HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5445 Doc ID' 014266590009 Type: REL
Kind: ORDINANCE
Recorded: 10/21/2011 at 01:19:17 PM
Fee Amt: $55.00 Pace 1 of 9
Hashinoton Countv. AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
File2011-00029646
ORDINANCE NO. 5445
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 11-3866, FOR APPROXIMATELY 28.93
ACRES, LOCATED AT 2013 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD FROM R-PZD,
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (RPZD 06-2299 RUSKIN
HEIGHTS), TO CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4
UNITS/ACRE, SUBJECT TO A BILL OF ASSURANCE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the
zone classification of the following described property from R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning
District 06-2299 Ruskin Heights to CS, Community Services; NC, Neighborhood Conservation;
and RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 units per acre, as shown on Exhibits "A" and `B"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the
official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
Section 3: That this property is subject to a Bill of Assurance offered by the property
owner and runs with the land, which limits the use and density of the property as shown in
Exhibit"C" attached hereto and made a part thereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4h day of October, 2011.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: tG �' _ �( By: Qfi nc�tom :
LIO LD J , Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clem`,�RK/TR' ''.,,
;rJ
:FAYETTEVI LLE:
;,y�;.9,S,kANSPy J�'3
°'.�,o;;�GTON
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN11-3866 RUSKIN HEIGHTS
Close Up View
KANTZ LN
KANTZ CV
H ❑
r w 3
s 3
� P•1
O R �� R•O
J K
SUBJECT PROPERTY °�
w
a
g2ie HACKBERRY DR y ¢
OR KANTZLN
FR � 2
a
RSF•
Q
F,
S In ��
U
NC BRISTOL PL OO
m
CAMELOT PL
❑
OOMFIELD PL
w
0
U ...... `o
W.4
eftmmm�VERE PL
Lege -
(_ ln�) 'I �CTORIALN U
Y
.. .Trail
N
......,•, Faure rails
2
K
MEANDERING Wqy
,Footprints 2010
CS, Com unity Services (7.13 acres)
- Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District NC, Neighborhoo I Conservation (16.83 acres)
Design Overlay Di trict RSF-4, Residential Single Family Fou r Units Per Acre(4.96 acres)
Design Overlay Di&ict
------ Planning Area
0 zoo 400 600 1,200 1,600
Fayetteville Feet
EXHIBIT `B"
RZN 11-3866
Page 1 of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COMMUNITY SERVICES "AREA 1
A PART OF THE SE1/4 OF THE SWI/4 AND A PART OF THE SWIA OF THE SEI/4 OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEI/4,
SWI/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE NO3°38'07"E 441.29 FEET, THENCE
NO3043'13"E 201.84 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE NO3°43'13"E 91.83 FEET, THENCE
NO3042'38"E 417.42 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS HIIGHWAY
45 (MISSION BLVD) THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N69°23'34"E 249.34 FEET,
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 108.99 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 970.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N72036'42"E
108.93 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 335.03 FEET, SAID CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 978.84 FEET AND A CHORD BEAGING AND DISTANCE OF
N85038'10"E 333.40 FEET, THENCE S01°04'05"W 12.27 FEET, THENCE S86°22'14"E
166.88 FEET, THENCE S03°35'31"W 52.51 FEET, THENCE S29°39'59"W 198.65 FEET,
THENCE N88012'58"W 191.48 FEET, THENCE S09°15'37"W 90.52 FEET, THENCE
S63052'00"W 117.08 FEET, THENCE S65°15'19"W 105.97 FEET, THENCE S42°52'30"W
104.57 FEET, THENCE S28-15'21"W 126.68 FEET, THENCE S80°27'37W 232.53 FEET TO
THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 7.13 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE
"AREA 2":
A PART OF THE SEI/4 OF THE SW1/4 AND A PART OF THE SWI/4 OF THE SEI/4 OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SE1/4,
SW1/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE S87°31'58"E 657.93 FEET, THENCE
NO3045'46"E 491.63 FEET, THENCE S85°48'23"E 422.74 FEET, THENCE NO3029'46"E
606.14 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N85°59'44"W 123.24 FEET, THENCE N59°37'43"W
189.62 FEET, THENCE N29°39'59"E 91.56 FEET, THENCE NO3°35'36"E 50.56 FEET TO
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 45 (MISSION BLVD),
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S86028'21"E 252.00 FEET, THENCE
S03029'46"W 219.46 FEET TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 1.22 ACRES MORE OR LESS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
EXHIBIT "B"
RZN 11-3866
Paee 2 of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION "AREA 3":
A PART OF THE SETA OF THE SW1/4 AND A PART OF THE SWI/4 OF THE SE1/4 OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEI/4,
SWIA, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE S87°31'58"E 657.93 FEET, THENCE
NO3045'46"E 491.63 FEET,THENCE S85°48'23"E 422.74 FEET, THENCE NO3°29'46"E
606.14 FEET, THENCE N85°59'44"W 123.24 FEET, THENCE N59°37'43"W 48.28 FEET TO
THE P.O.B., THENCE S30°58'43"W 249.83 FEET, THENCE N59°11'32"W 114.32 FEET,
THENCE S30017'20"W 99.57 FEET, THENCE N70°02'28"W 115.43 FEET, THENCE
S45050'43"W 244.27 FEET, THENCE S23°37'24"W 56.87 FEET, THENCE N74°41'46"W
134.40 FEET, THENCE N28°15'21"E 126.68 FEET, THENCE N42°52'30"E 104.57 FEET,
THENCE N65015'19"E 105.97 FEET, THENCE N63°52'00"E 117.08 FEET, THENCE
N09015'37"E 90.52 FEET, THENCE S88012'58"E 191.48 FEET, THENCE N29°39'59"E 106.90
FEET, THENCE S59°37'43"E 141.34 TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 2.56 ACRES MORE OR
LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION "AREA 4":
A PART OF THE SEI/4 OF THE SW1/4 AND A PART OF THE SWI/4 OF THE SEI/4 OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEI/4,
SWI/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE S87°31'58"E 367.85 FEET TO THE
P.O.B., THENCE Nl 10 19'02"W 128.71 FEET, THENCE S77°56'44"W 86.21 FEET, THENCE
N85000'50"W 70.46 FEET, THENCE N35018'19"W 44.34 FEET, THENCE N15°52'10"E 50.93
FEET, THENCE N26001'06"E 76.20 FEET, THENCE N35°29'48"E 94.06 FEET, THENCE
N12032'12"E 97.53 FEET, THENCE NO1°04'52"E 87.70 FEET, THENCE N05°35'35"W 169.55
FEET, THENCE S74°41'46"E 134.40 FEET, THENCE N23°37"24"E 56.87 FEET, THENCE
N45050'43"E 244.27 FEET, THENCE S70002'28"E 115.43 FEET, THENCE N30°17'20"E 99.57
FEET, THENCE S59011'32"E 114.32 FEET, THENCE N30058'43"E 249.83 FEET, THENCE
S59037'43"E 48.28 FEET, THENCE S85°59'44"E 123.24 FEET, THENCE S03°29'46"W 606.14
FEET, THENCE N85°48'23"W 422.74 FEET, THENCE S03°45'46"W 491.63 FEET, THENCE
N87031'58"W 290.08 FEET TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 12.51 ACRES MORE OR LESS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
EXHIBIT `B"
RZN 11-3866
Page 3�of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE
"AREA 5":
A PART OF THE SEI/4 OF THE SW OF SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT
THE SW CORNER OF SAID SE1/4, SWI/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET TO THE
P.O.B., THENCE NO3°38'07"E 441.29 FEET, THENCE NO3°43'13"E 201.84 FEET, THENCE
N80027'37"E 232.53 FEET, THENCE S05°35'35"E 169.55 FEET, THENCE S01-04'52"W
87.70 FEET, THENCE S12°32'12"W 97.53 FEET, THENCE S35°29'48"W 94.06 FEET,
S26001'06"W 76.20 FEET, THENCE S15°52'10"W 50.93 FEET, THENCE 935°18'19"E 44.34
FEET, THENCE S85°00'50"E 70.46 FEET, N77056'44"E 86.21 FEET, THENCE S11°19'02"E
128.71 FEET, THENCE N87°31'58"W 367.85 FEET TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 3.74
ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION "AREA 6":
A PART OF THE SEI/4 OF THE SW OF SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT
THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEI/4, SWI/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE
NO3038'07"E 441.29 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N87°33'26"W 135.00 FEET, THENCE
NO3042'40"E 80.00 FEET, THENCE N87033'28"W 175.00 FEET, THENCE NO3°42'40"E
212.30 FEET, THENCE S87°48'42"E 310.08 FEET, THENCE S03°43'13"W 293.67 TO THE
P.O.B. CONTAINING 1.76 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
EXHIBIT "C"
M 11-3866
Pagel of 4
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, the
owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
hereby voluntarily offers this Bill of
Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any
and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Circuit Court of Washington County and
agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of
Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the
citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville
Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the
terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's
rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's
property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville
City Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to the uses and densities as shown and
described in the attached"Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B".
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are
limited to
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property include
4. (Any other terms or conditions)
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the
land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the
EXHI BIT "C"
RZN 11-3866
Page 2 of 4
Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington
County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any
Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS EREOF and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated
above, I, 64,j , as the owner, developer or buyer
(Petitioner) voluntarily offer all uch assura ces and sign my name below.
Chris Elkins
Date Printed Name
VP of Commercial Relationship Management
Address
-
Signature
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS }
} .ss
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
And now on this the day of 2011, appeared before me,
r: a Notary Public, andafter being placed upon his/her oath swore
or affirmed that he/she agreed with the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his/her
name above.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
�,.PG�N`HUDGF
SAap�PRy PU�
ARKANSAS 5
EXHIBIT "C"
RUN 11.3866
Page 3 of 4
Z 211.3a'
NO3'43. DE m-8 : v
iR
I- I ri rSE rNY If �6 t.: �tH`e
C R NOW 'ol'E�s 1.2w 6
k hA
trt E N83.42'3E"Eg^
417.42• G \
..
45 t
t m V
A
.��.�,MNB.x.K.(u[tl asr4s•4e•w _ ' '" %-" i .I.
� t �I \
E F, E• Z � ; ��� fP�� � b
taig a f i.
'29'
F - e e Y • � �
y 3 t
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES m.EE =v=•' a. _�u w� z
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS RUSKIN HEIGHTS REZONING FOR I g
�.�..��.«.,..: ��R:..�� .•.,.•..:,..,,.1,,.•..�...,.,.,. BFF. LLC _ l o
Exhibit"A'to Bill Assuranoe
EXHIBIT "C"
RZN 11-38M
Page 4 of 4
Zoning: Community Services:Area 1
The following uses shown in Chapter 161.19 of the City of Fayetteville's Zoning Regulations
SHALL NOT be allowed in the area shown on the Rezoning Plat(Exhibit A) as Community
Services:
- Unit 4: Cultural & recreational facilities, everything excluded
except churches.
- Unit 18: Gasoline stations & drive—in/drive through restaurants.
- Unit 3: Public protection and utility facilities.
- Under Use Unit 14, Hotel, motel and amusement services:
Everything is permitted except Hotel & Motel.
- Under Use Unit 16, Shopping Goods:
Transportation Services.
- Unit 17: Transportation, trades & services.
- Unit 28: Center for recycle materials.
- Unit 34: Liquor stores.
- Unit 35: Outdoor music establishments.
- Unit 36: Wireless communication facilities.
- Unit 42: Clean technologies.
Zoning: Neighborhood Conservation:Area 3-6
The areas shown on the Rezoning Plat(Exhibit A)as Neighborhood Conservation SHALL BE
LIMITED TO the following uses and densities:
1. Area 3 (2.56 acres): Max Density of 10 units/acre
a. Permitted Uses
• Unit 8: Single-family dwellings
• Unit 9: Two-family dwellings
b. Conditional Uses
• Unit 10: Three-family dwellings
• Unit 24: Home occupations
2. Area 4&Area 6(14.27 acres): Max Density of 6 units/acre
a. Permitted Uses
• Unit 8: Single-family
Edilbit V'to Bill of Assurance
Washington County,AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
10/21/2011 6:19:17 PM`
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2011-00029646
Bette Stamps• Circuit Clerk
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
and
Contracts, Leases or Agreements
9/20/2011
City Council Meeting Date
Agenda Items Only
Andrew Garner Planning Development Services
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
RZN 11-3866: (2013 E. Mission Blvd./Ruskin Heights, 370/371): Submitted by Jorgensen &Associates for property
located at 2013 East Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District and
contains approximately 28.93 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to CS, Community Services; INC,
Neighborhood Conservation; and RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 units per acre, subject to a Bill of Assurance.
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category/Project Name
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program/Project Category Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
d14l.'ta 1 t Previous Ordinance or Resolution#
Departm Director Date
Original Contract Date:
I( Original Contract Number:
City Atiorn y Date
x Q
Finance and Internal Services Director Date Received in Citt 9_C 1 _j 1 P0 4 20 RCVD
I�jClerk's Office
Chief of f£ Date
Received in
Mayor's Office
M or sate
Comments:
Revised January 15,2009
e�� O(-\ S2corJ �`,P_C P(r Cnk -Vhf-
Ta7y e eve le THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
Afl KAN SAS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Jordan, City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
From: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner
Date: August 30, 2011
Subject: RZN 11-3866 (Ruskin Heights)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of an ordinance to rezone the property from R-PZD,
Residential Planned Zoning District to CS, Community Services; NC, Neighborhood Conservation; and RSF-4,
Residential Single-Family, 4 units per acre, subject to a detailed Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant.
BACKGROUND
The subject property consists of approximately 28.93 acres located on the south side of Mission Boulevard
(State Highway 45), approximately 0.5 miles west of Crossover Road. On March 20, 2007 the City Council
approved the Ruskin Heights Residential Planned Zoning District on the subject property (R-PZD 06-2299).
The property was originally zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre. The R-PZD zoning
permitted a total of 295 attached and detached dwellings as well as 58,500 square feet of non-
residential/commercial space. As part of the PZD approval a preliminary plat was approved for 68 lots.
Construction permits for the preliminary plat was approved and a majority of the infrastructure for these 68 lots
was installed. The final plat was never completed and the construction permits and the PZD have expired.
The applicant proposes to rezone the approximately 28.93-acre property from R-PZD 06-2299 Ruskin Heights
to the following zoning districts:
■ CS, Community Services (7.13 acres)
■ NC, Neighborhood Conservation (16.83 acres)
■ RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre (4.96 acres)
A survey and legal descriptions showing the various areas to be rezoned is attached. The applicant has offered a
Bill of Assurance along with this rezoning request that would limit the uses and density of various areas of the
site.
DISCUSSION
This item was tabled at the three Planning Commission meetings (July 11`h, July 25`h, and August 81h) to give
the applicant time to work with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant conducted two neighborhood
meetings outside of the regular Planning Commission meetings. After significant discussion, on August 22,
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
2011, the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the City Council with a recommendation of approval
with the applicant's offered Bill of Assurance with a vote of 8-1-0 (Commissioner Hoskins voting `no'). A copy
of the meeting minutes from the August 22"d meeting are attached. The applicant has slightly changed the Bill
of Assurance from that presented to the Planning Commission to permit church use within the Community
Services zoning district.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 11-3866, FOR
APPROXIMATELY 28.93 ACRES, LOCATED AT 2013 EAST
MISSION BOULEVARD FROM R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (RPZD 06-2299 RUSKIN
HEIGHTS), TO CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; NC,
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE, SUBJECT
TO A BILL OF ASSURANCE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the
zone classification of the following described property from R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning
District 06-2299 Ruskin Heights to CS, Community Services; NC, Neighborhood Conservation;
and RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre, as shown on Exhibits "A" and `B"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the
official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
Section 3: That this property is subject to a Bill of Assurance offered by the property
owner and runs with the land, which limits the use and density of the property as shown in
Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part thereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this
APPROVED:
By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor
day of 2011.
ATTEST:
IN
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
RZN11-3866
Close Up Wow
0
' N O
J y OOOV
N w 3
z
°
941e1_RO1k HACKBERRY DR
1 1
Ft
NC
e/jam
r
- Hillside -Hilltop Ov rlay District
Design Overlay Di Arict
Design Overlay Di Arict
------ Planning Area
Fayetteville 0 20�0 aoo
EXHIBIT "A"
RUSKIN HEIGHTS
KANTZ CV
PA
$�SUBJECT PROPERTY
_ 2
KANTZ LN
w
O
m
gil �
KANTZ LN
O
mR'
J
l<
Y
BRISTOL PL
°O
+
CAMELOTPL
w
c�
0
6"'41�MRELO
PL
MIA
eMM=lWWRE PL
*===CTORLA LN
N
4
2
yF
6
MEANOMNO WAY
CS, Com unity Services (7.13 acre
NC, Neil;;Zrhoo Conservation (16.83 acre
RSF•4, Residential Single Family Fo r Units Per Acre (4.96 acre
800 1.200 1.600
Feet
EXHIBIT "B"
RZN 11-3866
Page 1 of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COMMUNITY SERVICES "AREA V:
A PART OF THE SE1/4 OF THE SWl/4 AND A PART OF THE SWIM OF THE SE1/4 OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEl/4,
SWl/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE NO3°38'07"E 441.29 FEET, THENCE
N03043'13"E 201.84 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE NO3°43'13"E 91.83 FEET, THENCE
N03042'38"E 417.42 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS HIIGHWAY
45 (MISSION BLVD) THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N69°23'34"E 249.34 FEET,
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 108.99 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 970.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N72036'42"E
108.93 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 335.03 FEET, SAID CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 978.84 FEET AND A CHORD BEAGING AND DISTANCE OF
N85038'10"E 333.40 FEET, THENCE SO1°04'05"W 12.27 FEET, THENCE S86022'14"E
166.88 FEET, THENCE S03°35'31 "W 52.51 FEET, THENCE S29°39'59"W 198.65 FEET,
THENCE N88012'58"W 191.48 FEET, THENCE S09°15'37"W 90.52 FEET, THENCE
S63052'00"W 117.08 FEET, THENCE S65°15'19"W 105.97 FEET, THENCE S42°52'30"W
104.57 FEET, THENCE S28015'21 "W 126.68 FEET, THENCE S80°27'37W 232.53 FEET TO
THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 7.13 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE
"AREA 2":
A PART OF THE SE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 AND A PART OF THE SWIA OF THE SETA OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SETA,
SWl/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE S87°31'58"E 657.93 FEET, THENCE
N03045'46"E 491.63 FEET, THENCE S85°48'23"E 422.74 FEET, THENCE NO3°29'46"E
606.14 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N85°59'44"W 123.24 FEET, THENCE N59°37'43"W
189.62 FEET, THENCE N29°39'59"E 91.56 FEET, THENCE NO3°35'36"E 50.56 FEET TO
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 45 (MISSION BLVD),
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S86028'21 "E 252.00 FEET, THENCE
S03029'46"W 219.46 FEET TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 1.22 ACRES MORE OR LESS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
EXHIBIT `B"
RZN 11-3866
Page 2 of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION "AREA 3":
A PART OF THE SETA OF THE SWl/4 AND A PART OF THE SWl/4 OF THE SEl/4 OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEl/4,
SWl/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE S87°31'58"E 657.93 FEET, THENCE
N03045'46"E 491.63 FEET, THENCE S85°48'23"E 422.74 FEET, THENCE NO3°29'46"E
606.14 FEET, THENCE N85°59'44"W 123.24 FEET, THENCE N59°37'43"W 48.28 FEET TO
THE P.O.B., THENCE S30°58'43"W 249.83 FEET, THENCE N59°11'32"W 114.32 FEET,
THENCE S30017'20"W 99.57 FEET, THENCE N70°02'28"W 115.43 FEET, THENCE
S45050'43"W 244.27 FEET, THENCE S23°37'24"W 56.87 FEET, THENCE N74°41'46"W
134.40 FEET, THENCE N28°15'21"E 126.68 FEET, THENCE N42°52'30"E 104.57 FEET,
THENCE N65015'19"E 105.97 FEET, THENCE N63°52'00"E 117.08 FEET, THENCE
N09015'37"E 90.52 FEET, THENCE S88°12'58"E 191.48 FEET, THENCE N29°39'59"E 106.90
FEET, THENCE S59°37'43"E 141.34 TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 2.56 ACRES MORE OR
LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION "AREA 4":
A PART OF THE SEl/4 OF THE SWl/4 AND A PART OF THE SW1/4 OF THE SEl/4 OF
SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEl/4,
SW1/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE S87°31'58"E 367.85 FEET TO THE
P.O.B., THENCE Nl1°19'02"W 128.71 FEET, THENCE S77°56'44"W 86.21 FEET, THENCE
N85000'50"W 70.46 FEET, THENCE N35°18'19"W 44.34 FEET, THENCE N15°52'10"E 50.93
FEET, THENCE N26°01'06"E 76.20 FEET, THENCE N35°29'48"E 94.06 FEET, THENCE
N12032'12"E 97.53 FEET, THENCE NOl°04'52"E 87.70 FEET, THENCE N05°35'35"W 169.55
FEET, THENCE S74°41'46"E 134.40 FEET, THENCE N23°37"24"E 56.87 FEET, THENCE
N45050'43"E 244.27 FEET, THENCE S70002'28"E 115.43 FEET, THENCE N30°17'20"E 99.57
FEET, THENCE S59-11'32"E 114.32 FEET, THENCE N30°58'43"E 249.83 FEET, THENCE
S59037'43"E 48.28 FEET, THENCE S85°59'44"E 123.24 FEET, THENCE S03°29'46"W 606.14
FEET, THENCE N85°48'23"W 422.74 FEET, THENCE S03°45'46"W 491.63 FEET, THENCE
N87031'58"W 290.08 FEET TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 12.51 ACRES MORE OR LESS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
EXHIBIT °B"
RZN 11-3866
Page 3 of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE
"AREA 5":
A PART OF THE SEI/4 OF THE SW OF SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT
THE SW CORNER OF SAID SEI/4, SWI/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET TO THE
P.O.B., THENCE NO3°38'07"E 441.29 FEET, THENCE NO3°43'13"E 201.84 FEET, THENCE
N80027'37"E 232.53 FEET, THENCE S05°35'35"E 169.55 FEET, THENCE SO1°04'52"W
87.70 FEET, THENCE S12°32'12"W 97.53 FEET, THENCE S35°29'48"W 94.06 FEET,
S26001'06"W 76.20 FEET, THENCE S15°52'10"W 50.93 FEET, THENCE S35°18'19"E 44.34
FEET, THENCE S85°00'50"E 70.46 FEET, N77°56'44"E 86.21 FEET, THENCE S11°19'02"E
128.71 FEET, THENCE N87°31'58"W 367.85 FEET TO THE P.O.B. CONTAINING 3.74
ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION "AREA 6":
A PART OF THE SE1/4 OF THE SW OF SECTION 2, T-16-N, R-30-W IN WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT
THE SW CORNER OF SAID SE1/4, SW1/4, THENCE S87°32'34"E 660.00 FEET, THENCE
N03038'07"E 441.29 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N87°33'26"W 135.00 FEET, THENCE
N03042'40"E 80.00 FEET, THENCE N87°33'28"W 175.00 FEET, THENCE NO3°42'40"E
212.30 FEET, THENCE S87°48'42"E 310.08 FEET, THENCE S03°43'13"W 293.67 TO THE
P.O.B. CONTAINING 1.76 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
EXHIBIT "C"
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, the
owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
, hereby voluntarily offers this Bill of
Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any
and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Circuit Court of Washington County and
agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of
Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the
citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville
Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the
terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's
rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's
property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville
City Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to the uses and densities as shown and
described in the attached "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B".
limited
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property include
4. (Any other terms or conditions)
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the
land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the
EXHIBIT "C"
M 11-866
Page 2 of 4
Fayetteville City Council, This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington
County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any
Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS HEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated
above, 1, u„r. b rk'ti $ / /g,41-fZ-4 , as the owner, developer or buyer
(Petitioner) voluntarily offer all uch assurahces and sign my name below.
Date
Address
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Chris Elkins
Printed Name
VP of Commercial Relationship Management
Signature
NOTARY OATH
}
.ss
And now on this the i_I day of 2011, appeared before me,
C LU11 t 2ku , a Notary Public, and after being placed upon his/her oath swore
or affirmed that he/she agreed with the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his/her
name above.
NOTAR ,PUBLIC '
My Commission Expires:
,,. i� w
ASKANSA3
,r
s
EXHIBIT "C" . �.
RZN 11-3866 - ------
I Page 3 of 4
312,39'
tip •'fir. :o'er_ / - H93•i'g E
�'� ag Y �m anE�• i 3'�-- �i� v & u a � :aS: -
o
jir3 B-41
Mar 41.2g
.tr _ P'%
Im w4X
TIL
m I ''lam, a
41
q J0. sesaE;i9•w i91.9E' ti zS y I'
{ \ x s w
j N
G
• as - h' `\ /� -- I
s � n
uw
m
< i d r• � � f a'ng e�
dh C?
z< 1 p 1
s _ I JwT -Ja
-�- � I tlf _a{ cfl.• E°�. �tt�irir
`
-e
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINE4RS • SURVI-YORS
9ss.6W
q3
:tin,
B FF, LLC- 1/'"Exhibit "A'to Bill of
EXHIBIT "C"
RZN 11-M
Page 4 of 4
Zoning: Community Services: Area I
The following uses shown in Chapter 161.19 of the City of Fayetteville's Zoning Regulations
SHALL NOT be allowed in the area shown on the Rezoning Plat (Exhibit A) as Community
Services:
- Unit 4: Cultural & recreational facilities, everything excluded
except churches.
- Unit 18: Gasoline stations & drive — in/drive through restaurants.
- Unit 3: Public protection and utility facilities.
- Under Use Unit 14, Hotel, motel and amusement services:
Everything is permitted except Hotel & Motel.
- Under Use Unit 16, Shopping Goods:
Transportation Services.
- Unit 17: Transportation, trades & services.
- Unit 28: Center for recycle materials.
- Unit 34: Liquor stores.
- Unit 35: Outdoor music establishments.
- Unit 36: Wireless communication facilities.
- Unit 42: Clean technologies.
Zoning: Neighborhood Conservation: Area 3-6
The areas shown on the Rezoning Plat (Exhibit A) as Neighborhood Conservation SHALL BE
LIMITED TO the following uses and densities:
Area 3 (2.56 acres): Max Density of 10 units/acre
a. Permitted Uses
• Unit 8: Single-family dwellings
• Unit 9: Two-family dwellings
b. Conditional Uses
• Unit 10: Three-family dwellings
• Unit 24: Home occupations
2. Area 4 & Area 6 (14.27 acres): Max Density of 6 units/acre
a. Permitted Uses
• Unit 8: Single-family
Exhibit " W to Bill of Assurance
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 22, 2011
Tyele�ille
AR KANSAS
PC Meeting of August 22, 2011
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: June R ^�,T U dated Au st 29 2011
RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371): Submitted by
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 2013 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. The
property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains
approximately 28.93 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES;
NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4
UNITS/ACRE, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Planner: Andrew Gamer
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission Meetin s: This item has been tabled at the three previous Planning
Commission meetings (July 1 It , July 25th, and August 8 h). The applicant has submitted a slightly
revised rezoning request and associated Bill of Assurance that are attached to and described in this
report.
Property Description: The subject property consists of approximately 28.93 acres located on the
south side of Mission Boulevard (State Highway 45), approximately 0.5 miles west of Crossover
Road. The approximately 29-acre site contains 18.6 acres within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay district,
comprising 62% of the land area. Tree canopy varies dramatically over the site, with a majority of the
tree canopy on the perimeter property lines or old fence rows, and along the south and west portion
of the property which is primarily sloped. Other portions of the property, especially that near Mission
Boulevard, is clear of tree canopy altogether. Part of the property is developed with streets, water,
sewer, and storm drainage related to a previous development that was never completed. The property
is surrounded by a variety of uses, including a church, plant nursery, single family residences, multi-
family residences and a commercial strip center. This site is located approximately %2 mile from one
of the larger commercial nodes in the City of Fayetteville, the development that surrounds the
intersection of Highway 45 (Mission Blvd) and Highway 265 (Crossover Road). The surrounding
land use and zoning are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Mission Boulevard Baptist Church; Westwood
Gardens Plant Nursery: Single family residences
P-1; RSF-4
South
Single family residences
RSF-4
C:IEXIDevelopment Services Review120110evelopment Reviewl f 1-3866 RZN2013 E. Mission Blvd (Ruskin Heighls)103 Planning
Commission107-11-20111Comments and Redlines
East
Single family, multi -family
RSF-4, RMF-24
West
Single-family residential (Broadview
Subdivision); Commercial sho in center
C-1; RSF-4
History: On March 20, 2007 the City Council approved the Ruskin Heights Residential Planned
Zoning District on the subject property (R-PZD 06-2299). The property was originally zoned RSF-4,
Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre. The R-PZD zoning permitted a total of 295 attached
and detached dwellings as well as 58,500 square feet of non-residential/commercial space. As part of
the PZD approval a preliminary plat was approved for 68 lots. Construction permits for the
preliminary plat was approved and a majority of the infrastructure for these 68 lots was installed. The
final plat was never completed and the construction permits and the PZD have expired.
PZD Revocation: If an approved PZD expires the property does not automatically revert back to the
original zoning. The property is unable to be developed or subdivided until a new, valid zoning
district is assigned.
Current Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone the approximately 28.93-acre property from R-
PZD 06-2299 Ruskin Heights to the following zoning districts:
• CS, Community Services (7.13 acres)
■ NC, Neighborhood Conservation (16.83 acres)
• RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre (4.96 acres)
A survey and legal descriptions showing the various areas to be rezoned is attached. The applicant
has offered a Bill of Assurance along with this rezoning request that would limit the uses and density
of various areas of the site.
Previous Proposal: The applicant's previous rezoning request that was discussed at the July 11, 2011
meeting was as follows:
■ CS, Community Services (7.67 acres)
• NC, Neighborhood Conservation (18.40 acres)
• RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre (2.86 acres)
Public Comment: City staff has received a few emails about this rezoning request, and there were
eight people that commented at the July I Ith Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has had
meetings with the neighborhood discussing the proposed rezoning and has modified their original
request and included a detailed Bill of Assurance to try and address the neighbor's concerns. The
written public comments provided to the City and the meeting minutes from July 111h meeting have
been attached to this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends forwarding RZN 11-3866 (Ruskin Heights) to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval of the requested zoning based on the findings stated herein.
G: IETCIDevelopmen! Services Review120111Developmen(Reviewlll-3866 RZN2013 E. Mission Blvd (Ruskin Heighls)103 Planning
Commission107-11-201 ACommenls and Redlines
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
Date: July 11, 2011 X Tabled ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied
Motion: Earnest Second: Bunch Vote: 7-1-0 (Griffin voting `no')
Date: July 25, 2011 X Tabled 0 Forwarded ❑ Denied
Motion: Chesser Second: Cook Vote: 7-1-0 (Griffin voting `no')
Date: August 8, 2011 X Tabled Q Forwarded ❑ Denied
Motion: Cook Second: Chesser Vote: 5-2-0 (Griffin and Hoskins voting `no')
August 22, 2011 ❑ Tabled X Forwarded ❑ Denied
n: Winston Second: Earnest Vote: 8-1-0 (Hoskins voting `no')
COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
❑ Approved ❑ Denied
CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan
designates this site as Residential Neighborhood Area, which "promotes walkable, cyclist -friendly
road designs with slow design speeds; utilizes principles of traditional residential urban design to
create compatible, livable and accessible neighborhoods; site new residential areas accessible to
roadway, alternative transportation modes, community amenities, schools, infrastructure, and retail
and commercial goods and services. "
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: The site has access to Mission Boulevard which was fully improved in this location
with the development of the preliminary plat for Ruskin Heights including an off -site
sidewalk connection to Crossover Road. Streets have been constructed throughout
the development.
The infrastructure installed with the Ruskin Heights preliminary plat has not been
accepted by the City of Fayetteville. An inspection of the infrastructure will be
required and work may be required to bring the infrastructure into compliance with
current regulations. The future developer will also need to submit as -built
construction plans, construction cost estimates, surveyor's certification of
compliance, detention pond verification and maintenance bonds for the public
infrastructure prior to acceptance by the City of Fayetteville.
G:16TCI1)eve1opnoen1 Services RevieM201111)evelopment Review 11-3866 RZN 2013 K Mission Blvd (Ruskin Ileighn)103 Ylm,ning
Conunissioid07-11-20111Corrunesls and Redlines
There are sections of the curb that were installed without city approval, specifically
exposed aggregate. At time of development, this item must be addressed, either by
remove and replace with standard curb or obtain approval by city council.
Water and Sewer: Public water and sewer are available to the property. There are 8-inch water
and sewer mains installed throughout the development. Additional water and sewer
improvements may be required if lot lines are changed or if a large increase in density
is proposed.
Drainage: This property is not affected by the 100-year floodplain or the Streamside
Protection Zones.
Police: Staff did not receive objections from the Police Department to this rezoning.
Fire: Staff did not receive objections from the Fire Department to this rezoning. This
property is covered by Engine 5 at Old Wire/Crossover Road with an expected
response time of four minutes.
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: Staff finds the proposal is highly consistent with the land use planning objectives,
principles and policies, as evidenced the number of guiding policies for Residential
Areas this proposal meets including Residential Area Policy G to:
"Site new residential areas accessible to roadway, alternative transportation
modes, community amenities, schools, infrastructure, and retail and
commercial goods and services. "
The proposed rezoning is also highly consistent with the six major goals of City Plan
2025 as follows:
GIBTCIDevelopment Servicev Revzew1201111)evelopment Reviewlll-3866 RZN 2013 R. Mission Blvd (Ruskin Heights)103 Planning
Commissionl07-11-20111Comments and Redlines
City Plan 2025
RZN 11-3866 Compliance With City Plan 2025
Goals
Goal 1: We will
This proposed rezoning would allow infill in a well -developed area of Fayetteville. The
make appropriate
property is surrounded by existing development and infrastructure. The development of
infill and revitalization
this site with the Ruskin Heights preliminary plat has revitalized the existing infrastructure
our highest priorities.
and street system in the immediate vicinity. Future development of this site permitted
under the proposed zoning districts would provide the opportunity for additional
improvements.
Goal 2: We will
By permitting infill development, the proposed rezoning discourages suburban sprawl,
discourage suburban
and keeps greenfields on the perimeter of the City. Future development allowed because
sprawl.
of this rezoning would be able to take advantage of proximity to a larger existing pool of
potential employees, transit, and utility infrastructure, than a sprawling development on
the periphery.
Goal 3: We will
This proposed zoning districts would encourage development in a traditional town form.
make traditional town
The zoning districts would allow for a variety of uses within a neighborhood creating the
form the standard.
ability to live, work, shop, and have daily needs and services met within walking distance.
The mix of uses allowed under the proposal is adaptable for change over time.
Goal 4: We will grow
This development of the Ruskin Heights preliminary plat and continued development of
a livable
this site allowed under the rezoning will provide an opportunity to improve the existing
transportation
street system and sidewalks on Mission Boulevard and Greenview Drive. The proposed
network.
rezoning would allow the potential for concentrated development near one of the busiest
intersections in the City at the intersection of two state highways/principal arterials. The
proposed rezoning would help define a node, or concentration of development in this
vicinity of the City, helping towards the goal of public transit.
Goal 5: We will
This proposed rezoning would be consistent with the intent of this policy to maintain
assemble an
community character, quality of life, and contribute to the economic success of the City.
enduring green
Preservation of greenspace would be reviewed and required during development.
network.
Goal 6: We will
The variety of lot sizes and residential products allowed because of the rezoning could
create attainable
lead to a mixed -income neighborhood. Consistent with the intent of this goal, the
housing.
proposed rezoning is not an isolated attainable housing project all under one zoning
district, but rather reflects the opportunity to create a more traditional urban neighborhood
with households of varying types, sizes, and economic means.
Rezoning the property will accommodate both the future land use plan for
residential uses, and also allow for a variety of uses and housing types, sizes and
development pattern, thus providing more choices for more citizens. The proposed
zoning is also compatible with the existing land uses and zoning in the immediate
area including a mix of multi -family and single-family dwellings to the east, along
with commercial and non-residential uses and zonings to the west and north.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is needed at this time as the existing R-PZD zoning has
expired and the property is unable to be developed in any manner, including
minor applications such as a lot split or single family residence, until the expired
PZD zoning is revoked and a new zoning district is assigned. As discussed in
Finding No. 1, the proposed zoning is justified as it is compatible with the
surrounding zoning and land uses and consistent with the City's Future Land
C. iETCIDevelopmenl Services Review1201111)erelupmenl Review111-3866 RZN 2013 E. Mission Blvd (Ruskin Heiglvs)103 Planning
Commissional-11-20111Commewv and Redtnes
Use Plan.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: Mission Boulevard has been fully improved with the development of the Ruskin
Heights preliminary plat including widening both sides of the road, center turn
lane, curb, gutter, storm drainage, and sidewalk connection to Crossover Road
approximately 0.5 mile to the east. The proposed rezone would not appreciably
increase traffic danger and congestion. With future development and build -out
of this site under the proposed rezoning additional street improvements would
be evaluated and reviewed in compliance with City ordinance. Examples of
some typical street improvements that have occurred with development of
similarly -sized sites including widening, curb and gutter, traffic signals, bridge
assessments, trails and sidewalks.
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: Staff finds that the proposed zoning would not create undesirable impacts to
public services, or a density that is incompatible with the surrounding area,
based on a review of infrastructure, existing land uses, and the development
potential of the property.
Increased load on public services were taken into consideration and comments
from the Engineering, Fire, and Police Departments are included in this report.
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;
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 request.
G:IPTGIDevelopmenl Services RevieM20110evelopmenl Reviewl 11-3866 RZN2013 K Mission BNd (Ruskin HeighlsJ103 Planning
Comniission107-77-20711CmnmenLc and Redlines
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS
161.07 District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density
detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types.
(B) Uses.
(1) pennittedusm
Unit 1 Ci -wide uses b ri ht
Unit 8 Single- mily dwellings
UA41 Accessory dwelln s
(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
Unit5
Government facilities
Unit
Two-famil dwellin s
Unit 12
Limited business
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density,
Single-family
dwellings
Two-family
dwellings
Units per acre
1 4 or less
7 or less
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Single-family
Two-family
dwellings
dwellings
Lot minimum width
70 ft.
80 ft.
Lot area minimum
8,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq.-ft.
Land area per
8,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq, ft,
dwelling unit
Hillside Overlay
60 ft.
70 ft.
District Lot minimum
width
Hillside Overlay
8,000 sq. ft.
12.000 sq.-ft.
District Lot area
minimum
Land area per
8,000 sq. ft.
6.000 sq. ft.
dwellin unit
(E) Setback refluirenlents.
Front Side Rear
15 It. 5 it. 15 ft.
(F) Buddinn hei hl regulations.
Buildin Height Maximum 1 45 ft.
Height regulations. Structures in this District are limited to a building height of 45 feet. Existing structures that
exceed 45 feet in height shall be grandfathered in, and not considered nonconforming uses, (ord. # 4858).
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot.
(Code 1991, §160,031; Ord No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord No. 4178, 8-31-99; OrI 4858, 4-18-06; Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5128, 4-15-08; Ord.
5224, 3-3-09; Ord 5312, 4-20-10)
G. IETCIDevelopment Services Review1201 hDevelopmeni ReviewU 1-3866 RZN 2013 E Mission Blvd (Ruskin Heights)103 Planning
CommLssion107-11-201 AComments and Redlines
161.19 Community Services
(A) Purpose. The Community Services district is designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal
services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas and is intended to provide for adaptable mixed use
centers located along commercial corridors that connect denser development nodes. There is a mixture of residential
and commercial uses in a traditional urban form with buildings addressing the street. For the purposes of Chapter 96:
Noise Control, the Community Services district is a commercial zone. The intent of this zoning district is to provide
standards that enable development to be approved administratively.
(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 13
Eating laces
Unit 15
Neighborhood Shopping goods
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-
in/drive through restaurants
Unit 24
Home occu ations
Unit 25
Offices, studios and related services
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
Transportation, trades and services
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 28
Center for collecting
recyclable materials
Unit 34
Liquor stores
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities*
Unit 40
Sidewalk Cafes
Unit 42
Clean technologies
(C) Density. None
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
G: IETODevelopment Services RevieM201111)evelopmenl Reviewl 11-3866 RZN 2013 E Mission Blvd (Ruskin Heights)103 Planning
C'ommission107-11-207)ICommenis and Redlines
(1) Lot width minimum.
Dwelling 18 ft.
All others None
(2) Lot area minimum. None
(E) Setback regulations
Front: The principal fagade of a
building shall be built within
a build -to zone that is located
between 10 feet and a line 25
feet from the front property
line.
Side and rear: None
Side or rear, when contiguous 15 feet
to a residential district:
(F) Height regulations. Maximum height is 4 stories or 56 feet which ever is less.
(G) Minimum buildable street frontage. 65% of the lot width.
(Ord. 5312,4-20-10; Ord. 5339,8-3-10)
Gr.C;TC�Gevelvrawnu .Sr wives Rrwimvil(7111Oerrlopnrca� Ririvrnll-B60 R7-V 2l1131: AJixsion UA'd MISAIn 10941sP03 Planning
Cnnvnirsiantll7-11-2011lCononerus aad lWhoucr
161.26 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.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 41
Accessory 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
Limited Business *
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 28
Center for collecting
recyclable materials
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities
(C) Density. 10 Units Per Acre
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
(1) Lot width minimum.
Single Family 40 fr.
Two Family 80 ft.
Three Family 1 90 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum. 4,000 Sq. Ft
(E) Setbackreeulations.
Front
The principal fagade 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
5 ft.
Rear
5 ft.
Rear, from center line
12 ft.
of an alley
(F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 40% of lot width.
(G) Height regulations. Maximum height is 3 stories or 45 feet which ever is less.
(Ord. 5128, 4-15-08, Ord. 5312, 4-20-10
G: IETODevelopment Semces Review120110evelopment Reviewll/-3866 RZN2013 E. Mission Blvd (Ruskin Heighls)103 Planning
Commissio,,107-11-20111Comnien[c and Redlines
June 24, 2011
Jeremy Pate
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed
RZN 11-3866: (2013 E. Mission Blvd. / Ruskin Heights, 370/371): Submitted by
Jorgensen & Associates for property located 2013 E. Mission Boulevard would
substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on
public services and create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion. The
property contains approximately 28.93 acres.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this RZN will not substantially
alter the population density, and will not create an appreciable or undesirable increase in
the load on police services. This RZN will not create an appreciable increase in traffic
danger and congestion.
Sincerely,
R. Turberville
Fayetteville Police Department
RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371): Submitted by
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 2013 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. The property
is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 28.93
acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE. Planner: Andrew
Garner
Public water and sewer are available to the property. There are 8" water and sewer mains installed
throughout the development. Additional water and sewer improvements may be required if lot lines are
changed or if a large increase in density is proposed.
The site has access to Mission Blvd. which was fully improved in this location with the development of
this property. Streets are currently constructed throughout the development.
The infrastructure installed on this project has not yet been accepted by the City of Fayetteville. An
inspection of the infrastructure will be required and work may be required to bring the infrastructure into
compliance with current regulations. The developer will also need to submit as -built construction plans,
construction cost estimates, surveyor's certification of compliance, detention pond verification and
maintenance bonds for the public infrastructure prior to acceptance by the City of Fayetteville.
There are sections of the curb that were installed without city approval, specifically exposed aggregate.
At time of development, this item must be addressed, either by remove and replace with standard curb or
obtain approval by city council.
This property is not affected by the 100-year floodplain and the Streamside Protection Zones
Condominium flats will be located near the
entrance to the Ruskin Heights neighborhood.
These units will be very convenient to shopping
as well as to the community organic gardens and
major waterscapes on the site. These units will
include mixed use on the lower floors with resi-
dential units on the upper floors.
While a specific building type has not yet
been chosen for these units, parking to the inte-
rior or rear of the site, unseen from adjoining
neighborhoods and streets is expected.
The designers are not asking for develop-
ment approval of these units at this time, as ar-
chitectural standards and specific building
designs and unit sizes are not currently detailed.
Instead, platting only is being requested at this
time, with this Planning Area to be resubmitted
to the city platting process as a Large Scale De-
velopment at a future date.
3PI RSV 1"ITI.I) Utirs ft1' U,itI
Unit 1 City wide uses by right
Units Government facilities
Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13 Eating places
Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods
Unit 16 Shopping goods
Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 25 Professional offices
Unit 26 Multi family dwellings
R. CONDITION d i. LIStti H) R (MI
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 17
Trades and services
Unit 24
Home occupation
Unit 34
Liquor store
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
C. RI:.SIDI NTIAL DENSITY
Acreage 4,98
Dwelling units 94
Density 19 unitsfacre
inte,lsity
Acreage 4.98
Non -Residential 22,500 ft.' total or 4,51 B/acre
1). Lot VVIU'rI; fril"I'li- I
Oft.
E. i.r rr ARIA mi"W''M
320 ft.'
Y. L-NNo ARr-% EmI Di[LLIiNG
900 ft.'
G. SnIsnl., 7 rnulR,alrN1
Front 0ft.
Side 0 ft
Rear 0ft
Encroachments
Encroachments into the public right-of-way shall follow the rec-
ommendations set forth in chapter 3, section 3201 of the Inter-
national Building Code,
External Property Boundary Setback
All buildings in the Ruskin Heights neighborhood will be set
back a minimum of ten (10) feet from all perimeter site prop-
erty lines.
H. Hi (;G rRilGUI:aNON
Shall not exceed 60 Ft.
1. 81,11'DING ARI A
Shall not exceed 95%
I. LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the site will be grass, Trees, shrubs, and allies
plarii globe determinedby Ire designers. It vnlisfso include
water features, stone and other hard surface wads, and, in
some cases, cobblestone, brick, and other hard surface mate-
Aais fix pedestrian use. Some grassy areas may be engi-
neered to be vocable by amomolive traffic wilhoul doing
damage to the underlying vr-garalion. to general, all landsi
trig mp be in accord with the requisile pOrnons of the Fayel-
[evitle UDC. The development will comply with the fandscape
plan included with the plats submitted
K. PARKING
All parking shall comply with regulations set forth in the unified
development code.
L. ARCUlircTuR:v.D[tiIGNSrANUAr.ur;
Architectural design standards lmoughoul the project wpl be of
the highest caliber Durable exterior materials such as brick,
stone, Stucco, harm plank and wood will be used for exteriors.
A strong and coherent aschilectural style reminiscent otAns
and Crafts neighborhoods will be used throughout the projecl.
lNhere individuats are building single family Homes, while cre,
al viiy will be encouraged In order to add to the eclectic nature
of the community, designers and builders will be required 10
adhere to a smog design code and a materials list provided by
the developers which will incfude natural materiels such as
these desanbed above. The archfterdural design shall be con-
sistent with the building elevations and concepts presented in
the PZD booklet. Foundation plans shall be engineered per
condition of approval 40 under "Additional Conditions" in the
City Council'sAmended Conditions ofApproval dated March
20, 2007,
M. SIGNAGE
All signage wiff fully comply with the Fayetteville sign ordi-
nance aril the relevant portions of the UDC. The developer
may wish to use unique street signs which would better fit wilh
the neighborhood's overall character: Additionally, some signs
which designata areas of the neighborhood such as the Span-
ish Staps and other landmarks and dishicts may be employed.
Alf proposed signs will be srbiact to the approval of the Fayel-
tevile, Transportation Department.
PART OF PHASES 1, S tit 6
Parcels will be created in phases 1, 5 and 6. However, these
parcels will be required to be re -submitted to the city as large
scale developments before development approval is granted
REQUESTING DEVELOPMFNT APPROVAL AT
THIS TIME?
NO
__V N
Tel
� �
x
N
z
�
c�
�
As the global economy changes, more and
more Americans are working from home as op-
posed to travelling to and from an outside loca-
tion for wort: each day. While this situation
works fine for individuals telecommuting to a
separate, existing business from home, most
housing is not zoned to allow actual businesses
to be run out of the home.
Small, startup businesses could benefit
greatly from the ability to combine business
building costs and housing costs. Further, this
model of business/home combination is similar to
traditional old world and early american busi-
ness structures - where shop owners often ran
businesses out of the bottom or front of their
homes and lived above and behind them.
The Live/Work Town house Planning Area is
designed exactly with this type of business own-
ership in mind. Small business owners will find
it much easier to handle start-up costs if they are
able to work out of their houses. Additionally,
business owners will make far fewer trips each
day, lowering vehicle emissions. Lastly, the
neighborhood benefits, as small shops, offices
and cafes will be intermingled into the commu
nity, increasing variety and making the neigh-
borhood more walkable.
A. Pinn4I rrTu Csrs Rv
Unit 1 City wide uses by right
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 16 Shopping goods
unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 25 Professional offices
Unit 26 Multi family dwellings
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 17
Trades and services
Unit 24
Home o.:cupation
Unit 34
Liquor store
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Detached second dwelling units
C. RLSIDL,AiiALDFNSTI'
Acreage
7.71
Dwelling units
ge
Density
13 units/acre
Intensity
Acreage
7.71
Non -Residential
36, 000 1.' total, or 4,669 /here
D. LoT WIDTH MINIMUM
12 ff
li. Lot ARLA MINIMUM
500 h'
1. Lr\sD AREA Per. DINGLI ING
1500 h?
G. SLTRACIC RcQCIRLnac:NS
Front 0 f.
Side 0 ft.
Rear 0 R
When Rear Faces Alley 3ft,
In the event that a garage is detached from a tJ"ork Unit
and is located on Al not contiguous with the lot on which its
Patent LiveMlork unit is located, garage openings facing an al-
leyway shall be considered file front of the garage structure. In
this event, at least fhrae j3) feet of clear space must still be
maintained between the edge of pavement of the alley and the
garage front.
Encroachments
Encroachments into the public right-of-way shall follow the rec
ommendations set forth in chapter 3, section 3201 of the Inter-
national Building Code.
External Property Boundary Setback
All buildings in the Ruskin Heights neighborhood will be set
back a minimum of ten (10) feel from all perimeter site prop -
any lines.
Shall not exceed 45 FI.
1. 11Ull DIN(, IARI A
Shall nol exceed 95%
(, LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the site will be grass, Trees, shrubs, and other
plantinggs to be determined by the designers. It will also indude
water features, stone and other hard surface walls. and, in
some cases, cobblestone, brick, and other hard surface mate-
rials for pedestrian use. Some grassy areas may be angf-
neered to be useabfe by automotive baf+c without doing
damage to the underlying vegetation. In general, all landscap-
ing wilt be in accord with the requisite portions o0he Fayel.
tevilfe UDC. The devera meal will comply with the landscape
Plop included with the pints submitted.
K. PARKING
All parking shall comply with regulations set forth in the unified
development code.
L. ARC'HITLCTURAI. Desk\ STANDARDS
Archrtecrural design standards throughout the project will be of
the highest caliber. Durobto exlenormi lenals such as brick.
stone, slucco, hand pfank and wood will be used for (9(10041.
A strong and coherent architectural style ramfniscent ofArfs
and Crafts neighborhoods will be used ihraughoot the proiecl.
Where individuals are building single family homes, while cre-
adhere to a sa ct design code and a maranals list pmvrdeo by
rife developers which velFlnolude nalurel matelots Even as
Those destined aboVe The arChifeCivral design Shall be con-
sisfenl with the building efevefions and concepts preserved in
the PZD bookW. Foundation plans shall be engineered per
condition of approver 40 under Addrlionaf Conditions' in the
City Courial's Amended Conditions of Aooroyal dated March
M SIGN%Ge
All signage will huffy comply with the Fayetfealie srgn 0.4
nonce and fha relevant porlions of The UDC. The developer
may wish ra use unique street signs which would better N with
the neighborhood's overall charaner. Add4xmally, some signs
which designate areas of the neighborhood Sueh as the Span-
ish Steps and other endmarks and disl/rtls may be employed,
Ali proposed signs wirr be subject to the approval of the Fayer-
levtlle Transportation Department
PART or PHA517.5 1,2,3,5 & 6
Rr QU FST I\G Dcv rI UPM P\T AI,P R ov AI, AT
THIS rims?
M
Single family 2,500 ft,2
Tree Houses will represent one of the most F, LAND ARI A PER 13ioln,1.1\C
interesting residential formats, not only within Single family 6,197 ftr
the Ruskin Heights neighborhood, but in the
City of Fayetteville. Inspired by the Hillside G- SLTnACK REQ U ui 2MI N'IS
Overlay District, the Tree Houses offer a unique Front oft.
Side 2 ft.
opportunity to build housing in a wooded, sloped Side (detached garage) 0 ft.
environment with minimal impact to tree Rear 0 ft.
canopy.
By making footprints much smaller than
usual, encouraging first floor or other creative
garage spaces, and allowing slightly taller struc-
tures to be built, impacts to the natural environ-
ment can be minimized while creating an
architecturally unique and interesting Planning
Area.
The Tree Houses will be located on single
family lots which have been given special set-
back regulations to allow houses to be located in
such a way as to minimize impact to the natural
environment.
A. PE:RNIIT-IED USES cv UNIT
Unit 1 City wide uses by right
Unit Government facilities
Unit Single family dwellings
B. CONDITIONAL USES RY RIGHT
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 17 Trades and services
Unit 24 Home occupation
Detached second dwelling units
C. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Acreage 2.91
Dwelling units 20
Density 7 unitsracre
D. LOT WIDTH MINIMUM
Single family 30 ft.
F. I -Or AREA MINIMUM
Rear (alley loaded garages] 311,
Encroachments
Encroachments into the pubic right-of-way shall follow the rec-
ommendations set tomb in chapter 3, section 3201 of the inter.
national Building Code- Encroachments into the setbacks must
follow the rules set forth by ordinance in the city offayettevise
and must adhere to all rules set forth by the international
builder's code.
External Property Boundary Setback
All buildings in the Ruskin Heights neighborhood will be set
back a minimum of ten (10) fact from all perimeter site prop-
ertylines.
H. HeIGHT RPG U I.Ar-I to
Shall not exceed 45 Ft
BUILDING AREA
Shall not exceed 65%
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the site will be grass, trees, shrubs, and other
plantings to be determined by the designers. It will also include
water features, stone and other hard surface walls, and, in
some cases, cobblestone, brick, and other hard surface mate-
rials for pedestrian use. Some grassy areas may be engi-
neered to be useable by automotive tragic without doing
damage to the underlying vegetation. In general, all landscap-
ing will be in accord with the requisite portions of the Fayet-
teville UDC. The development will comply with the landscape
plan included with the plats submitted.
K. PARKING
All parking shall comply with regulations set forth in the unified
development code.
I.. ARC IH I'ri C TL'RAI. DESIGN STANDARDS
Architectural design standards throughout the project will be of
the highest caliber Durable exterior materials such as brick,
stone, stucco, hardi plank and wood will be used for extenors.
A strong and coherent archileefdral Style reminiscenl otArts
and Crafts neighborhoods wi8 be used throughout the project.
Where individuals are building single family homes, while cm-
ailvfty, will be encouraged in order to add to the eclectic nature
of the community, designers and builders will be required to
adhere to a 516V design Code and a materials list provided by
the developers which will include natural materials such as
those da5criWd above- The architectufal design shall be con-
sistent with the building elevah'ons and concepts presented in
the PZD booklet Fcunifakon piers shall be engineered per
condition of approval 40 under 'Addibonal Conditions"in the
City Councils Amended Conditions ofApproval dated March
20, 2007.
M. STCNAGE
All signage will fully comply with the Fayetteville sign ordi.
nance and the relevant portions of the UDC. The developer
may wish to use unfque street signs which would better fit with
the neighborhood's overall character. Additionally, some signs
which designate areas of the neighborhood such as the Span-
ish Steps and other landmarks and distnctsmay beem-
ployed. All proposed signs will be subject to the approval of the
Fayetteville Transportation Department.
PERT Or PHASE 5
REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT
THIS TINIE?
NO
`D o
X
`A ?
to
z
�
G-'
Z
Traditionally, single family lots are the back-
bone of the American Dream. Like other TND
neighborhoods, Ruskin Heights will have many
lots available for single family living. Allowances
for this type of lot will provide for residents who
wish to be part of the Ruskin Heights neighbor-
hood but who might want a more traditional
home.
Single family lots in Ruskin Heights will
vary widely in size, so the setbacks and other lot
restrictions will be set to make sure that the
smaller lots remain buildable. Larger lots may
have some restrictions placed on them.
Covenants may restrict building areas to more
traditional house lot placements but, in the spirit
of keeping the neighborhood interesting and en-
suring variety, some houses (even when on large
lots) may be allowed to use some of the small lot
setbacks. The idea is to allow houses to be placed
in differing locations on each lot, with some right
up to the sidewalk, with porches and stoops over,
looking public spaces- It is hoped that by doing
this, the neighborhood can enjoy a character typ,
ical of communities like Eureka Springs, and
other, more historic Fayetteville neighborhoods
such as those found on Mt. Sequoyah where resi-
dents, sitting on their front porches, may speak
to their neighbors who pass by on the street.
This type of intimacy between neighbors is in-
strumental in creating community.
A. PLIiMI I f fD Uses BY UNIr
Unit 1 City wide uses by right
Unit 5 Government facilities
Unit 8 Single family dwellings
. CC)N I)I IIf) NAI Uscs ey RICHT
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 17 Trades and services
Unit 24 Home occupation
Detached second dwelling units
Acreage 1014
Dwelling units 83
Density 9 unitslacre
I). Lo -I WID 1 1 MIN: NIU NI
Single family 20 h
E. LoT ARI,1 N1ININI UM
Single family 900 f1.r
P. LAND ARIA nrR DWELLING
Single family 4,380 ft 2
(,. SETRA('K REQDIREM)', NTS
Front
0IL
Side
2ft.
Side (detached garage)
0 h,
Rear
0 ft.
Rear (alley loaded garages)
3fL
Encroachments
Encroachments info the public rigW4-x3y shot[ follow the rec-
ommandalions sal II in chapter S. section 3201 of the Infer-
naflomd Building Code. Encroachments into the setbacks must
follow the rules sel loan by ordinance in the city of Ieyetlevirre
and must adhere to all rule: set kind by lire international
builder's code.
External Property Boundary Setback
All buildings in the Ruskin Heights neighborhood will be set
back a minimum of ten (10) feet from all perimeter site prop-
erty lines.
li. HFICH"r ReCULATION
Shall not exceed 45 Ft.
1. BUILDING AliEF.
Shall not exceed 90%
. LAN DSCArING
Landscaping for The site win be grass, frees, shrubs, and other
plantings to be determined by the designers. It will also Include
waler features, stone end other hard surface walls, and, in
some cases cobblestone, brick, and other hard surface mate-
rials for pedestrian use. Some grassy areas may be engi-
neered to be useable by aufomobve traffic wilhout doing
damage to the underlying vegetation. to general, all landwap-
ing wilt be in accord wilh fits re9uisae podions of the Fayel.
teville UDC. The development will comply with the landscape
plan included with the plats submitted.
K. PAV IN(I
All parking shall comply with regulations set fond in the unified
development code.
L. A IRCHITECI'URAL DESICN STANDARDS
Amhilectural design standards fhmugh of the project will be of
the highe5r caliber. Durable exterior materials such as brick,
Slone. stucco, hardi plank and wood will be used for exteriors.
A strong and coherent architectural style reminiscent of Ms
and Crags neighborhoods writ be used throughout the project
VVhtim individuals aka building single famify homes, while CM-
ativity will be encouraged in order to add to the eclectic nature
of the community, designers and builders will be required to
adhere to a strict design code and a materials list provided by
the developers which will include natural materials such as
those deschbed above- The architectural design shall be con.
sistent with the building elavagons and concepts presented in
the PZD booklet Foundation plans shall be engineered par
conddian of approval 40 under Addilional Conditions' in Me
City CouncifsAmended Conditions of Approval dated March
20, 2007.
M. SICSAGC
All signage will fully comply with the Fayerlevlt a sign ordF
nance and the relevant parbons of the UDC. The developer
may wish to use unique street signs which would better fit with
the neighborhood's overall character Additionally some signs
which designate areas of the neighborhood such as the Span-
,ShSteps and other landmarks and districts may beem-
ployed. Aft proposed signs will be subject to the approval of the
Fayetteville Transportation Department.
PART OF PHAsrs 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6
RCQUEs-rINC DI-VEWI'MENT APPROVAL AT
THIS TIME?
YES
x
_Z tA
DESCRIPTION
To fulfill the parks requirement, $260,000
will be donated to the City of Fayetteville to
build parks in the appropriate area of the city.
The green and open space at Ruskin Heights
will be designed for quality rather than quantity.
Small pocket parks will be located throughout
the neighborhood for the enjoyment of residents
and guests of the neighborhood. The green and
open spaces will be carefully maintained for high
aesthetic value. Games and other activities areas
such as horseshoe pits and lawn bowling areas
will be available.
In addition to the more manicured green and
open spaces, the most heavily wooded section of
the neighborhood, located at the southwest of the
site, will remain wooded and natural and open
for pedestrian and other uses. The trail corridor
mentioned below will be located within this area,
as well as natural water features.
On site storm water will be collected and
used throughout the neighborhood for water*
scapes and other features of interest. These
water scapes will ebb and flow with storm events
as would a natural stream. Waterscapes are
planned for many of the sections of open and
green space in the community.
• A trail corridor to be located near the west-
ern boundary of the site through the tree preser-
vation area will be put into a permanent public
access easement with the Property Owners Asso-
ciation retaining ownership. The developers
shall work closely with the Trails Coordinator
and the Urban Forester to develop this connec-
tion.
• A public access easement for the Spanish
Steps, which will lead from the Market Pavilion
near the entrance to the neighborhood, up the
hill through the more commercial area of the
neighborhood and terminate at the summit of
Ruskin Heights
• A public access easement for the village
green; the central green space of Ruskin Heights.
A. PERMITTED USES BY UNIT
Unit 1:
City wide uses by right
Unit 4:
Cultural and recreational facilities
B. CONDITIONAL
USES BY RIGHT
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
C. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Acreage 3.11
Dwelling Units None
Density N/A
D. LOT WIDTH MINIMUM
N/A
E. LOT AREA MINIMUM
N/A
P. LAND AREA PER DWELLING
N/A
G. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Front 5 d.
Side 5 ft-
Rear(AIIeySide) Oh.
External Property Boundary Setback
Alt buildings in the Ruskin Heights neighborhood will be set
back a minimum of ten (10) feel from all perimeter site prop-
ertylines,
H. HEIGHT REGULATION
45 ft.
1. BUILDING AREA
<30%
J. LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the site will be grass, bees, shmbs, and other
pfanfry3 to be determined by the designers, ft will also include
water features. stone and War hard surface wells. and, in
spare cases, mbbtestone, brick, and other hard surface mate-
rials for pedestrian use- Some grassy areas may be engi-
neered to be useable by automofrve fraffic vnthoul doing
damage to the undedyfng vegetation. In general, ad landscap-
Ing will be in accord with the requisfle podfons of the Fsyet-
tevilie UPC. The development will Comply with the landscape
plan included with the plats submitted.
K. PARKING
Parking will be in accord with section 172 of the UDC
L. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Architectural design standards throughout the prVCf will be of
the highest caliber Durable extedor materials such as brick,
alone, stucco, had plank and wood :itf be used for &KI6601a.
A strong and coherent architectural style remniscar t ofAds
and Crags neighWhoods will be used throughout the pmiect.
Where individuals are building single family homes, while ere
alivity will be encouraged in order to add to the edmtc nature
of the community, desgners and builders wAf be required to
adhere to a SrV design code and a materials list provided by
ft developers which wdf include Whirs; Materials such as
Those described above. The architectural design shall be Con,
salanf with the budding efevations and concepts presented in
the PZD bcbklel. Faundeion plans shalt be engineered per
condiffon of approval 40 under °Adtldianel Cdnditions'in the
City Councrrs Amended Conditions al'Approvaf dated March
20, 2007.
M. SIGNAGE
All signage will fully comply with the Fayeflawne sign ordi-
nance and the refevanl portions of the UDC. The developer
may wish to use unique street signs which would better fit with
the nelghbddwd's averafl character. Additionally, some srgns
which designate areas of the nerghbodrood such as the Span-
ishSleps and other landmarks and distnclsmay beem-
ployed. At proposed signs Wff be subject to the appmvat of the
Fayetteville Transponatfon Department.
PART OF PHASES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6
REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT
THIS TIME?
NO
PLANNING AREA 5 -GREEN SPACE/CIVIC SPACE
3d l9DP with Development I:u,k'.,-'6' 1
N 7'
Q
x
L
Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 �I
1
{
1
1
1
\ r.
\
1
\
1
! F
J.
t J
r
^ LA),N(:11 L'UINAL $LCIION (LiOKING EAq )
1 L' I•) i UI'(),',III I'IAnNINI
AM A.-4NI)U1vlI01)hvN,1 St-�,�-
I)MW1 PUB EA( 1i 1'I,ANNI'( ARIA
Please see following Pages 6-21 for details.
9=1 PA-1 Mixed Use/Flats
�® PA-2 Live/Work Town Houses
PA-3 Tree Houses
PA-4 Single Family
PA-5 Green Spuce/Civic Space
® Spanish Steps
® Market Square
® Civic Building
® Public Green Space
.v
NnNil [I 1
�r
f,
l.UNcnLm\'AI. SECr]O (LOOMI[Gli Sr)
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 119 2011
AUGUST 22, 2011
Planning Commission
July 11, 2011
Page 9 of 10
RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371): Submitted by
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES forproperty located at 2013 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. Theproperty
is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 28.93 acres.
The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE.
Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and recommendation.
Justin Jorgensen, applicant, gave background for the rezoning and requested that the planning commission table
this item for two weeks to allow them to provide a Bill of Assurance and other issues to be worked out.
Public Comment:
JoAnne Kvamme, neighbor, discussed that that are concerned about the bank getting a rezoning. There has been
no contact at all about the rezoning. She discussed hillside, erosion, tree conservation, traffic on Mission. There
is no place to walk, no reference to access onto Greenview. We want a smooth gradual transition from our
neighborhoods.
Pamela Conner, 1686 Shadowridge, discussed that there is no plan, nothing to look at, we don't know the
developer. Would you want this?
Don Conner, 1686 Shadowridge, discussed that this needs to have RSF-4 adjacent to all other RSF-4, including
the Greenview entrance. This needs to be brought back to the original zone until a developer presents a plan.
Neighborhood Conservation would allow duplexes all the way through. Four-story apartments are permitted in
Community Services.
Fred Sherman, 2134 Camelot, didn't agree with the previous Planning Commission's decision on Ruskin
Heights. The previous decision waived a lot of hillside and grading ordinances. There are 75 stores within a half
mile of Park Place, 10 stores are vacant. Put sidewalks on both sides of Mission so we can walk to these
businesses. He doesn't want to see the backs of businesses or apartments.
Aubrey Shepherd, discussed watershed, hillside, and erosion issues. A zoning consideration should be tied to
development.
Brad Booth, 2220 Camelot, agreed that the rezoning should be tied to an actual plan, what will be there.
Mike Eggleston, 2146 Camelot, his bedroom is 10 yards from Ruskin Heights. Leave it like it is or allow a
similar development.
Janelle Booth, 2220 Camelot, this is not a walking community on Mission, we need sidewalks on Mission. This
should go back to the previous zoning of RSF-4.
No more public comment was presented.
Commissioner Griffin asked why they are requesting this be tabled.
Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed that there is a potential buyer for a portion of this site and they want to
make sure the zoning boundary matches the area the potential buyer is looking at.
Planning Commission
July 11, 2011
Page 10 of 10
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that the law requires that zoning should be decided basing the decision
on a proposal without development. You should look at what types of uses and densities the proposed zoning
would allow.
Commissioner Hoskins discussed that this is similar to the recent rezoning for Summit on Township on a
hillside. He has always been a fan of a PZD and discussed the reasons for a PZD. He asked about the street
improvements on Mission.
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, reviewed the various street improvements that were required and
have been completed with the first phase of the Ruskin Heights development. The next development will be
reviewed and similar street improvements may be required as were previously required with Ruskin Heights.
Commissioner Hoskins asked about administrative approval for a form -based code.
Pate discussed that a subdivision would require planning commission approval of a preliminary plat, which
would likely be the first step after a rezoning of this site.
Commissioner Hoskins asked if PZDs could be reinstated as they were.
Williams answered, no, and explained why a PZD cannot be reinstated. He discussed that the previous owners
committed to things in the PZD, but these are different owners. The only way a PZD is legal is because it is an
option. A PZD cannot be forced. To force someone to do a PZD would be contract zoning which is not legal.
Commissioner Honchell discussed that the proposed zoning that he is looking at is very similar to what the
previous Ruskin Heights proposed. Do members of the public have a way to see what the Planning
Commissioners have seen?
Garner discussed that all of the Ruskin Heights rezoning application materials have been posted on the City's
FTP site and the neighbors have been emailed the website link.
Commissioner Earnest asked the applicant to work with the neighbors.
Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed that they will be happy to work with the neighbors.
Williams discussed that .the previous variances for Ruskin Heights are not grandfathered for the next
development on this site.
Motion:
Commissioner Earnest made a motion to table RZN 11-3866 until the July 25, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting. Commissioner Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0
(Commissioner Griffin voting `no').
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:46 PM.
Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 4 of 13
Old Business:
RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371): Submitted by
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 2013 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. The property is
zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 28.93 acres. The
request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE, subject to a Bill of
Assurance.
Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report.
Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed reasons for tabling this item at the previous three meetings. He presented
a signed Bill of Assurance to the Planning Commission and reviewed the Bill of Assurance in detail.
Public Comment:
JoAnne Kvamme, thanked the developers for meeting with the neighbors and stated that the developer has been
listening to the neighbors. She read a comment from the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Commission discussing the
value of hilltops and west facing drainages. The comment she read discussed that this wooded area is attractive to
the general public. The property to the east, offsite, has had erosion and invasive species. She discussed erosion
problems on the site. Please consider impacts to downslope neighbors. Will this Bill of Assurance be binding and
enforceable to fixture land owners?
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the legal requirements of a Bill of Assurance and confirmed that the Bill
of Assurance will affect future landowners. He discussed the Bill of Assurance's relation to the zoning of the
land and that the Bill of Assurance may be changed or removed only by City Council approval. Normally Bills of
Assurances are never changed unless the zoning changes. He also stated that zoning is never locked in place
forever and that it could change over time.
Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, directly adjacent to the property. He discussed that they have discussed the
zoning with Mitchell Massey and Jorgensen and Associates and stated that he thinks the zoning is adequate and
that the developer has been willing to make some compromises. He discussed that when Ruskin Heights went
through the first time the City Council changed the project substantially. He discussed the hillside ordinances and
an inadequate parking situation for the Ruskin Heights development. He would like to see all parking off-street.
He discussed impacts in winter weather. The historic grade is extremely important including the height
limitation. We want to see engineered foundations. If you can pass this ordinance and tie it to the hillside
ordinance I don't think we will have very many problems.
Malcolm Cleveland, University of Arkansas professor, Bachelor and Masters in Forestry, PhD in Geosciences
and work in watershed management. He walked the property. He described steep slopes on the property and that
the City's slope ordinance is not adequate for this property. Sometimes the ordinance is not enforced. He
discussed density on steep slopes. Erosion has occurred and will get work when construction proceeds. There
will be a lot of impermeable surfaces. The small area for runoff will be inadequate. It will take some really good
hydrodynamic engineering to solve the problem but that will not occur. Traffic, a left turn off of Greenview is
hazardous. Traffic will get worse with this project. The intersection at Crossover is already congested at times.
The City has never hired a competent traffic engineer.
Tamara Bishop, 1825 N. Cambridge, had questions about the Bill of Assurance. Are they similar to covenants?
Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page S of 13
Kit Williams, responded that, no, they are not similar to covenants. He described the differences between a Bill
of Assurance and covenants. Covenants are a private agreement. A Bill of Assurance is an agreement offered to
the City Council or Planning Commission. He discussed that a Bill of Assurance is enforceable and the
injunctive relief is possible. A Bill of Assurance is much stronger than a restrictive covenant and a Bill of
Assurance is what the City will enforce.
Tamara Bishop, asked about amending the Bill of Assurance.
Kit Williams described how a Bill of Assurance can be modified only by the City Council
Tamara Bishop, thanked the developer and engineers have been very gracious in meeting with us and they seem
very open to hearing our concerns. It sounds like they are accommodating our concerns. As a neighbor I
understand that if you own property you have a right to use it and don't want to impede their responsible
development of their property. This Bill of Assurance is a great way to address problems with developing this
site. She discussed evaluation of the City's ordinance to ensure good development.
Mike Wiggleston, 2146 E. Camelot, he agreed with what Tamara said. Let's don't come here every month to
grant developer variances to accommodate a developer. I'm a citizen of Fayetteville and if anyone deserves to be
accommodated it's me.
Don Conner, 1686 E. Shadow Ridge, directly adjacent to the property. I appreciate the developer's having
worked with us; it's a nice welcome change. We've all learned more about the form -based development and
we're a lot more comfortable with the density. He stated that he would like to see no money taken in lieu of trees.
What is the status of the Fayetteville municipal improvement district #29 that was part of Ruskin Heights, where
they sold bonds to build infrastructure? Is it still attached to this development?
Commissioner Cabe stated that the improvement district is not a part or related to this rezoning
Kit Williams responded that you could go to the court and see who set up that district and who are the
commissioners of that district. As the chairman commissioner indicated this is not something to be considered
with this rezoning.
Don Conner asked if future residents would have to pay into that district. Would this be a hidden cost?
Kit Williams described the process for establishing an improvement district and discussed that the City doesn't
get involved and the City Council has no authority one way or another on these improvement districts. It has not
bearing on the rezoning of this property.
Gale O'Donnell, 1960 N. Greenview Drive, am I right that no economic decisions can be considered regarding
the rezoning of this property?
Kit Williams discussed that the highest and best use of the property can be considered by the Planning
Commission and City Council for a rezoning. There are many other considerations, primarily compatibility is the
number one consideration, but you can consider the highest and best use of the property which would be an
economic consideration.
Gale O'Donnell, what does highest and best use mean?
Kit Williams answered that the owner of the property could refer to the highest and best use of the property
Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 6 of 13
which could mean highest dollar value, or some other reason, that the owner would like to argue
Gale O'Donnell, what does compatibility mean?
Kit Williams discussed compatibility in terms of adjacent and nearby neighbors that will not degrade or diminish
the property. That does not mean that property cannot be developed.
Gale O'Donnell asked about the economic interests of the Planning Commission related to this development or
bank of this property.
Kit Williams, discussed conflict of interest rules and that if any one had a direct financial interest they would
recuse. He discussed various reasons why a commissioner would recuse or be required to recuse.
Gale O'Donnell stated that comparison of future zoning to the defunct Ruskin Heights property should not be
made. The previous development damaged the property because of so many variances. Please consider the
hillside, trees, and highest and best use.
Cathy Wait, 1775 Cambridge, thanked the developer and engineers for all of the time they took in listening to
us, we are most appreciative. They did take our comments into consideration as obviously shown in the Bill of
Assurance that was changed. People are concerned with height and the views that they have currently and they
are concerned about their property value being diminished by a taller structure impeding their view. Is their
something in the code that restricts height?
Kit Williams discussed that if someone built a house next to yours; even if it was taller than yours if it was
allowed under the zoning it would be permitted.
Garner discussed that the maximum height for single family homes in the proposed zoning is 45 feet in height
and 4 stories or 56 feet in height for multi -family or non-residential in the Community Services zoning.
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, explained how height is measured to make sure it meets the
requirement.
Cathy Wait discussed traffic concerns along Mission Boulevard and the concern is that this will be putting a lot
of traffic on a two-way highway that does not have curb and gutter or shoulders on Highway 45.
Kit Williams discussed the previous improvements required with Ruskin Heights including a turn lane on
Mission. He discussed a traffic signal and the warrants being met before a signal could be installed.
Gale O'Donnell discussed that Highway 265 is being widened, which was not in consideration when this was
originally approved.
After a request for final comments by the Planning Commission Chair Matthew Cabe, no more public
comment was presented and public comment was closed.
Commissioner Earnest complimented this rezoning and public process that has resulted in a proposal that is
moving towards something that is acceptable to the community. He described the compromises that resulted as a
result of the meetings.
Commissioner Winston asked how this rezoning and future development tied to the hillside ordinance
Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 7 of 13
Kit Williams discussed that the hillside hilltop ordinance is tied to the development and he discussed and
described the grading and tree preservation ordinances. That does not mean variances could not be granted. He
discussed the development review process. He discussed the intent of the tree preservation ordinance.
Commissioners Winston asked of the engineering department found that the foundation for construction on this
site were not adequate can they require more.
Kit Williams discussed that the hillside hilltop overlay district ordinance requires a foundation to be stamped by
an engineer and if that is provided by a developer in accordance with ordinance then the City will likely approve
the plan.
Commissioner Winston asked about taking money in lieu of tree preservation.
Kit Williams discussed the priority and intent of the tree preservation. The first priority is preservation of trees;
the next step if it cannot be preserved is to plant trees onsite, the next step is to pay money in lieu or plant trees
offsite. He discussed the hierarchy of the ordinance.
Commissioner Hoskins asked about the infrastructure on the project.
Pate discussed that the first phase has been installed but a majority of the site does not have infrastructure
installed. Pate also described the improvements along Mission that were completed and the tree canopy that has
been removed during the first phase. There was very little tree canopy removed during the first phase.
Development of the southern areas of the site will be much more difficult to develop because of the higher tree
canopy numbers.
Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, asked to speak.
Commissioner Earnest stated that he would allow Mr. Sherman to speak.
Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, discussed the hillside hilltop overlay district ordinance.
Commissioner Cabe officially closed public comment again.
Commissioner Chesser asked about the tree preservation requirements in the HHOD.
Pate responded that there is a 5% increase in tree preservation in the HHOD. He also discussed the minimum
undisturbed area.
Commissioner Chesser asked about on -street parking.
Garner responded that on -street parking is permitted to count towards required parking spaces at the
determination of the Zoning Development Administrator.
Commissioner Chesser asked about a traffic study for the signal on Mission.
Planning Commission
August 12, 2011
Page 8 of 13
Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed that the traffic study has not been updated. It may be required when it
comes through for development.
Motion:
Commissioner Winston made a motion to forward RZN 11-3866 to the City Council with a recommendation of
approval subject to the applicant's Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Earnest seconded the motion. Upon roll
call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0 (Commissioner Hoskins voting 'no').
CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC COMMENT
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 .
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 ' FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
JUSTIN L. JORGENSEN, P.E.
BLAKE E. JORGENSEN, P.E.
11/03/09
City of Fayetteville
I U W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Development Services
Re: Ruskin Heights Rezoning
This letter is in regards to the above referenced proposed rezoning and the following required
information:
A. The current owner of this site is Metropolitan National Bank,
P.O. Box 8010, Little Rock, AR. 72203
B. The current goal is to retrofit the first phases of Ruskin Heights that have been constructed
but not finalized. The hope is to get some single family detached dwelling units in this area
and the N-C zoning is going to allow for the best utilization of the existing utilities and
infrastructure. In order to rezone the first phases for development the rest of the property
needs to be addressed as a whole. Without any long term goals or development plan for that
at this time, we are proposing zonings that we feel will be compatible with the surrounding
property as well as stay in line with the City's goals for the City Plan 2025.
C. Although the requested zonings along the southeast property (N-C) line will allow for
slightly more density than the existing subdivisions to the south and east, we are trying to
take advantage of the existing infrastructure & utililties from the Ruskin Heights project.
The N C zoning will be less dense than the previously approved PZD. The requested density
along the southwest property linc is the same except for a portion in the very southwest
comer that is being proposed as RSF-4 to allow for bigger lots and utilize the terrain better in
this area. The portion of the N-C zoning adjacent to the south and southeast subdivisions
will only be allowed to be single family housing guaranteed through a bill of assurance. The
proposed zoning for the rest of the property all the way to Mission was chosen to allow for a
transition from only single family to a mixed use along Mission. Once again, there is no
defined development plan for the entire, property but we feel the requested zoning will allow
for the needed flexibility to obtain the City's goals while at the same time trying to
compliment the surrounding property.
D. On the portion on the east side that has been constructed there is an 8" sewer and 8" water
main that will serve this area and will connect to the rest of the site in the future. There are
also existing water and sewer lines along Mission as well as Green View Drive.
E. We feel the requested zonings are in line with the goals of the The City Plan 2025 for
rezoning and development in the future.
F. Because Ruskin Heights was a PZD and suffered a setback due to the poor economy, the
PZD zoning has run out and needs to be rezoned for any future development.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT- WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS' LAND SURVEYING'
G. With the portion that is planned to be built out now, (First phases of Ruskin Heights) we
don't feel the small number of single family homes will create a detrimental increase in
traffic in this area. We understand that the development of the rest of the property in the
future will appreciably increase traffic in this area and know that some amount of money (to
be determined) will need to be given for a traffic light at a time when a certain number of lots
have been developed that is consistent with what was planned for the Ruskin Heights project.
H. Development of the whole property will increase the load on public services and will be dealt
with at the time of development.
I. Currently the property has no zoning so it can't be developed.
We ask that you please consider our request and keep in mind that the focus currently is on retro fitting
the portion that has been constructed in order to not only enhance the aesthetics of this area but alleviate
any erosion problems that currently exists. We feel the proposed zonings are a necessity for utilizing
existing infrastructures while also allowing for flexibility of future development that can tie the
surrounding property together with a mixed use development that encompasses the goals of the City
Plan 2025.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
Justin L. Jorgensen, P.E.
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 - (479) 442-9127 FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
JUSTIN L. JORGENSEN, P.E.
BLAKE E. JORGENSEN, P.E.
August 8, 2011
Re: Ruskin Heights Rezoning Planning Commission Meeting
To Planning Commissioners:
It has been brought to my attention today from Dara Sanders that some of you are requesting
clarification to why we are asking to be tabled to the August 22"d Planning Commission. Unfortunately,
we will not be able to attend the meeting tonight but hope this letter will suffice in clearing this issue up.
After the first Planning Commission meeting we contacted Fred Sherman and Don Conner with
the idea of arranging a public meeting on Monday July 25, 2011 at the office of Jorgensen & Associates.
With about 25 people in attendance the meeting lasted for about two hours and was very beneficial for
us to hear their thoughts and concerns in what will be proposed for the next meeting. We hope to make
enough changes that everyone feels like their concerns have been heard. We are in the process of
making these changes and are going to have another meeting with the surrounding property owners later
this week to show everyone the changes that have been made and what is being proposed in moving
forward. The August 22"d meeting gives us time to meet with neighbors, make changes and get it to city
staff in order to get it to you with plenty of time to review before the meeting.
Once again we apologize for any confusion regarding the tabling but hope you understand why
we are requesting the extra time.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
Justin L. Jorgensen, P.E.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN . LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS. WASTEWATER SYSTEMS, LAND SURVEYING,
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 . FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 ' (479) 442-9127 . FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
JUSTIN L. JORGENSEN, P.E.
BLAKE E. JORGENSEN, P.E.
August 8, 2011
Re: Ruskin Heights Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting
To whom it may concern:
The purpose of this letter is to invite all surrounding property owners to attend a second public meeting
on Monday August 15 (c1�, 5:30 p.m. at "1" East Center Street (The old Bank of America building) on the
first floor. The goal of the meeting is to review changes made after the previous meeting and the
proposed request that will be turned in for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 22n8 at the City
of Fayetteville.
We ask that you consider coming to this meeting and thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
l ��f
Justin L. Jorgensen, RE
STRUCTURAL DESIGN' LAND DEVELOPMENT' WATER SYSTEMS' WASTEWATER SYSTEMS' LAND SURVEYING'
(712012011 ) Andrew Garner - Ruskin Heir"Rezoning
Page 1
From:
"Justin Jorgensen" <justin@jorgensenassoc.com>
To:
"Andrew Garner'" <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date:
7/19/2011 1:57 PM
Subject:
Ruskin Heights Rezoning
Andrew,
The ownerwould like to request that the Ruskin Heights Rezoning be tabled
in order to give us time to meet with surrounding property owners to listen
to their concerns. We would like to be tabled until the August Sth Meeting.
Thanks,
Jorgensen & Associates
124 W. Sunbridge, Suite 5
Fayetteville, AR. 72703
phone: (479) 442-9127
fax: (479) 582-4807
(712512011) Andrew Garner - Fwd: Ruskin In )pis
From: 3eremy Pate
To: Gamer, Andrew
Date: 7/25/2011 9:29 AM
Subject: 'Fwd: Ruskin Heights
Public comment.
>>> <cpcmm0070aol com> 7/24/2011 7:04 PM >>>
Jeremy, I live at 1663 Viewpoint. When Ruskin Heights pzd was approved we were supportive of the plan. One of things
that we were most concerned about was the traffic Flow on Viewpoint for people leaving Ruskin heights who were turning
left on Greenview and then on to Viewpoint. Through all the negotiations there was agreement to create a separation in
lanes much like a boulevard so that cars leaving Ruskin Heights on Greenview would have to turn right to Mission.
Could you help to ensure this stays as a boulevard or another option Greenview could be one way from the Intersection of
Viewpoint and Greenview to Mission this would ensure traffic moves to Mission.
Appreciate you taking a look at this. It was seen as an important issue for the original project so that issue should remain a
point that needs to be resolved.
Thanks, Philip Cameron
1663 Viewpoint
Page 1 of 2
Cindy Monreal - Fwd: Former Ruskin Height property
From:
Andrew Garner
To:
Monreal, Cindy
Date:
6/13/2011 4:56 PM
Subject:
Fwd: Former Ruskin Height property
Cindy,
Please convert this email to a PDF and save in the Ruskin Heights Public Comments folder.
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew M. Garner, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Fayetteville
125 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Tel.479.575.8262
Fax.479.575.8202
agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
www.accessfavettevi I le. org
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf: (479) 521-1316
>>> Jeremy Pate 6/13/2011 4:53 PM >>>
Andrew,
Please see that this letter makes it to the file for the staff report.
thanks,
Jeremy
>>> JoAnn Kvamme <joann.kvamme(a)gmail.com> 6/13/2011 4:49 PM >>>
Dear Mr. Pate,
I would like to address the new request for rezoning of the former
development referred to as Ruskin Heights. I also believe the comments I
send today effect many of our older neighborhoods in Fayetteville and I
hope some of these ideas will be used as a template for future development
in Fayetteville.
I believe that people move to Fayetteville for many reasons but a major
reason is the small town atmosphere and stable neighborhoods. Many of our
neighborhoods are over 50 years old and still maintain stable populations of
home owners who possess a strong community spirit. These neighborhoods are
the backbone of our community and they need to be protected from what some
call urban decay.
file://CADocuments and Settings\cmonreal\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4DF64148FA... 6/14/2011
Page 2 of 2
I think it is first important to remember that many people living in our
urban neighborhoods could move to those outer rings of urban sprawl our city
keeps saying it wants to avoid. The reason they do not move to these new
neighborhoods is that they live in stable neighborhoods that they feel
confident will remain that way.
In our haste to develop every scrap of nonbuilt up land in the city we must
stop and think. If we destabilize these neighborhoods we will be encouraging
exactly what we say we want to avoid (flight to the suburbs). A quick
example, if we want people to remain in town the best way to do that is for
them to feel that the neighborhood they have bough5t into will remain with
the same qualities they chose when purchasing the home. I feel this could be
achieved and still allow growth but the crucial point is we must maintain
the integrity of the neighborhoods we will impact with this development.
This is to say if the neighborhood has houses spaced every half acre then
the development that abuts that space must mirror that design. That is not
to say that there would be no other density or use on the entire property
but an adequate buffer of like residence must abut the existing neighborhood
with the transitions totally within the new development area and removed
from the older neighborhoods. This will do three things 1) it will stop the
urban decay of older neighborhoods, 2) it will keep home prices more stable
since people will know if they bought into a neighborhood for certain
aesthetics that they will remain into the future, and 3) it will reduce the
number of residents moving to the suburbs.
Rather than view concerned neighbors as NIMBYs or a pain in the rear. Our
neighbors that choose to take the time to come out should be viewed as the
long term residents of our community that care enough to want to protect it
as opposed to those who are totally unengaged and just move further out as
they see the need.
Please do not rezone this former Ruskin area without the neighbors input and
PLEASE encourage the developer to work with the neighbors. They may see we
are not as unreasonable as they think if they truly want to add to our great
community that already exists. If they are just in the market it to make
money at our expense and run that is where the problems arises and do we
want those types of developers in our community anyway?
Thank you for any help you may offer.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Kvamme
Resident Root School Neighborhood Association
file://C:\Documents and Settings\cmonreal\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4DF64148FA... 6/14/2011
MAPS
RZN 11-38661 RUSKIN HEIGHTS
Close Up View
KANTZ LN
ti
p KANTZ Cv
� N O
N z
aO 3
M >
D J R-0
SUBJECT PROPERTY ,y
9% HACKBERRY DR u� < KANTZLN L�+�
FRDF 7
Gr.l
- RA
r n CiyT
A x
� NC BRISTOL PL
i
I
19 •I CAMUOTPL
_4
^FIELD PL rr nr.r rr rr rr rr iri rP,
OMMMvVeRE PL
Lege
... ._t1AOOM o-TY6111- �__I A *===CTORIA LN
a
Future rails,
CARO .8 MEANDERING WAy
,L_ footprints 2010
CS, Com unity Services (7.13 acres)
- Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District NC, Neighborhoo A Conservation (16.83 acres)
Design Overlay Di trict RSF-4, Residential Single Family FOL r Units Per Acre (4.96 acres)
Design Overlay Di trict
------ Planning Area
0 200 400 800 1.200 1,600
Fayetteville Feel
RZN 11-3866
Future Land Use
I
'94%RDR HACKSERRY DR
I
gend
••••••... Multi -Use Toil (Existing) +
••••.. Future Trails tlI�
Q RZN11-3866 p
FUTURE LAND USE 203
CLASS
_ NAWd ST
Rural Area
Residential Neighborhood Area
— City Neighborhood Area I
MAN
NCenterArea
Omftmplete Neighborhood PI n
_ Civic and Pnvate Open Sp a,Park
_ Civic Institutional
Non -Municipal Government
ROW
Design Overlay District
D ' O 1 D'
RUSKIN HEIGHTS
KANTZ LN
KANTZ CV
Q
SUBJECT PROPERTY
3
KANTZLN
J
r
P41L�¢°
SRISTOL Pl. 0
w
CAMELOTPL
LENSFIELD Pl. 2 1
REVEREPL
I
O
M
VICTORIALN
o
r-
U
N1
�
4]
m
a
O
A
ti
O
K
z
MEANDERING WAY
Q
esgn veray Di in 0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600
----• Planning Area Feet
EXHIBIT "C"
FUN 11-3866
Page 4 of 4
Zoning: Coingrunift. Services: Area I
The following _uses shown in Chapter 161.19 of the City of Fayetteville's Zoning Regulations
SHALL NOT be allowed in the area shown on the Rezoning Plat (Exhibit A) as Community
Services:
- Un)i4- Cultural & recreational facilities, everything excluded
except churches.
- Unit 18: gasoline stations & drive — in/drive tpiough restaurants.
- Unit 3: Public protection and utility facilities/'
- Under Use Unit 14, Hotel, motel and amusement services:
Everything is permitted except Hotel & Motel.
- Under Use Unit 16, Shopping Goods:
Transportation Services.
- Unit 17: Transportation, trades & services.
- Unit 28: Center for recycle materials.
- Unit 34: Liquor stores.
- Unit 35: Outdoor music establishments.
- Unit 36: Wireless commup'ication facilities.
- Unit 42: Clean technologies.
Zoning: Nei,ahborhood Consedation: Area 3-6
The areas shown on the Rezoning Pd'at (Exhibit A) as Neighborhood Conservation SHALL BE
LIMITED TO the following uses and densities:
1. Area 3 (2.56 ores): Max Density of 10 units/acre
a. Per�tted Uses
` • Unit 8: Single-family dwellings
/ • Unit 9: Two-family dwellings
by,/ Conditional Uses
• Unit 10: Three-family dwellings
• Unit 24: Home occupations
2. Area 4 & Area 6 (14.27 acres): Max Density of 6 units/acre
a. Permitted Uses
• Unit 8: Single-family
3. Area 5 (3.74 acres): Max Density of 4 units/acre
a. Permitted Uses
• Unit 8: Single-family
Exhibit' B" to Bill of Assurance..
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE
NORTHWESTARKANSAS THE MORNING NEWS OF SPRINGDALE
THE MORNING NEWS OF ROGERS
NORTHWEST NSSTIMES
NEWSPAPERSLLC BENTO 0 COUNTY DAILY RECOO D
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE. FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 1 P.O. BOX 1607, 72702 1 479442-1700 1 WWW,NWANEWS.COM
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the
Northwest Arkansas Newspapers, LLC, printed and published in
Washington and Benton County, Arkansas, bona fide circulation,
that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files
of said publication, the advertisement of:
City of Fayetteville
Ordinance 5445
Was inserted in the Regular Editions on:
October 20, 2011
Publication Charges: $71.33
W1�
Cathy Wiles
Subscribed and sworn to bjefore me
This p�l ?ay of 6-7�, 2011.
GL40- �4"Xcte4&:!�"
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
I BATd=SCHACHERBAUERRBAUERTYNOANWMyC pr# 15. 2M7CB0f2i
**NOTE**
Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent.
OCT 31 2011
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE