial.
What is the proposed zoning for the adjoining 20 - 30 acre property to our south?
There is a little more than an acre with our property and we would like the option to develop in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this, please call with any questions.
Dorothy Ashworth, 521-8054
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 14 of 18
LKaren Minkel - Walker Parkproposed zoning change Page 1
From: "Steve Winkler" <landmanwinkler@gmail.com>
To: <kminkel@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/4/08 9:33AM
Subject: Walker Park proposed zoning change
Ms. Minkel
My wife and I own property in the Walker Park Neighborhood. The
addresses are 300 S. College Ave/145 E. South Street, two houses
situated on one lot; 157 E . South St., a vacant lot; house at 173 E.
South St. and house at 189 E. South St. We purchased this as
investment rental property in 1995. All parcels were bought at one
time and are covered under one mortgage. For marketing and development
purposes we consider it to be one piece. The property was then and is
now zoned MFR -24 and our intent has always been to develop the
property within guidelines for that zone.
The Walker Park proposed zoning map indicates that our property would
be NC which is a substantial departure from our -MFR -24 zoning. The
north and west side boundary and corner of the east boundary of our
property are adjacent to the DG zone. In effect this would give us a
more restricted residential designation for property bounded on three
sides by DG. We don't feel single or double family residential would
be he highest and best use of that property at that location. The
structures on the property have a negative value due to age and
condition. Those old houses have no future there. The value of the
property is in the land, and that particular piece of land located on
the south side of South Street between College and Washington needs to
be considered Downtown General.
If there is any othe information or comments form us that you feel
would be helpful, let us know.
Thanks,
Steve and Michele Winkler
June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
RZN 08-2971 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 3
Page 15 of 18
WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
F 4 �9 �• ..' V /3 �F-24�j RSF-4
,
AO,a�r
:/le . RSF-e .
/ t /4
'1 C20 p /43:(141-38 .Q
LFAhi"rD-Or/4FA
�oeq
RSFA - -
RSFA'
Overview
0
0 300 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 June 9, 2008
Planning Commission
IN 08-2371 Walker Park Neighborhood
Agenda Item 4
Page 16 of 18