The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 5510 Doc ID: 014706460004 Type: REL Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 07/24/2012 at 04:12:06 PM Fee Amt: $30.00 Pace 1 of 4 Washington County. AR Bette StamoS Circuit Clerk File2012_00021675 ORDINANCE NO. 5510 AN ORDINANCE REVOKING R-PZD 07-2576 (WOODSTOCK) AND REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 12-4108, FOR APPROXIMATELY 31.68 ACRES, LOCATED AT 4847 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE FROM R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 07-2576, TO CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That a portion of the property as described herein zoned R-PZD 07-2576 (Woodstock) is hereby revoked because the developer failed to obtain development permits in accordance with the approved phased development schedule. Section 2: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District 07- 2576 to CS, Community Services; R-O, Residential Office; NC, Neighborhood Conservation; and RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre, as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 2 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 3`d day of July, 2012. APPROVED: ATTEST: l X...... � ;r �;m' \TY O,c s"' C4 By: YYLDN ,Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/TreasulMYEITD/IL!_E;y s ai .�an'.9� ,fS'q,,se*ry"hJ g��yppa i➢R�Asp' HIBIT "A" RZN12-4108 BANK OF WYNNE Close Up View RENEE CT ' O yt1 CANNOND0-OP PRESCOTT ST L II ] I - � ,7258 W FRANCISCAN TRL S w O U RSF-e iE ! SUBJECT PROPERTY ;.., ACOMA ST U Q x RWU 1_ - N I - - - - - I I - Se cs SW acres 'I _ _ I G-t 6.53 acres _ • I [. 1 aR i • I +_1 I r - p-0 i - _ II—l� - 1 d I - 3 NC 10.12 acres -_y a I a ffi J F = RSF4 336 aero - - •. � — _ w = II Z I` ti RSF4 _ m 6.07 acres 9 LUTTRELL IN TUMBLEWEED ST Legend Ili LOFTY WOOD DR Multi-Use Trail (Exist; N IJ W Future TrailsHOMESPUN DR W z F I; j FLAGSTfCKDR Fayetteville City Limits o bW7RZN12-4108 ® Footprints 2010 - Hillside-Hilltop Ovi rlay District Design Overlay Di trict Design Overlay Di trict 0 750 300 600 900 1,200 ------ Planning Area Feel EXHIBIT "B" RZN 12-4108 PORTION TO BE REZONED COMMUNITY SERVICE: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT, BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO2021'23"E 700.36'FROM AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2021'25"E 566.29'TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY #16,THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY S87033'20"E 139.56'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCEN83°32'33"E 44.48'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S88°03'22"E 88.17'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE S67-34'26"E 53.20'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S87°16'19"E 27.89'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE N81°59'46"E 81.42'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S87°20'54"E 70.36'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY S02°21'25"W 572.84', THENCE N87014'45"W 500.01'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,CONTAINING 6.53 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. PORTION TO BE REZONED RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH,RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT, COMMENCING AT AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2021'23"E 1266.66' TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY#16, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY S87°33'2VE 139.56'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE N83°32'33"E 44.48'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S88°03'22"E 88.17'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S67°34'26"E 53.20'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S87°16'19"E 27.89' TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE N81°59'46"E 81.42'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE S87°20'54"E 70.36'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT AT THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE S87020'54"E 749.33'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE S51°36'34"E 42.96'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE S86009'07"E 18.27', THENCE S02°12'08"W 280.19', THENCE N87020'54"W 803.09', THENCE NO2021'25"E 305.66'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.60 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. PORTION TO BE REZONED NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH,RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT, BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO2021'23"E 410.36' FROM AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2021'25"E 290.01', THENCE S87014'45"E 500.01',THENCE NO2°21'25"E 267.19',THENCE S87°20'54"E 646.58', THENCE S02008'46"W 428.36',THENCE N87°14'45"W 503.76', THENCE S02°30'10"W 130.00', THENCE N87014'45"W 644.08' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 10.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. PORTION TO BE REZONED RSF-4: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,TO-WIT, BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO2021'23"E 410.36', AND S87°14'45"E 644.08' FROM AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2030'10"E 130.00',THENCE S87°14'45"E 503.76', THENCE NO2°08'46"E 42836', THENCE S87020'54"E 156.52', THENCE S02°12'08"W 309.20',THENCE N87°14'57"W 26.21', THENCE S02008'46"W 249.44', THENCE N87°14'45"W 634.58'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.36 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY OF RECORD. PORTION TO BE REZONED RSF-4: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST,WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT, BEGINNING AT AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2021'25"E 410.36', THENCE S87°14'45"E 644.08', THENCE S02°30'10"W 410.73', THENCE N87012'44"W 643.04'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,CONTAINING 6.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 07/24/2012 04:12:06 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2012-00021675 Bette stamps-Circuit Clerk by F✓ — City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form City Council Agenda Items and Contracts, Leases or Agreements 6/5/2012 City Council Meeting Date Agenda Items Only Andrew Garner Planning Development Services Submitted By Division Department Action Required' RZN 12-4108: (4847 W. WEDINGTON DR./BANK OF WYNNE, 438): Submitted by BATES AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 4847 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT(R-PZD 07-2576 WOODSTOCK) and contains approximately 31.68 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE. 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 t},OR/ Previous Ordinance or Resolution# Departent irect >, Date Original Contract Date: S- (� "Zot"L Original Contract Number: City Attorney Date FiAnceand ernal Sery ces Director Clerk's Received in City Clerk's Office Chief of Staf ate EHilEp Received in � �r2 f- Mayor's Office Ma r ate Comments: J4. C�%iy �� 01 �'PL 0 0�/L3 �,�g_�f.(.l 11 �F' i� ��j �. ��;.��p� L_;�. ;i'`.�'r Revised January 15, 2009 7a`{tl7eUe; le THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS r DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE /1S CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor Jordan, City Council Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff �q Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director 0\ From: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner Date: May 17, 2012 Subject: RZN 12-4108 (Bank of Wynne Rezone/Woodstock PZD Revocation) RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of an ordinance to revoke the expired Woodstock Planning Zoning District and rezone the property from R-PZD 07-2576 Woodstock to R-A, Residential Agricultural, the zoning that was in place prior to the R-PZD. BACKGROUND The subject property contains 31.68 acres located on the south side of Wedington Drive (State Highway 16) between 46'h Street and Broyles Avenue. The site is zoned R-PZD 07-2576, and generally flat hay pasture with trees along the fence rows. The property is generally undeveloped except for two residences, one in the northwest corner and the other in the southeast corner of the site. On October 2, 2007 the City Council approved the Woodstock Planned Zoning District on the subject property (R-PZD 07-2576). The property was originally zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. The R-PZD zoning permitted a total of 382 dwellings and 100,390 square feet of non-residential square feet. Construction permits for the project were never obtained and the R-PZD approval has expired. Within the past year, the Future Land Use Plan designation on this site changed, scaling back the City Neighborhood Area on this site from the entire Wedington Drive street frontage to the northwest corner of the site. 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 the old PZD zoning is revoked and a new, valid zoning district is assigned. In an effort to establish a valid zoning district on the subject property the property owner, the Bank of Wynne, has requested a rezoning. Their request is to rezone 9.08 acres to CS, Community Services and 22.60 acres to RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre. The areas of the site for the proposed rezoning are depicted on the attached survey provided by the applicant. Staff recommends denial of applicant's proposal finding that the rezoning request is not consistent with the City Plan 2030 Future Land Use designation of this site. The Future Land Use Plan Designates a majority of this site as Residential Neighborhood, and confines the City Neighborhood designation in the northwest portion of the site around the intersection of Broyles and Wedington. The applicant proposes to rezone their entire frontage along Wedington (about 820 feet of street frontage, 300 feet deep, 9.08 acres) to Community Services. In addition, the proposal to rezone 22.60 acres of undeveloped pasture to RSF-4 on the edge of the developed area of the City could encourage a sprawling development pattern in conflict with the primary goals of City Plan 2030: Goal 2: We will discourage suburban sprawl, and Goal 3: We will make traditional town form the standard. This is discussed in more detail in the findings throughout the staff report. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS DISCUSSION Prior to the May 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney advised staff and the Planning Commission that if they did not recommend in favor of the applicant's proposed zoning request that they should recommend some zoning district. On May 14, 2012 the Planning Commission made a recommendation to forward the rezoning request to the City Council with a recommendation for the property to revert back to the zoning that was in place prior to the PZD, which was R-A, Residential Agricultural. The motion passed with a 7-1-0 vote (Commissioner Hoskins voted `no'). BUDGETIMPACT None. t Ta e eve Ie THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE ARKANSAS www.acces5fayetteville.arg CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor Jordan, City Council �p From: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director U1 Date: 19 June 2012 Subject: Rezonoing for Bank of Wynne/Wedington Property Attached you will find a letter of request, ordinance, exhibit and legal descriptions reflecting the amended request for RZN 12-4108, Bank of Wynne rezoning. This request differs from the original application, in which the applicants requested Community Services and RSF-4, and also differs from the Planning Commission's recommendation after considering the original request. The Planning Commission did not support the applicant's original request and recommended the property be rezoned to R-A, Residential Agricultural. The attached is for your consideration. You may return this item directly to the Planning Commission for further consideration, delay a decision on the new application to a future elate,or approve/deny the request. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REVOKING R-PZD 07-2576 (WOODSTOCK) AND REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 12-4108, FOR APPROXIMATELY 31.68 ACRES, LOCATED AT 4847 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE FROM R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 07-2576, TO CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS: Section 1: That a portion of the property as described herein zoned R-PZD 07-2576 (Woodstock) is hereby revoked because the developer failed to obtain development permits in accordance with the approved phased development schedule. Section 2: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District 07- 2576 to CS, Community Services; R-O, Residential Office; NC, Neighborhood Conservation; and RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre, as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 2 above. PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2012. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer TT "All f RZN12-4108 BANK OF11WYNNE Close Up view 1. RENEE CT, PRESCOTT ST I w r�, 'Z FRANCt l9 IG• + p SUBJECT PROPERTY a� -- DI � m i 1 • 1 JII. �q-� (s t4U acro G rJ3 aecer - I l Ra RSF-4 Ne 1413 acre RSF-4 3 swan �r LUTTRELLLN Ir I rl TUMBLEWEED ST Ir li Legend LOFTY WOOD DR r -- -- Mufti-Use Trail(Existii� ) y w Future Trails w _ HOMESPUN DR 2 F j FLAGSTICK OR Fayetteville City Limits o 61"XN12-4108 Footprints 2010 - Hillside-Hilltop Ovi May District Design Overlay District Design Overlay Ditrict 0 150 700 wo 900 1,200 -- -- Planning Area Feet Ord. Pg. 2 EXHIBIT "B" RZN 12-4108 PORTION TO BE REZONED COMMUNITY SERVICE: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION l2, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,TO-WIT, BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO2021'23"E 700.36' FROM AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2°21'25"E 566.291TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY 916,THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY S87033'20"E 139.56'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE N83°32'33"E 44.48'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S88°03'22"E 88.17'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE S67°34'26"E 53.20'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S87-16'1 9"E 27.89'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE N81°59'46"E 81.42'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S87020'54"E 70.36'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY S02021'25"W 572.84', TI-IENCE N87014'45"W 500.01'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.53 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. PORTION TO BE REZONED RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,TO-WIT& COMMENCING AT AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2021'23"E 1266.66'TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY#16, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY S87°33'20"E 139.56'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE N83032'33"E 44.48'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S88°03'22"E 88.17'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S67°34'26"E 53.20'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S87-16'1 9"E 27.89'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE N81°59'46"E 81.42'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT,THENCE S87020'54"E 70.36'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT AT THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE S87020'54"E 749.33'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE S51036'34"E 42.96'TO AN EXISTING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT, THENCE S86009'07"E 18.27',THENCE S02°12'08"W 280.19', THENCE N87°20'54"W 803.09', THENCE NO2021'25"E 305.66'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.60 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. PORTION TO BE REZONED NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP l6 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,TO-WIT, BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO2021'23"E 410.36'FROM AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2021'25"E 290.01', THENCE S87014'45"E 500.01', THENCE NO2°21'25"E 267.19',THENCE S87°20'54"E 646.58', THENCE S0200846"W 428.36',THENCE N87014'45"W 503.76',THENCE S02°30'10"W 130.00', THENCE N87014'45"W 644.08'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 10.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. Ord. Pg. 3 PORTION TO BE REZONED RSF-4: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT' BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS N02°21'23"E 410.36', AND 887°14'45"E 644.08' FROM AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE N02°30'10"E 130.00', THENCE S87°14'45"E 503.76', THENCE N02°08'46"E 428.36', THENCE S87°20'54"E [56.52', THENCE 802°12'08"W 309.20', THENCE N87°14'57"W 26.21', THENCE S02°08'46"W 249.44', THENCE N87°14'45"W 634.58' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.36 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF - WAY OF RECORD. PORTION TO BE REZONED RSF-4: A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT' BEGINNING AT AN EXISTING REBAR MARKING TI -IF SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FOR'T'Y ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE N02°21'25"E 410.36', THENCE S87°! 4'45"E 644.08', THENCE S02°30'10"W 410.73', THENCE N87°12'44"W 643.04' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGIITS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. i4i June 18, 2012 Planning Commission City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Bates _ Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering & Surveying 91 W. Colt Square Suite 3/ Fayetteville, AR 72703 PH: 479-442-9350 * FAX: 479-521-9350 www.nwabatesinc.com RE: First National Bank of Wynne Wedington Property Rezoning Dear Commissioners, This letter is to fulfill the requirements of item 5 on the rezoning application. We are proposing to rezone the property from RPZD to CS,RO, NC and RSF-4. a. Current property owner: First National Bank of Wynne.; there are no pending sales. b. The zoning change is needed in order to bring the property to a more conforming use than what the residential zoning allows. The zoning change is needed in order to replace the expired RPZD with a more conforming zoning. c. With both commercial and residential development expanding to the West along Wedington, this property should conform with surrounding properties in terms of land use, traffic, appearance, and signage. d. A 30" sewer main is located West of the property. An 18" water main is located on the site along the north, as well as a 12" water main along Broyles Ave., and an 8" main along 46°' Ave. e. This property conforms with the City's future land use plan for this area. f The zoning change is needed in order to update the expired RPZD and get the property out of "Zoning Limbo." g. The rezoning from RPZD to CS, RO, NC and RSF-4 will increase traffic but with Broyles Ave. on the West and N. 46`h Ave. in the East, access management will decrease the potential for danger and congestion. h. The proposed commercial zoning will reduce the population density should decrease the load on public services. The proposed residential zoning will conform with all neighboring properties and should not cause an undesirable increase the load on public services. i. Since the current RPZD zoning has expired, it is not possible for the new owner to use the existing property. Due to the location and nature of construction along Wedington, Community Services and RSF-4 zoning appears to be a more appropriate use for the site. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Bates & Associates, Inc. co REZONING EXHIBIT UWLALtvsas P (L Ifl -,5 5 -aw - a i_ n s 1t ee .cns ♦/ 4 ci ^� i s 4i�n,i 1 I Departmental Correspondence Kit Williams City Attorney TO: Planning Commissioners Jason B. Kelley Assistant City Attorney CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, Senior Current Planner FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: May 11, 2012 RE: Expired PZD's must be rezoned upon owner's request When a PZD has expired, the property owner loses all development rights on his property until it is rezoned. Almost all of a property's real worth and value is in its development rights. This loss of all of a property's development rights would constitute a government taking of the property requiring our taxpayers to pay the reasonable value of the property (very large amount of money) except the property owner must first "exhaust his remedies" by asking for a rezoning. As long as the rezoning is granted by the City Council, no regulatory taking has occurred. However, if the property owner's request to rezone the property out of its "zombie" status (unusable and undevelopable) is just denied and the property is not rezoned into some developable zoning district, the property owner would probably have a textbook case of inverse condemnation or regulatory taking. This must not be allowed to occur. Because the new owner of the property zoned for the now defunct Woodstock PZD has requested rezoning, the Planning Commission should recommend what you believe is appropriate zoning. If you get stuck on how it should be zoned now, please just recommend that the City Council rezone it back to the zoning it had prior to the approval of the PZD. The City Council MUST rezone this property either to its prior zoning district or to the zoning district or districts that would conform to state law purposes and the 2030 Long Range Plan. Just denying the property owner's requested rezoning is a recipe for disaster and must not happen. When the Planning Commission is considering whether or not to recommend approval of a rezoning request, the City Planning Division presents useful information from various city departments that cover issues included with the City's 2030 Long Range Plan. This document was the result of many public hearings and much input from citizens, staff, commissioners and council members. However, "A land use plan is meant to be just that — a plan. It is not legally binding on the city." Taylor v. City of Little Rock, 583 S.W. 2d 72, 73 (1979). State Statutes authorize cities to prepare zoning and development plans and list nine purposes or goals that these plans may promote: "1. Efficiency and economy in the process of development; 2. The appropriate and best use of land; 3. Convenience of traffic and circulation of people and goods; 4. Safety from fire and other dangers; 5. Adequate light and air in the use and occupancy of buildings; 6. Healthful and convenient distribution of population; 7. Good civic design and arrangement; 8. Adequate public utilities and facilities; and 9. Wise and efficient expenditure of funds." A.C.A. § 14-56-403 (b). The appellate courts of Arkansas have recognized and approved many different factors that a Planning Commission can consider when a proposed rezoning is contested. Public Opposition "Opposition by a large majority of the citizens in the neighborhood" Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). "The Opinion of local residents, when it reflects logical and reasonable concerns ...." City of Lowellv. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). "Some of the residents (of the area) objected .... Tanner v. City of Green Forest (1990). 2. Traffic "Increased traffic on limited roads" City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). "Increased risk of traffic accidents" Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). 04 Noise City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). Decreased value of adjoining land City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). Potential for criminal activity Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). Increased litter Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). Strain on Sewage service Tanner v. City of Green Forest (1990). 8. Spot zoning "The need to maintain consistent zoning area, and not to set a precedent of spot zoning .... (T)he property was entirely surrounded by a residential area, and that the residents objected .... " Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena, 310 Ark. 682, 839 S.W. 2d 523, 525 (1992). "Spot zoning has been defined by several authorities. It has been said that: ` Spot zoning, by definition, is invalid because it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable treatment of a limited area within a particular district. As such, it departs from the comprehensive treatment or privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment. Spot zoning almost invariably involves a single parcel or at least a limited area.' R. Wright and S. Webber, Land Use (1978)." Riddell v. City of Brinkley, 612 S.W. 2d 116, 117 (1981). "(S)pot zoning includes zoning one lot in a manner entirely different from the surrounding area .... " Smith v. City of Little Rock, 279 Ark. 4, 648 S.W. 2d 454, 457 (1983). However, the most recent case I could find referring to "spot zoning" {Camden Community Development Corp. v. Sutton, 339 Ark. 368, 5 S.W. 3`d 439, 443 (1999)} cast doubt on Professor Wright's quoted statement that "Spot zoning, by definition, is invalid ...." Finally, a proponent of a rezoning will often argue that he or she is entitled to a rezoning in order to put the property to its "highest and best use" from a monetary viewpoint. The benefit to the owner of a proposed rezoning may certainly be considered, "(h)owever, we have held that rezoning is not justified solely on the ground that it is necessary to put a particular tract to its most remunerative use." Tanner v. City of Green Forest, 302 Ark. 170, 788 S.W. 2d 727, 729 (1990). (emphasis added). CONCLUSION/SUMMARY Factors that may be considered in rezoning issues: 1. 2030 Plan objectives 2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable 3. Traffic 4. Safety and Fire protection 5. Good civic design and efficiency 6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water) 7. Noise 8. Litter 9. Decrease in value of adjoining land 10. Appropriate and best use of land 11. Compatibility with adjacent zones (spot zoning) 4 a e eville Y AAKANSA5 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: May °>z�' 2O1 2 Updated May 16 2012 PC Meeting of May 14, 2012 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 RZN 12-4108: Rezone (4847 W. WEDINGTON DR./BANK OF WYNNE, 438): Submitted by BATES AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 4847 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (R-PZD 07-2576 WOODSTOCK) and RSF-4 and contains approximately 31.68 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE. BACKGROUND: Planner: Andrew Garner The subject property consists of approximately 31.68 acres located on the south side of Wedington Drive (State Highway 16) between 46`h Street and Broyles Avenue. The site is zoned R-PZD 07- 2576 (Woodstock) and RSF-4, and is generally flat hay pasture with trees along the fence rows. The property is generally undeveloped except for two residences, one in the northwest corner and the other in the southeast corner of the site. The surrounding zoning and land use are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use/Zonina Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Single family residences; Ozark Electric facility, Duplexes R -A; RSF-4; RT-12 South Single family residences RSF-4; R -A East Single family residences R -A West Pasture R -A History: On October 2, 2007 the City Council approved the Woodstock Planned Zoning District on the subject property (R-PZD 07-2551). The property was originally zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The R-PZD zoning permitted a total of 382 dwellings and 100,390 square feet of non- residential square feet. Construction permits for the project were never obtained and the R-PZD approval has expired. Within the past year, the Future Land Use Plan designation on this site changed, scaling back the City Neighborhood Area on this site from the entire Wedington Drive street frontage to the northwest comer of the site. PZD Revocation: If an approved PZD expires the property does not automatically revert back to the GIETCIDevelopmenl Services Reviewl201 ADevelopnenl Review)/1-3807 RZNSW Corner of Razorback Rd /5/h St (Champion Club Condo's)103 Planning Commission 105-09-20111 Comments and Redlines original zoning. The property is unable to be developed or subdivided until the old PZD zoning is revoked and a new, valid zoning district is assigned. Proposal: The property owner, the First National Bank of Wynne, proposes to rezone 9.08 acres from R-PZD 07-2576 Woodstock to CS, Community Services and 22.60 acres from R-PZD 07-2576 Woodstock to RSF-4, Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre. The areas of the site for the proposed rezoning are depicted on the attached survey provided by the applicant. Public Comment: Staff has not received public comment on this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of RZN 12-4108 (Woodstock) finding that the proposed rezoning request is not consistent with the City Plan 2030 Future Land Use designation of this site. The Future Land Use Plan Designates a majority of this site as Residential Neighborhood, and confines the City Neighborhood designation in the northwest portion of the site around the intersection of Broyles and Wedington. The applicant proposes to rezone their entire frontage along Wedington (about 820 feet of street frontage, 300 feet deep, 9.08 acres) to Community Services. In addition, the proposal to rezone 22.60 acres of undeveloped pasture on the edge of the developed area of the City could encourage a sprawling development pattern in conflict with the primary goals of City Plan 2030: Goal 2: We will discourage suburban sprawl, and Goal 3: We will make traditional town form the standard. This is discussed in more detail in the findings throughout the staff report. PLANNING Date: May 14.2012 ACTION: Required YES ❑ Tabled Motion: Chesser Second: Bunch Notes: Forwarded with a reconunent in place prior to the R-PZD, which N CITY COUNCIL ACTION: X Forwarded Vote: 7-1-0 (Hoskins voted 'no') Required YES ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Denied CITY PLAN 2030 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates the northwest portion of this site near the intersection of Wedington Road and Broyles Avenue as City Neighborhood Area and a majority of the site, including about half of the site's frontage on Wedington as a Residential Neighborhood Area. G:IETCIDevelopmenl Services Reviewl101I Development Reviewl11-3807 RZN SW Corner of Razorback Rd_15th St (Champion Club Condo's)103 Planning Commission 105-09-201 11Comments and Redlines City Neighborhood Areas are more densely developed than residential neighborhood areas and provide a varying mix of nonresidential and residential uses. This designation supports the widest spectrum ofuses and encourages density in all housing types, from single family to multifamily. Non residential uses range in size, variety and intensity from grocery stores and offices to churches, and are typically located at corners and along connecting corridors... Setbacks and landscaping are urban inform with street trees typically being located within the sidewalk zone. Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and support a variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context, including single family multifamily and row - houses... It also encourages traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity non-residential uses intended to serve the surrounding neighborhood, such as retail and offices, on corners and along connecting corridors. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The site has access to Wedington Drive, Broyles Avenue, and 46th Street. Wedington Drive has been recently improved to a five -lane state highway with a 10 -foot wide asphalt trail adjacent to this site. Broyles Avenue is an improved two-lane Minor Arterial roadway with a turn lane at Wedington, and 46th Street is an unimproved Collector street adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. Street improvements would be evaluated at the time of development. Water: Public water is available to the property. There is an 18 -inch water main on the south side of Wedington, a 12 -inch water main on the east side of Broyles and an 8 -inch water main on the west side of 46th Street. Public water main improvements may need to be extended through the property to provide domestic and fire flow for any proposed development. Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available adjacent to the site. There is a 6 -inch main on the east side of 46th Street. Public sewer main improvements may need to be extended through the property at the time of development. The capacity of the existing main will need to be evaluated to ensure adequate capacity. Drainage: Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain and the Streamside Protection Zones. Police: Staff did not receive objections from the Police Department to this rezoning. Fire: The subject property is located 1 mile from the Station No. 7 located at 835 Rupple Road with an expected response time of 2.25 minutes. No adverse impacts on call volume or response time are anticipated. G- IETCIDevelopment Services Review120111Development Reviewlll 3807 RZNSW Corner of Razorback Rd_15ih St (Champion Club Condo's)103 Planning Commission105-09-20111Comments and Redlines 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 not consistent with the land use planning objectives, principles and policies. About half of this site's street frontage is designated as Residential Neighborhood Area and is proposed to be rezoned to CS, Community Services. The City's Future Land Use Plan intends more intense and dense uses along this stretch of Wedington to be concentrated around the node of the Broyles Avenue/Wedington Drive intersection, not along the entire 800 -foot street frontage of this site. The applicant's proposal is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation. This proposal extends the potential for non-residential, commercial, and multi -family uses along the entire property frontage at a depth of approximately 300 feet deep. This shape of the boundary appears to encourage a highway commercial strip center pattern which is not consistent with the City's land use planning objectives. With the recent adoption of City Plan 2030 less than a year ago, there was discussion and a modification to the Future Land Use Plan map to reduce the area of this particular site that was classified as City Neighborhood area. The boundary of City Neighborhood area on City Plan extends down Broyles Avenue approximately 700 feet to encourage the more intense and dense uses to allow for the potential of a square - back street and a more traditional neighborhood commercial pattern instead of a commercial strip center pattern. The proposed rezoning would allow commercial and multi -family dwellings along the entire Wedington frontage rather than limit these more intense uses in a compact pattern at the busier corner location. This is not consistent with the Guiding Policies for City Neighborhood Areas. The intent is not to have one continuous strip of commercial development along arterials/highways, but rather to have defined nodes primarily at corner locations, and transition in the land use transect along the corridor consistent with City Plan Goal 3 to "... make traditional town form the standard." Additionally, the proposal to rezone 22.60 acres of undeveloped pasture on the edge of the developed area of the City to RSF-4 could encourage a sprawling development pattern in conflict with some of the primary goals of City Plan 2030: Goal 2: We will discourage suburban sprawl Goal 3: We will make traditional town form the standard The RSF-4 development pattern is a suburban zoning district (not traditional) that generally yields a gross density of approximately 2.5 units per acre. This is not consistent with the intent of Residential Neighborhood Areas to have a variety of housing types. Further, the RSF-4 adjacent to CS is a rather abrupt G. IETCIDevelopment Services Review12011IDevelopment Reviewll l-3807 RZNSW Corner of Razorback Rd_15th St (Champion Club Condo'')103 Planning Commission105-09-20111 Comments and Redlines transition of land uses that may result in some compatibility issues as the property develops in the future. Staff feels that this rezoning proposal is not consistent with the overriding land use plan of the City or the Future Land Use Plan and recommends denial of the request. 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. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed rezone would not appreciably increase traffic over the existing R- PZD zoning that permitted up to 382 residences and 100,390 square feet of non- commercial space. However the R-PZD has fully expired and cannot be developed. The proposed zoning would certainly increase traffic over that existing on the largely undeveloped property. However, given this site's location at the intersection of a Principal Arterial roadway (Wedington) and a Minor Arterial (Broyles Avenue) at the site's northwest corner; the street infrastructure can safely accommodate increased traffic with street improvements required at the time of development. It should be noted that a traffic signal is anticipated at the intersection of Broyles/Wedington, and a condition of approval for the Woodstock R-PZD was payment of an assessment towards the installation of that signal. 46th Avenue is located along the site's eastern frontage is a Collector Street. 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: Increased load on public services were taken into consideration and recommendations from the Engineering, Fire, and Police Departments and are included in this report. The proposed zoning change to Community Services and RSF-4 should not have an adverse impact on public services with improvements required for development. 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: G: IETCIDevelopmen! Services Reviewl201I Development Review 11-3807 RZN SW Corner of Razorback Rd_l5th St (Champion Club Condo's)103 Planning Commission 105-09-20111 Comments and Redlines 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 denial of the request. G:IETCIDerelnlunen! Services Reviervl2gl /LDevelolunen: Reviewll l-3807 RZ V S W Corger of Rrvoebaek Rrl_ 13th .Si !(haurpion Club Cwulo c)I03 Plnrnring CummissiartlOS-lL-?01 ] IConnnems pud ReAlines PROPOSED ZONING 161.07 District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit8 Single-family dwellings Unit41 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 5 Government facilities Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12 Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 44 Cottage Housing Development (C) Density. Single-family dwellings Two-family dwellings Units per acre 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. dwelling unit (F) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 15 ft. 5ft. 15 ft. (F) Building height regulations. G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review12011IDevelopment Review111-3807 RZNSW Corner of Razorback Rd_15lh St (Champion Club Condo'sJ103 Planning Commission 105-09-2 01 71 Comments and Redlines Building Height Maximum 45 ft. II Height regulations. Structures in this District are limited to a building height of45 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-I6-98; Ord. No.4178, 8-31-99; Ord 4858, 4-18-06; Ord. 5028,6-19-07; Ord.5128,4-15-08; Ord. 5224,3-3-09; Ord. 5312,4-20-10; Ord. 5462, 12-6-11) 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 I City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 13 Eating places Unit 15 Neighborhood Shopping goods Unit 18 Gasoline service stations and drive- in/drive through restaurants Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Offices, studios and related services Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 44 Cottage Housing Development 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 oods Unit 17 Transportation, trades and services Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites G:I ETCIDevelopment Sen ices Review120111Developmeni Reviewl11-3807 RZN SW Corner of Razorback Rd 5th St (Champion Club Condo's)103 Planning Commissionl05-09-26111Comments and Redlines 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. (1) Lot width minimum. Dwelling 18 ft. All others None (2) Lot area minimum. None (E) Setback regulations. Front: The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between 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; Ord -5462,12 -6 -II) G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120)1IDevelopment Reviewlll-3807 RZNSW Corner of Razorback Rd_15th Si (Champion Club Condo''S) 03 Planning Commissionl05-09-20111 Comments and Redlines 166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) (L) Revocation. (1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances: (a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed. (b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased master development plan schedule as stated in the approved development plan. (c) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components. Planning staff may report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of each quarter, so that the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued. (2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted. (3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued issuance of building permits. G: Ib7CDevelopment Services Reviewl201 11Developmenl Reviewlll-3X07 RZN SW Corner of Razorback Rd 15th St (Champion Club Condo's)103 Planning Commission105-09-20111 Comments and Redlines Date 4/24/12 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 comments on proposed RZN 12-4108 (4847 W. Wedington Drive / Bank of Wynne, 438) submitted by Bates and Associates for property located at 4847 W. Wedington Drive. 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 will not create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion. Sincerely, Captain William Brown Fayetteville Police Department Bates Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering & Surveying 91 W. Colt Square Suite 3/ Fayetteville, AR 72703 PH: 479-442-9350 * FAX: 479-521-9350 www.nwabatesinc.com April 25, 2012 Planning Commission City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: First National Bank of Wynne Wedington Property Rezoning Dear Commissioners, This letter is to fulfill the requirements of item 5 on the rezoning application. We are proposing to rezone the property from RPZD to CS and RSF-4. a. Current property owner: First National Bank of Wynne.; there are no pending sales. b. The zoning change is needed in order to bring the property that fronts Wedington Drive to a more conforming use than what the residential zoning allows. The zoning change is needed on the back portion in order to replace the expired RPZD with a more conforming RSF-4 zoning. c. With both commercial and residential development expanding to the West along Wedington, this property should conform with surrounding properties in terms of land use, traffic, appearance, and signage. d. A 30" sewer main is located West of the property. An 18" water main is located on the site along the north, as well as a 12" water main along Broyles Ave., and an 8" main along 46'h Ave. e. This property conforms with the City's future land use plan for this area. f. The zoning change is needed in order to update the expired RPZD and get the property out of "Zoning Limbo." g. The rezoning from RPZD to CS and RSF-4 will increase traffic but with Broyles Ave. on the West and N. 46'" Ave. in the East, access management will decrease the potential for danger and congestion. h. The proposed commercial zoning will reduce the population density should decrease the load on public services. The proposed residential zoning will conform with all neighboring properties and should not cause an undesirable increase the load on public services. i. Since the current RPZD zoning has expired, it is not possible for the new owner to use the existing property. Due to the location and nature of construction along Wedington, Community Services and RSF-4 zoning appears to be a more appropriate use for the site. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Bates & Associates, Inc. REZONING EXHIBIT I 44 aeR�a Iii A. \ I 5260 000 PARCEL 33�5 162e1 OQO 1 V A - v,�RCR, psi tB26)-ucq P1ROf� 105 .102E 000 � 1 i r :I rF^ a= JJ rh - ICONE 0' 100' 200' 300' 1 �f 55 r Existing Zoning (Expired) Woodstock R-PZD 07-257 N § E 0 O Existing Zoning (Expired) - - ' ' — W W w '� • • • • • • • • • 4 a s s a Woodstock R-PZD 07-2576 pg. 2 of 5 I — z w a O w w 0 w U) LU LN r a IC /w V z z z J a VI Dl 10 C. $ � 8 'a J Is;Hj. a � t' 'g 9 '3 g I . cLL i33 YS _i E L° a m� e g1a1 E flvoo �°,�7 n n`ry EE5 H.+m Nc�n .ag bb ocR w .d F'n 8t�c hdh O $ y E 119 jhr ny'.L g '= a g g'sL3p7E a r" O m . g yg°�¢'snV 36 QQ 90 cii��yr�a 3is a LL20 �•_ Oz ui � L7�' a �N 2 uqw 2v�n"b plfiS ;,s@�'I�n it Si1_£s�ng�a p�Ctr� € g�c 2 P i� .i Yii f G Aab�bq E b E �i &ir �, Nice Jl 8q li ° Wry p ryg � n � tltl Qpp y g i19. iB>u''gg y�� uQS '�'S W fl LL a3 �da SV Eb �v n Q'm aB 0Yn E �gim g E �'R� cc2 aq �_S IIsgpnY:g J-° m @ 3 4� -. • e }� . $ .t W:IitiHi =5u' to �y'a nd' ' nm'nWrmo-�nmN O a 1p a �.v 1l.n�Mwnl`iNN VnPN Ea $_ w mE u' n O9 00 J OO as E Existing Zoning (Expired) Woodstock R-PZD 07-2576 nn 3 f5`°� HIHJU I �,��gFs g q l � I � � q CJ ab cog W J E s g g5a U) O N fVC GC C Y 9 5 m c $u£ CV m ^� A`S' c agcEE $ 5 dCc fI N ° W sn o =fig QE g asp agv i �Q^ L d . EEE v °�8 SE rn i°ER _ ��qq <o a �w j!ith t c �i rna c g' Z Q v E gig' 9 vcN Y�gZ Q ' pp b k.:Q6 OO y� l` c Ifi Z W LLOF U'S LA W9Ga3?m 2✓i =z -in Yi> $a ipia � fd. hulLq y".Ef�g v&#gg.�i4il.h EE�`a Ec Os •�+iYi'.y'AC eta mnwp R §YE ii yy y�^ff� c'SH5�g rn ,',C NL� 3A � y� .3 111181 SZ°g E.uyxp B.�Ci S° ,�° b89 °N 2.° a�€RC AC EE#gAE ;L nil C s�"99a!_ agb �' $ .E0E y2�6L, Tj 32 *3F g fip8 c y m E y3y „PP{{ppy¢QQSaq�� CL U g U ¢�Ey` I d B E o E �o' b Q» m»» �S ❑ S E of O x FL F. O C 0 C m a 0 - St a M Existing Zoning (Expired) Woodstock n- 07-2576 pg. 4 of 5 J a w w J z Mw IC cc z z Q J a r c 3 E E 0 O YU O N 7 L a� I N •, I ft q�.� 1;'1ilt ['I p �Ecr� 1 i'-'" 0" > fig._ qL' c p N L m rnEin aE j di�C�i�GI iI o�'yyo EQ �.m.�i.�immo N 100 3 0g'a; In8P� � tm0o ONC Q$• g �a �b l m v rn �g rn vg ado ' a= Q= m a' r =P1 ��am = =-N A� LL O LL t¢ 5° d n d o .� S N= 3 q n m - e t 2 8 OI � Jv !n o 2 c p]c ��' M as 4 cGoE'o fn Cl Cl C.wj •Cn win LL CD, ,n rc Sin —vr X$22 Y3 JE�i' 3 Kid _ gg$�a�i .3 m t `d n vn cE ctij oti °,8 c� c { E iI - ag :EF2 CJ }Bd- °� tJ BL.ly�i E�,�n pv�� yT go i• nn ai grn'- m -n �T g'a�gvj !Rn E giaSv E ° o yy yI �g ,r'Y aa � �L° 8E �'#flH�5 9v r4§5„ Lc BEd yI r, N j Ta x.E Ym�e S se c y I� xi N J gig 0 N ❑ 9 ° ❑ b 550 f 3 3i E!!1U 1 N Ol N CO) ro E a o v v e 09 UUp Uj U an a,v ro n 0 Na�n Existing Zoning (Expired) Woodstock R-PZD 07-2576 pg. 5 of 5 a 0 I- C/) a O O a C, z O J m er Q W cc _z z z J a 3 E E 0 B I III E o gift° d s- N ¢ ¢ M Q a S c Q � iiU LQfl vi�J � _cry ��e �a i..≥Qw =� _� X533 `A0 J2 � 0- b o Ag N W c w (yyJJ iq 8 q N O V Ey Ol gmR wAB9_a Ng b E'm 20 c 3 ra q i 4 RR u4 y o o N yin �ye 8c '5c Z' qyoyq Oa qO NO s X UAy' !. D C p ao��e ns8€ A E 90 q£a wu n u.8Za ma E W JS a$ T.Macao m cgSE U fl'g V E 3 u a Iii SSSS y � L G SE ou° 5 I L? u man d a > gam � w wg�$$ 8 xy°y��'Yn85 aO1 (jNy z ''�' . J " m i5 W 9 e J � RR q d gg ,de�rr F':5 cm3 53'3�� cc �5 5 d < uy ° Qoo m U OLLi� na • as S a a. a a", a,a,a a e w r _ _ RZN 12-4108 Close Up View f _CANNONDALt°� I 1259 BANK OF WYNNE PRESCOTTST 1 .rl �.I f•1�'I� I. TIR,A .•. ... .... n -... •�.•...� I II TUMBLEWEED ST II Legend Multi -Use Trait (Exist[ ) Future Trails --: Fayetteville City Limits II ZN12-4108 Footprints 2010 Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District [_ ! Design Overlay Di trict Design Overlay Di trict W a RSF-4 SUBJECT PROPERTY HOMESPUN DR RENEE CT -. FRANCISCAN TRL LRfl i ACOMAST V qq 7 ,1 _- 3 L IpJI L r' rr , RMF-24 I LUTTRELLLN I LOFTY WOOD DR N J W w f• '� FLAGSTICK DR I2 0 125 250 500 750 1.000 ------ Planning Area Feet RZN12-4108 BANK OF WYNNE Future Land Use IPRIVATE 1259 `�I FRANCISCAN TRL L++ O SUBJECT PROPERTY ACOMAST O (9 � m Legend II LU17RELLLN • ....: RTulli•t191'(P�t�5ting) ••' •••••• Future Trails FP 4Jl &S7 its ih O RZN12-4108 LOFTY WOOD nR FUTURE LAND USE 2030 CLASS Natural Areait p 1O Rural Area HOMESPUN DR w FLAGSTICK DA Residential Neighborhood Area g j City Neighborhood Area an Center Area Ij TRAIL DUSTS T ! _I 46mplete Neighborhood PI n Civic and Private Open SE a/Parks Civic Institutional Non -Municipal Government ROW Design Overlay District Design Overlay District 0 150 300 600 900 1,200 ----• Planning Area Feet Departmental Correspondence Kit Williams City Attorney TO: Mayor Jordan Jason B. Kelley Assistant City Attorney City Council CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorneyq"( DATE: May 30, 2012 RE: Woodstock Rezoning and Cleveland Street Project PZD Zoning and Planned Zoning District considerations I have been providing Aldermen the legal factors they can consider when determining whether or not to approve a PZD or zoning request for over a decade. When the City Council first began considering whether or not to approve a PZD, I provided the attached memo on May 22, 2003. It is still correct today. Please especially read the section entitled "Voting" to ensure that I can effectively defend any decision the City Council will make. When the land now zoned PZD (Woodstock) was presented to the Planning Commission, I gave them the attached memo of May 11, 2012, stating that the property owner had the legal right to have his property zoned away from the defunct PZD into a developable zone. The City Council needs to rezone this property to the best possible zoning district or districts after considering all of the relevant factors. You can weigh many factors to determine what is the best zoning district or districts for this property. You should certainly consider the 2030 Plan, but it is only one of many factors to consider when determining the proper zoning. It is also proper to consider the desires of the property owner, the appropriate and best use of the property, traffic issues, good civil design and arrangement and the other factors detailed in my May 1 1th memo. All of these factors are proper considerations both for the Cleveland Street Apartment Project PZD and the defunct Woodstock PZD property whose new owner requests rezoning into various zoning districts: Community Services, Neighborhood Services, Neighborhood Conservation, Resident Single Family, 4 units per acre and Residential Multi - Family, 24 units per acre. CONCLUSION If any Alderman desires to vote against a proposed rezoning or PZD approval, please explain your opposition based upon one or more of the factors approved by the Supreme Court: 1. 2030 Plan objectives 2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable 3. Traffic 4. Safety and Fire protection 5. Good civic design and efficiency 6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water) 7. Noise 8. Litter 9. Decrease in value of adjoining land 10. Appropriate and best use of land 11. Compatibility with adjacent zones (spot zoning) 2 Departmental Correspondence Kit Williams City Attorney TO: Planning Commissioners Jason B. Kelley Assistant City Attorney CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, Senior Current Planner FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney �= DATE: May 11, 2012 RE: Expired PZD's must be rezoned upon owner's request When a PZD has expired, the property owner loses all development rights on his property until it is rezoned. Almost all of a property's real worth and value is in its development rights. This loss of all of a property's development rights would constitute a government taking of the property requiring our taxpayers to pay the reasonable value of the property (very large amount of money) except the property owner must first "exhaust his remedies" by asking for a rezoning. As long as the rezoning is granted by the City Council, no regulatory taking has occurred. However, if the property owner's request to rezone the property out of its "zombie" status (unusable and undevelopable) is just denied and the property is not rezoned into some developable zoning district, the property owner would probably have a textbook case of inverse condemnation or regulatory taking. This must not be allowed to occur. Because the new owner of the property zoned for the now defunct Woodstock PZD has requested rezoning, the Planning Commission should recommend what you believe is appropriate zoning. If you get stuck on how it should be zoned now, please just recommend that the City Council rezone it back to the zoning it had prior to the approval of the PZD. The City Council MUST rezone this property either to its prior zoning district or to the zoning district or districts that would conform to state law purposes and the 2030 Long Range Plan. Just denying the property owner's requested rezoning is a recipe for disaster and must not happen. When the Planning Commission is considering whether or not to recommend approval of a rezoning request, the City Planning Division presents useful information from various city departments that cover issues included with the City's 2030 Long Range Plan. This document was the result of many public hearings and much input from citizens, staff, commissioners and council members. However, "A land use plan is meant to be just that — a plan. It is not legally binding on the city." Taylor v. City of Little Rock, 583 S.W. 2d 72, 73 (1979). State Statutes authorize cities to prepare zoning and development plans and list nine purposes or goals that these plans may promote: "1. Efficiency and economy in the process of development; 2. The appropriate and best use of land; 3. Convenience of traffic and circulation of people and goods; 4. Safety from fire and other dangers; 5. Adequate light and air in the use and occupancy of buildings; 6. Healthful and convenient distribution of population; 7. Good civic design and arrangement; 8. Adequate public utilities and facilities; and 9. Wise and efficient expenditure of funds." A.C.A. §14-56-403 (b). The appellate courts of Arkansas have recognized and approved many different factors that a Planning Commission can consider when a proposed rezoning is contested. Public Opposition "Opposition by a large majority of the citizens in the neighborhood" Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). "The Opinion of local residents, when it reflects logical and reasonable concerns ...." City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). "Some of the residents (of the area) objected .... Tanner v. City of Green Forest (1990). 2. Traffic "Increased traffic on limited roads" City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). "Increased risk of traffic accidents" Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). PA Noise City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). 4. Decreased value of adjoining land City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). Potential for criminal activity Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). Increased litter Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). Strain on Sewage service Tanner v. City of Green Forest (1990). 8. Spot zoning "The need to maintain consistent zoning area, and not to set a precedent of spot zoning .... (T)he property was entirely surrounded by a residential area, and that the residents objected .... " Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena, 310 Ark. 682, 839 S.W. 2d 523, 525 (1992). "Spot zoning has been defined by several authorities. It has been said that: ` Spot zoning, by definition, is invalid because it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable treatment of a limited area within a particular district. As such, it departs from the comprehensive treatment or privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment. Spot zoning almost invariably involves a single parcel or at least a limited area.' R. Wright and S. Webber, Land Use (1978)." Riddell v. City of Brinkley, 612 S.W. 2d 116, 117 (1981). "(S)pot zoning includes zoning one lot in a manner entirely different from the surrounding area .... " Smith v. City of Little Rock, 279 Ark. 4, 648 S.W. 2d 454, 457 (1983). However, the most recent case I could find referring to "spot zoning" (Camden Community Development Corp. v. Sutton, 339 Ark. 368, 5 S.W. 3`d 439, 443 (1999)} cast doubt on Professor Wright's quoted statement that "Spot zoning, by definition, is invalid ...." Finally, a proponent of a rezoning will often argue that he or she is entitled to a rezoning in order to put the property to its "highest and best use" from a monetary viewpoint. The benefit to the owner of a proposed rezoning may certainly be considered, "(h)owever, we have held that rezoning is not justified solely on the ground that it is necessary to put a particular tract to its most remunerative use." Tanner v. City of Green Forest, 302 Ark. 170, 788 S.W. 2d 727, 729 (1990). (emphasis added). CONCLUSION/SUMMARY Factors that may be considered in rezoning issues: 1. 2030 Plan objectives 2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable 3. Traffic 4. Safety and Fire protection 5. Good civic design and efficiency 6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water) 7. Noise 8. Litter 9. Decrease in value of adjoining land 10. Appropriate and best use of land 11. Compatibility with adjacent zones (spot zoning) l8 FAYETTE I LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: May 22, 2003 RE: City Council Considerations for Planned Zoning Districts (PZD's) Since you are now considering a PZD for Lowe's and will consider the St. Joseph property for a Planned Zoning District at your next meeting, I thought you might like a short summary of issues that are appropriate for your consideration of these requests. A Planned Zoning District includes approval of both a zoning change and a large-scale development. Thus, all zoning considerations as well as considerations relevant to LSD approval are relevant. You legally have much more discretion for the zoning part of the PZD decision. Therefore, my recommendation is that if you do not believe a Planned Zoning District should be passed, you should refer primarily to problems with changing the zoning rather than problems in the Large Scale Development when explaining why you are voting against any Planned Zoning District. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS 1. 20/20 Plan objectives 2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable 3. Traffic 4. Safety and Fire protection 5. Good civic design and efficiency 6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water) 7. Noise 8. Litter 9. Decrease in value of adjoining land 10. Appropriate and best use of land 11. Compatibility with adjacent zones(spot zoning) "Spot Zoning" has been recognized by state courts as a violation of a city's comprehensive zoning plan. "The need to maintain consistent zoning area, and not to set a precedent of spot zoning. (T)he property was entirely surrounded by a residential area, and that the residents objected Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena, 310 Ark. 682, 839 S.W. 2d 523,525 (1992). "Spot zoning" has been defined by several authorities. It has been said that: "Spot Spot zoning', by definition, is invalid because it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable treatment of alimited area within a particular district. As such, it departs from the comprehensive treatment or privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment. Spot zoning almost invariably involves a single parcel or at least a limited area." R. Wright and S. Webber, Land Use (1978)." Riddell v. City of Brinkley, 612 S.W. 2d 116,117 (1981). "(S)pot zoning includes zoning one lot in a manner entirely different from the surrounding area .... " Smith v. City of Little Rock, 279 Ark. 4, 648 S.W. 2d 454,457 (1983). "Highest and best use." A proponent of a rezoning will often argue that he or she is entitled to a rezoning in order to put the property to its "highest and best use" from a monetary viewpoint. The benefit to the owner of a proposed rezoning may certainly be considered, "(h)owever, we have held that rezoning is not justified solely on the ground that it is necessary to put a particular tract to its most remunerative use." Tanner v. City of Green Forest, 302 Ark. 170, 788 S.W. 2d 727, 729 (1990). (emphasis added). LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS In the second part of your decision, you have less discretion. As long as the developer has complied with our development ordinances (you should rely upon our city staff for this analysis), the remaining issue would be whether this proposed development would compound a dangerous traffic condition. That does not mean only whether more traffic will result from a development (which would almost always be the case), but whether the existing and proposed transportation infrastructure serving the new development can handle the anticipated increased flow without causing or compounding a dangerous traffic condition. "For the purpose of this section, a 'dangerous' traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern." §166.05 7. d. (4) Unified Development Code. In that context, if you determine that parking from the proposed development would regularly and significantly overflow onto nearby, narrow streets, you might conclude that this creates or compounds a dangerous traffic condition. Traffic is also a factor to be considered in the rezoning segment of your decision (where you have greater discretion). At least two recent Arkansas Supreme Court cases relied on traffic issues to sustain a rejection of'rezoning. "Increased traffic on limited roads" City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996). "Increased risk of traffic accidents" Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992). VOTING When you state your reasons to vote for or against these PZDs and any other potentially controversial rezonings or PZDs, please refer to some of the eleven factors recognized by our Supreme court to be relevant to zoning considerations. Do not refer to things you have no control over such as the current zoning of the property when explaining any vote against the PZD. Keep in mind that most developmental issues such as compliance with the Commercial Design Standards, Tree Ordinance, Parking Lot Landscaping Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, drainage and grading regulations, etc. have already been carefully considered and approved by our Planning and Engineering Departments and Planning Commission. Your job under the PZD Ordinance is not to go back to square one to re-examine everything as a second Planning Commission. However, I believe you have the power to agree to changes in the Large Scale Development or Preliminary Plat contrary to the precise approval of the Planning Commission. You have these rights now on appeal from Planning Commission decisions on LSDs and Preliminary Plats. I believe the City Council may judiciously approve changes (if consistent with our ordinances). Most changes should also be acceptable to the developer/proponent. Changes unacceptable to the developer equate with a rejection of the project and should be supported by reasons sufficient to reject the whole PZD (without the changes). Please feel free to call upon me at the meeting prior to moving to accept or reject the PZD request to clarify any factors or issues presented in this memo. P44i 0-14 ad of a tJet ,, *-J /2ZN 'a -q,08 (4187 A), 4),,,kr,gtsri Ur, f REZONING EXHIBIT V. •SOLYGIU\"MIVF F, A WI NflItL tw-iOCO.Uw 3168 CAtS +1— a+ ' al I, =1 s?�110 01Apr10 OPT )L.SB 5 " I LEGEND IF IStooTJFI5)Y5I EATS III nIPS 01(05 21*1 Al ENIIET Mc II *XPOIFOVOLEVFT 1111015 BOOK (OAF ?1*OALil1• (11500111 I MN OIL I: SISSiES 7050 0' '00. zoo' ]00' vlru<nv Nnr ORDINANCE NO. AN OR INANCE REVOKING R-PZD 07-2576 (WOODSTO ) AND REZONING 'THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED I REZONING PETIT ON RZN 12-4108, FOR APPROXIMATEL 31.68 ACRES, OCATED AT 4847 WEST WEDINGTON D VE FROM/: R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONIN DIST CT 07-2576, TO R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICCYLTURdL. BE IT ORDAINED BY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That a portion of th. pi (Woodstock) is hereby revoked becau the accordance with the approved phased �eveloj CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF described herein zoned R-PZD 07-2576 failed to obtain development permits in Section 2: That the zone S assification of the fol wing described property is hereby changed as follows: From R-P/D, Residential Planned Zoning District 07- 2576 to -A, Residential Agricultural, as shown on Exhibit. "A" and "B" attached hereto and m• Ie a part Section 3: That he official zoning map of the City of Fayettevi e, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the •.oning change provided in Section 2 above. PASSED and APPROVED this APPROVED: day of , 2012. ATTEST: By: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer RZN1 Close Up EXHIBIT "A" 108 BANK OFWYNNE PRESCOTT ST %t±'.; 1l 1 1 r h i / Rr Y y,r i4 N..} ¶.cc. 1 - _ -�_.✓' L•�l �I.. L•�- � � I S._� N.- 141, RSF4 SUBJECT TUMBLEWEED STX(Exils) Legend Multi -Use TraiFuture TrailsHOMESPUN DR F t9 FW Footprints 010 Hillside- illtop Overlay District ! Desi Overlay Di trict Dq�gn Overlay Di trict ------ laMing Area 0 125 250 500 750 1,0W-Fee1 RENEE CT r V'CISCA RL w ♦ O 7 � L� L1 IU v ACOMAST 1 r 1• a h II LUTTRELL LN LOFTY WOOD OR FLAGSTICK DR EXHIBIT "B" RZN 12-4108 A PART OF TH,E NORTHWEST QUART SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, ARKANSAS, BEI MORE PARTICUL A A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOU1S1J WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 N TH, RANGE 31 WEST, SHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE P RTICULARLY DESCRIBED A FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT AN EXISTI G REBAR MARKING THE SOUT WEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRA AND RUNNING THENCE N02°21'25 966.66', THENCE S87°20'54"E 1303.10', THyNCE S02°12'08"W 309.20',THENCE N87°1 '57"W 26.21' TO THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WA OF N. 46TH AVENUE, THENCE ALONG SAI WEST RIGHT- OF-WAY 502°08'46"\5Y249.44', THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT -\F -WAY N87°14'45"W 634.58/10 AN EXISTING REBAR, THENCE S02°30'10"W 41N73' TO AN EXISTING REBA , THENCE N87°12'44"W 643.04' TO THE POINT OF BEGI NING, CONTAINING 2/60 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENt AND RIGHTS -OF -WA' OF RECORD. NORTHWEST ARKANSAS DEMOCRATGAZETTE NORTHWESTARKANSAS THE MORNING NEWS OF SPRINGDALE HE NORTHWESTNG ARKANSAS OF TIMEROGERS TNEWSPAPERS TIMES BENTON COUNTY DAILY RECORD 212 NORTH EASTAVENUE, FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72701 1 P.O. Box 1607, 72702 1 473442/700 I WWW.NWANEWS.COM AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Karen Caler, 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 5510 Was inserted in the Regular Editions on: July 12, 2012 Publication Charges: $ 103.76 -1 - Subscribed and sworn to before me This 2.4- day of , 2012. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 1-ftolzon/ CATHY J. WILES Banton County My Commission Expires February 20, 2014 _� **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. RECEIVED JUL 2 6 2012 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE