No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORDINANCE 5972113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 5972 File Number: 2017-0207 RZN 17-5733 (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR.): I IIIIIII IIIIII III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VI II VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII Doc ID: 017493520003 Type: REL Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 06/15/2017 at 02:19:52 PM Fee Amt: $25.00 Page 1 of 3 Washington County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk File2017_00018069 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 17- 5733 FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.79 ACRES LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CROSSOVER ROAD AND HEARTHSTONE DRIVE FROM R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE TO NS -G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, GENERAL BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section I. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map (Exhibit A) and the legal description (Exhibit B) both attached to the Planning Department's Agenda Memo from R -O, Residential Office, and RSF-4, Residential Single Family to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General. 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. PASSED and APPROVED on 5/16/2017 Attest: 4a, S, L& Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer *�%,ti1411I 11f'r,f1 I Y 0F •. FAYEn0ALLE. Page 1 Printed on 5/17/17 RZN 17-5733 CP PROPERTIES 17-5733 Close up view EXHIBIT 'A' E 0 LADELLE PL R-0 z X a w z r c- co Subject Property HEARTHSTONE DR R -A f ® RSF-4 f f f f f f WATERSTONE OR NORTH Legend - - -f Planning Area Residential -Agricultural Fa Fayetteville Cit Limits Y Y Feet RSF-4 Shared Use Paved Trail Residential -Office Trail (Proposed) 0 75 150 300 450 600 Building Footprint 1 inch = 200 feet 17-5733 EXHIBIT 'B' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PROPOSED ZONING: CS) Lots 1 & 2 of Final Plat of Stonewood Subdivision, Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per the recorded plat in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. Subject to restrictions, easements and right-of-ways of record. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 06/15/2017 02:19:52 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number -00 8 69 Kyle Sylvest( - Circ C I e by City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Text File File Number: 2017-0207 Agenda Date: 5/16/2017 Version: 1 In Control: City Council Meeting Agenda Number: B. 1 RZN 17-5733 (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR.): AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED 17-5733 FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.79 ACRES LOCATED AT CROSSOVER ROAD AND HEARTHSTONE DRIVE FROM R -O, RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE SERVICES, GENERAL 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Status: Passed File Type: Ordinance IN REZONING PETITION RZN SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND TO NS -G, NEIGHBORHOOD 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 property shown on the map (Exhibit A) and the legal description (Exhibit B) both attached to the Planning Department's Agenda Memo from R -O, Residential Office, and RSF-4, Residential Single Family to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General. 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. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 511712017 Andrew Garner Submitted By 4 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2017-0207 Legistar File ID 5/2/2017 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 4/14/2017 City Planning / Development Services Department Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: RZN 17-5733: Rezone (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR./CP PROPERTIES, 099): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at the SE CORNER OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR. The properties are zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 1.79 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NS -G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, GENERAL. Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? NA Budget Impact: Current Budget Funds Obligated Current Balance Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Comments: Fund Project Title Approval Date: v20140710 CITY OF Fay%Zg—Ile CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO KANSAS MEETING OF MAY 2, 2017 TO: Mayor, Fayetteville City Council THRU: Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner DATE: April 14, 2017 SUBJECT: RZN 17-5733: Rezone (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR./CP PROPERTIES, 099): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at the SE CORNER OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR. The properties are zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 1.79 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NS -G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, GENERAL. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance to rezone the subject property to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, as shown in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. BACKGROUND: The proposed rezoning request is for two parcels, totaling approximately 1.79 acres to the south of Hearthstone Drive and east of Crossover Road/Highway 265. The properties are currently split - zoned, with the northern portion as R -O, Residential Office, and the southern portion as RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre. The subject property and approximately 500 acres of additional land largely paralleling Crossover Road were annexed in to the City of Fayetteville in November of 1977. Subsequently, the subject property was platted as part of the larger Stonewood Subdivision in 2001, which includes approximately 100 single-family lots and 14 lots intended for residential or office development. The subject property is among the latter, but remains undeveloped. Request: The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre, and R -O, Residential -Office, to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, in order prepare the parcel for development. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which include a mixture of suburban residential development to the east, office uses to the north, and a City park and botanical gardens to the west. The proposal of NS -G zoning on the corner of a largely -improved Local Street, and a high-volume, improved Principal Arterial can create a transitional area that may be developed in a commercial or mixed-use pattern that compliments both the existing adjacent uses and existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the NS -G Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 zoning requirements allow a lower density, generally smaller building size, and lower allowed building height than the existing R -O zoning district. Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Area designation of the subject property and surrounding area. This location is consistent with the guidelines of City Plan 2030 for higher intensity non-residential use in corner locations and along connecting corridors. This is a corner property with a traffic signal on a busy arterial highway. Among the goals in City Plan 2030, the proposed rezoning represents the potential for both infill development and development in a traditional urban form pattern. Although less than one mile from Fayetteville's northern city boundary with Springdale, and thereby not generally thought of as an infill site, commercial or mixed-use development on the subject property can take full advantage of City facilities at the adjacent City park and the existing utility and road infrastructure. Similarly, despite being on a state highway (Crossover Road), the subject property's proximity to both a significant City park and a single-family subdivision presents an opportunity to create a mix of uses where residents can live, work, and play all in the same neighborhood. The NS -G zoning district encourages patterns of development that result in realizing this goal, including an expectation that buildings will be located at the corner, creating an environment appealing to pedestrians and reducing the visual impact of -parking areas, while also limiting permitted uses to those that are complementary to adjacent neighborhoods. A mixture of residential and commercial uses, which is permitted by the NS -G zoning district, is typical in a traditional urban form, with buildings addressing the street. Lastly, this area of the City has many residents, with approximately 300 single-family homes accessing Crossover Road by way of Hearthstone Drive, but lacks non-residential goods and services within walking distance. This development pattern has resulted in residents being required to drive to meet any daily needs. The FLUM designation of this area as Residential Neighborhood recognizes this issue in encouraging appropriate non-residential uses, and the applicant's proposal for NS -G at this corner location could help alleviate the lack of services in the area. The proposal appears to be well -justified from staffs point of view. The applicant has requested the zoning change to develop the property in manner that can serve the surrounding community, which is generally not as feasible under the existing RSF-4 and R -O zoning districts. The proposed NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, zoning will encourage appropriate commercial or residential development on this corner parcel in an area that has seen limited, and largely - residential development over the last two decades. The NS -G zoning district is designed primarily to promote complementary neighborhood businesses that are compatible in scale, aesthetics, and use with surrounding land uses. DISCUSSION: This item was discussed at the March 27, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, where the applicant had previously requested CS, Community Services. During the meeting a very large number of residents, predominantly from the adjacent Stonewood subdivision, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Concern was expressed over the potential for noise, odor, and light intrusion on to their properties, in addition to the possibility of decreased property values along with increased crime and traffic through the subdivision. Others cited that home purchases were made under the guise of the existing zoning on the subject property, and what could be developed within its permitted residential, office, and small-scale retail uses. Following discussion about the public comment and opposition to some of the permitted uses under the CS zoning district, the Planning Commission tabled the item in order to afford the applicant the opportunity to reconsider their request. In response to Commission and resident feedback, the applicant revised the proposal on April 6, 2017 from CS, Community Services, to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General. Large numbers of residents again spoke in opposition to the rezoning request, citing concerns similar to those shared at the March 27, 2017 meeting. The Planning Commission forwarded the applicant's request for NS -G to the City Council with a recommendation for approval by a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted 'no'. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: ■ Exhibit A ■ Exhibit B ■ Approved and Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes o 3/27/2017 Planning Commission o 4/10/2017 Planning Commission • Application • Planning Commission Staff Report 4 RZN 17-5733 Close Up View R -A Legend s ' Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint CP PROPERTIES R -O RSF-4 Feet 0 75 150 300 450 600 1 inch = 200 feet 17-5733 EXHIBIT 'A' LADELLE PL HEARTHSTONE DR WATERSTONE DR I A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office 17-5733 EXHIBIT 'B` LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PROPOSED ZONING: CSS) Lots 1 & 2 of Final Plat of Stonewood Subdivision, Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per the recorded plat in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. Subject to restrictions, easements and right-of-ways of record. 17-5733 Approved and ®raft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Approved Meeting Minutes from the 3/27/2017 Planning Commission Meeting RZN 17-5733: Rezone (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR./CP PROPERTIES, 099): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at the SE CORNER OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR. The properties are zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 1.79 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Applicant's Representative, Jorgensen & Associates: Recognizes that there is a significant amount of public comment incoming, and will strive to be brief. Notes that there is a vacation of easements proposed along Crossover and Hearthstone to ensure compliance with the zoning district's build -to -zone. Also notes that a Bill of Assurance is being considered. Kit Williams, City Attorney: States that a Bill of Assurance is not open for discussion without a property owner's signature. Public Comment: Bob Anderson, Stonewood POA, Neighbor: Has been conducting a poll of residents in the Stonewood Subdivision about support to the rezoning. The commercial lots are unanimously supporting the rezoning while the residential properties are almost unanimously opposed. While this may look like a case of "not -in -my -backyard" it is not. Everyone who bought their homes in the subdivision understood that the properties on Crossover could be developed as office, and not retail or residential. Contends that the commercial property owners will not be at a loss if the rezoning does not go through. Peter Thomason, Neighbor: While not a resident of Stonewood, lives in an adjacent subdivision. Attended the open house where the developer stated that a pizzeria was being proposed and that it would be of a high quality. Notes that an eatery is allowed by conditional use under the current zoning district. Goes on to note that the proposed CS zoning will allow for outdoor music which will remove many of the resident's property protections. States that there is nothing commercial about this area, and that it is not a commercial corridor. It is currently just grass and is compatible with the Botanical Gardens. The existing zoning does not attract a lot of traffic and does not create a lot of noise. Comments that restaurants have a high failure rate, with pizza restaurants being particularly prone to failure. Shares an article to this effect. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Notes that this is not a discussion of pizza restaurants. Thomasson: Insists that this is important as the developer told the neighbors that this is what is proposed. Addresses that the existing location of the proposed pizza restaurant is adjacent to a liquor store and behind gas station pumps. Comments that the applicant told residents there would be a Bill of Assurance and it was not presented. Williams: Comments that a Bill of Assurance has not been officially offered, but may be Thomasson: Questions the circumstances that a conditional use permit could be granted, noting that this may allow compatibility. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Notes that the conditions of a conditional use permit can be tailored to the request. Thomasson: Outlines the requirements he feels would be appropriate in a conditional use permit, including utilizing similar architecture and not adversely affecting traffic. Shares that the families in this neighborhood have clearly made a decision to locate where they are, and are not interested in an urban form. Contends that no business within 2 miles is built to the street or corner. States that it is inconsistent visually and architecturally to encourage this type of development. Paul Johnson, Neighbor: Has a question about traffic. Notes that traffic was re-routed through this neighborhood during construction of Crossover. Multiple times during this period there were safety concerns with children playing in the street. Knows that with this rezoning there will be a times when people utilize the neighborhood to travel through quickly and dangerously. Heather Hutchins, Neighbor: Lives immediately adjacent to the subject property and has significant amounts of litter to deal with. States that she is also concerned about odor, noise, and light. Provides some examples of traffic issues, particularly when the Botanical Gardens has events and parking overflows on to Hearthstone. Rosanna Zamora, Neighbor: Has serious concerns with litter on her property and there is only a fence between her land and the subject property, rather than a wall as is in place for some other adjacent properties. Robert Stevens, Neighbor: Traffic is a concern as it is difficult to get on to Hearthstone sometimes.-Notes that there are already sufficient amounts of commercial spaces on Joyce and in Springdale. The dynamics of the entire site will-be changed despite what the developer told the neighbors. Is certain that property values will be harmed and does not understand why the developer cannot go elsewhere. Jeff Canton, Neighbor: Wants to echo some of the same comments about noise, traffic, and congestion concerns. Notes that the existing signal at Hearthstone and Crossover is not highly visible and results in a lot of near accidents. Shares that he is allergic to garlic and would be negatively impacted by the smalls of a restaurant. Repeats the previous residents' comments about why the developer does not go elsewhere. Suspects the developer is just looking to make money and it should not come at the loss of their property value. Property owners will not be compensated for their loss. Thinks property owners should have been consulted earlier. Michael Brown, Neighbor: Is new the neighborhood, and made much of their decision to buy in the subdivision on the existing uses. Davis, Doris, Neighbor: Wants to draw the Commission's attention to the City's goals of creating an enduring green network, and that she feels this area ought to be protected along with the Botanical Gardens. Joe Draper, Neighbor: Shares that in other cities where he lived this same thing happened, and it adversely impacted residents. Carmen Tabor, Neighbor: Compares the displacement of families from the rezoning discussed earlier in the night to the current situation for neighbors. These residents may not have a lot of equity in their homes, and a loss of property value could be devastating. Mike Parker, Owner: Owns several of the properties along Crossover along this subdivision, and is somewhat astonished that people are upset about this rezoning. Feels that adding services to this area would improve the community and the property values. Residents have to travel over a mile to reach any services. Feels that the quality of the proposal means it will be an improvement. Zara Niederman, Resident: Although does not live in this neighborhood, he frequents the Botanical Gardens and feels that there is a value in offering services at this corner. John Logan, Neighbor: Notes that placing a pizza restaurant across from the Botanical Gardens does not create continuity. It is his opinion that services are not needed in this neighborhood, and that people can go elsewhere for their needs. Elizabeth Wilhelm, Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks representative: Appreciates the comments of residents. Notes that the Garden's events are large but do strive to end at a reasonable time. Her concerns with the proposed rezoning are with congestion. That said, guests and visitors often request coffee or restaurants and there are not a lot of options in this part of town. Moving forward, she sees a need for food in the area, but is not sure if the proposed rezoning will meet that need. In an effort to grow, they want to both serve visitors and be respectful of their neighbors to the east. Clay Henry, Neighbor: Feels that the subject property may be appropriate for a smaller restaurant, but not one the size of what is proposed. - Max Parker, Owner: Notes that the property will eventually be developed, but as someone paying taxes on it, he would like to do something with it. Asks that the Commission consider this opportunity to rezone and develop the property in a way that accommodates City Plan 2030. At the same time, he wants to be conscientious of developing the property. Ryan Parrish, Neighbor: Wants to note that a liquor store is located by the proposed pizza restaurant's other location. Also wants to know why staff says the R -O zoning district is "impractical." Gary Huey, Neighbor: Has concerns with traffic and children playing in the street on Hearthstone. Steve Val, Neighbor: Wants clarity where the access to the subject property will be. Although he is not adjacent to the subject property, he is concerned with utilizing the traffic signal at Hearthstone and Crossover. Developing the subject property will pull more vehicles on to this road, and if they cannot make their desired turns, they will travel in to the subdivision. No More Public Comment was presented. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Notes that she lives in an urban setting, and chose to live there so she can walk to other locations. There is a part of her that assumes everyone wants that, and that makes this request difficult. While she feels that the subdivision would benefit from services and business, she also understands that people deliberately moved to this area to escape the traffic of Crossover Road. Realizes that it's not appropriate to impose the Commission's values and preferences on the subdivision. Likes the CS zone but realizes that it is not appropriate in all locations. Is leaning more towards maintaining the R -O zoning, but wants to hear the comments of others. Supporting the CS would be turning the businesses back on the subdivision. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Notes that any number of uses create odor, and all area have litter. Acknowledges traffic concerns, but this is a fact of being on a major route. The size of the property will limit the intensity of use. Any use is going to attract traffic. There are commercial uses all over town, and people contend with it everywhere. He cannot support this one community being protected from any development. Is not certain that development will result in the traffic concerns that residents fear. Will maintain an open mind in the meantime. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Expresses appreciation to the residents for coming. Feels that there are 2 outcomes for Highway 265, and neither will look like what it is. R -O will not protect the property from development under the enduring green network. The R -O district would place any buildings closer to the neighborhood, not further. One outcome can be that AHTD will see 265 as a highway, and not a City street, and will lead to a development pattern that will see a large sound wall built near their neighborhood. Alternatively, the CS zoning may prevent AHTD from widening 265 even more, and place a building at the corner, where it can be accessed by foot and by bike. The Lake Fayetteville trail is one of the most heavily trafficked in the City if not the area. Contends that placing the building at the corner will serve the Botanical Gardens, trail users, and even residents. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Offers thanks to the residents who attended. Does support appropriately requested infill and form -based zoning requests. One tool to determine these is the neighborhood planning process. Residents can create a vision to help determine decisions like the current one. The -Commission can take public comment like tonight's as a decision making tool. Contends that commercial areas are appropriate in certain nodes along major corridors. Offers a tutorial on the City's Future Land Use Map. Does not feel that CS zoning is appropriate in areas with residential neighborhood designations, but rather it should be NS, Neighborhood Services. Reiterates that he is supportive of the proper application of mixed-use zones, but perhaps not'in this instance. Goes on to comment that this is the third rezoning case in this corridor that he has seen, and he is likely to vote against it too, rather than see another College Avenue. Hoffman: Questions staff about other zoning options Garner: Responds that NS -G, Neighborhood Services -General, may be an option, but clarifies that is allows for only 8,000 square foot buildings for commercial business. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Asks if a Bill of Assurance is still being considered. Jorgensen: It is, but was not finalized. The allowed uses under CS fit the goals of the developer. There are unfortunately not a lot of zoning districts that support the proposed uses at this location, including a pizza restaurant and a drive-thru coffee shop. They hope a Bill of Assurance can assuage concerns. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: There is a lot that he agrees with and disagrees with. Notes that there is no assurance that services will devalue a property. It is often the exact opposite, with efforts to include residential and services in close to help neighborhoods along major corridors. As far as having services on the corner, he sees that as a benefit, but there is a difference in the intensity. He would not however, support a drive-thru location. He has no problem with the uses, and thinks it would enhance the neighborhood. As far as the drive-thru, he would not support it. As far as music and noise, thinks he remembers that there is still a requirement for a conditional use permit. Garner: Confirms that this is the case. Brown: Follows up on his previous comments that the scale of allowed services be appropriate to the Future Land Use Plan. Reiterates his desire to see a neighborhood plan. Would support a neighborhood services zoning district typically, but after public comment, will likely not. Notes that the neighbors were told what they were buying in to, and the City should support that along with City Plan 2030. Hoffman: Questions staff about the zoning requirements under R -O, and whether it could be an unlimited -size office. Garner: Confirms that there are no building square footage requirements. Hoffman: Also notes that it could be six stories. Expresses his support for a form -based zoning district and that it would lead to a much safer and attractive development. Belden: Asks whether the item should be tabled. Jorgensen: Is willing to be tabled to review other options. Motion: Commissioner. Hoskins made a motion to table RZN 17-5733 for two weeks. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Draft Meeting Minutes from the 4/10/2017 Planning Commission Meeting RZN 17-5733: Rezone (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR./CP PROPERTIES, 099): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at the SE CORNER OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR. The properties are zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 1.79 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NS -G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, GENERAL. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Applicant's Representative, Jorgensen & Associates: Acknowledges the concerns with the request, and after meeting with staff, the revised request to the NS -G zoning district seem to be the most appropriate, and will not necessitate a Bill of Assurance. Max Parker, Property Owner: Thanks the Commission for the consideration and notes that the proposed rezoning was not available at the time of the area's development, and may have been advisable. Notes his bias as the property owner. Comments on the traffic volumes and the area features and amenities and that the property deserves a zoning that is appropriate for all residents. Public Comment Bob Anderson, Neighbor: Notes that those who will benefit from the rezoning and development will be visitors, and not residents. They will bear the burden of any adverse effects. Recalls Commissioner Hoffman's comments about one of two futures for Highway 265, and states that most residents will still prefer that the highway be widened than this rezoning to occur. Also notes that if this is approved, the Commission will be obligated to rezone other properties along this area, resulting in the possibility of another College Avenue. Describes the Residential Neighborhood Area designation in City Pan 2030 and that it notes that noncommercial development "should" be encouraged, but not required. Goes on to cite Kit William's memo to the Commissioners about compatibility and rezoning decisions. Shares communications he subsequently had with Kit Williams that the subdivision's approval ought to represent a reassurance of what will be there. Summarizes the Attorney's memo with "if it doesn't fit, listen to Kit." Peter Tonnessen, Neighbor: Notes that he has worked with staff in gaining information, and has several items he would like to enter in to the record, including photographs, and a spreadsheet outlining the proposed uses and districts. Has spent approximately 200 hours of research on the property owner and their transactions. Mister Parker and his brother own eleven of the fourteen properties that are adjacent to Crossover. Goes in to details on transactions of specific lots, and also in to the property owner's interactions with Jorgensen and Associates. Does not feel that it is accurate to review these two properties as discrete properties separate of the others. Shares that a possible tenant of the subject property does not even own their business' name. Shares that a more appropriate zoning district would likely be NS -L given the requirement that a restaurant have a conditional use permit. Cites the City's long-range plans and that they were well -created by staff's predecessors. Notes the size of Lake Fayetteville, and compares it to Central Park and its associated land values. Argues that the development patterns over the last decades have created a framework where the subject properties and those around them had their uses established. Continues on to discuss legal history and the expectation of residents that the city will continue to maintain the current zoning. Mark Scalise, Neighbor: Shares that he has lived in eight states and lived in many neighborhoods. He was very aware of what was allowed on the subject property at that time. Feels that what is allowed on the subject property is reasonable, and he has no problem with development under the R -O requirements. Notes that the property owners bought the land understanding what was allowed, and while he respects their desire to make a profit, he does not agree with "changing the rules." Dena Young, Neighbor: Notes her status as a new resident in the Stonewood subdivision. Shares that she chose the subdivision because it is quiet and has ready access to the park and trails. Moved to Fayetteville from Little Rock and Rogers, Arkansas. Notes that she was shocked to hear that the Commission was approving the request. Appreciates comments by other residents and the City's Attorney. Is convinced that the restaurant will lead to lower property values in addition to increased crime and bad odors. Does not feel that a Commission should vote in the interest of other residents, but for those living adjacent to the subject property. States that there will be a decrease in the number of professionals living in the area. Researched the case law shared by the City's Attorney, and feels that they indicate why the Commission should support the neighbors. Robert Stevens, Neighbor: Among the first homeowners in the subdivision, he is concerned with late hours of business operation and traffic. Is concerned that traffic pulling in and the neighbors trying to leave the subdivision will create a potentially dangerous traffic condition. With regards to City Plan 2030, he does not feel that the revised request will serve the needs of the neighborhood, despite the developer's contention. Given the overwhelming opposition, this shows the rezoning will not meet the needs of the neighborhood. Andy Taylor, Neighbor: Has all his money tied up in to this property, and any land value decrease will hurt him. Suspects that people will travel through his neighborhood in Copper Creek from the east to access any services on the subject property. Adaly Malone, Neighbor: Agrees with all previous comments, and notes that the residents bought in good faith. Rezoning this property would not be "right" and she requests that the Commission should do what is "right." Situations like this are not appropriate where the property values of many people suffer to benefit a few, just because certain people know the "right" people. Susan White, Neighbor: Notes that here family was one of the first in the subdivision. Shares that her parents recently moved to this subdivision and are elderly. Points out that there are several other elderly families and families with children. In response to the comment about the possibility of there being a six -story building, she disagrees, saying there is not enough room for parking. Jeff Cantu, Neighbor: Introduces himself as the POA president for the Stonewood subdivision. Disagrees that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the City Plan. Feels that the R -O zoning is what homeowners bought in to. States that the Planning Commission needs to vote in harmony with the City's plan, and that there is no overriding need to change the zoning. Lives 200 -feet from the subject property and will not like the odors. Karen Stevens, Neighbor: Spoke with potential homebuyers about noise in the neighborhood and said at the time that it was not bad. Believes that developing the property will create a lot of noise and hurt property values. No More Public Comment. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Requests that Mr. Tonnessen's spreadsheet be shared on the screens for the public. Reads the provided description of the NS -G zoning district, noting that the request is effectively a down -zoning. Notes that if the subject property was zoned NS -G, she can understand why people are upset if the request was for R -O. The request to go from R -O to NS -G is actually a downzoning. Feels that the NS -G is better for the residents and more compatible, and is in support of the request. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Appreciates everyone coming out and discusses how when it comes down to it, everyone wants what is best for Fayetteville. Agrees with Commissioner Belden's comments. In addressing Mrs. Stevens comments about noise, contends that the buildings being placed near the street is the most effective way to block noise. Cites his site design experience noting that dumpsters are typically located near buildings, and with a form -based zone this will be at the street. The parking will then be the buffer. Also contends that this request is a down -zoning, and is increasing compatibility. One of the best ways to look at compatibility is to look at the bulk, size, and area of a building. The worst case scenario in R -O is unlimited floor area, where as in NS -G it is 8,000. Addresses the City Attorney's memo, and its comment about spot zoning. Almost all of the commercial lots on Highway 265 is undeveloped. A decision tonight will have an impact on development in the future, and where buildings will be placed. Does not understand how something can be spot zoning in an undeveloped area. Recognizes fears about continued development up highway 265, but notes that it is valuable for it to develop in a traditional town form pattern. Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: Appreciated comments from neighbors and other Commissioners. Notes that development will occur in this area and that traffic will continue grow given Highway 265's high capacity and low volume. Shares background of the NS -G zoning district's creation. Agrees with other Commissioners that this constitutes a down -zoning. Speaks to -how R -O resulted from the 1970s and that NS -G is an improvement. Appreciates Mr. Tonnessen's spreadsheet graphic and agrees that NS -G has more favorable uses than either CS or the R -O districts. Is supportive of the request. - Tom Brown, Commissioner: Expresses appreciation to the neighbors for speaking. Disagrees somewhat with the differences stated between R -O and NS -G. Feels that many of the uses allowed in NS -G would generate more traffic than the R -O district. States that a lot more traffic would go to a location with the uses allowed under NS -G, and the business hours would likely be wider. At the same time, he feels that at this location, an office would develop at a lower intensity. Conceptually, he agrees that the Neighborhood Services zoning designations may be applicable on this property, but only if it does not have a negative effect on the functioning of Highway 265, existing neighborhood plans, and existing neighborhoods. Notes that the City's Master Transportation Plan call for factoring in traffic impacts in decisions. Shares data he has collected on traffic, and what amount of traffic it would take to result in a traffic. Compares College Avenue and Highway 265, noting that the number of vehicle trips before an accident occurs is much lower on College due to its intensity and number of curb cuts. Supporting rezonings that increase intensity will increase the number of traffic incidents. Shares that this is the third rezoning that he has considered for a commercial land use outside of the city Neighborhood designation. Counted 44 intersections on the highway corridor and only 11 were in the City Neighborhood Area. If three more rezonings are approved a year with a curb cut on Highway 265 for each rezoning, it will lead to a new College Avenue. Zara Niederman, Commissioner: Thanks residents for coming to speak. In response to Commission Brown's comments, he notes that there are indeed preferred locations to concentrate the curb cuts and developments but not all non-residential development has to be in certain nodes, and it is acceptable to have smaller nodes. Agrees with other Commissioners that the request is a down -zoning. Outlines some of the uses that are allowed in the existing and proposed zoning districts. Feels that the location across from the Botanical Garden also makes this more appropriate than other properties to the north and south. Rezoning the subject property would not necessarily result in other similar rezonings in this area. Inquires from staff about buffer requirements. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Informs the Commission that there are screening requirements between residential and commercial development. This is a typical standard. Niederman: Asks what the setback is. Garner: The typical buffer can be 10-12 feet wide with a fence and vegetation Niederman: Inquires that with the buildings being closer to Crossover, is it possible to require an additional buffer or screening. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Clarifies that conditions may not be placed on a rezoning. Quinlan: Asks staff about what access -would be permitted on to the subject property at the time of development. Garner: Responds that the access management ordinance requires that access to a property be by way of a lower classification street, but accessing the higher classification street may be permitted by Planning Commission variance. Quinlan: Asks what form of development submittal this item will go through. Garner: Is not certain, but due to this zoning district being form -based, development may come through as a Large Site Improvement Plan which may be approved administratively. Quinlan: Questions whether any development will have to comply with the City's commercial design standards. Garner: Responds that development in build -to -zones are subject to a higher degree of design guidelines, including for architectural articulation and glazing. Quinlan: Moves to forward the item to the City Council. Williams: Interjects that he wants to clarify that this may or may not be a downzoning. The current R -O zoning would only allow a eating place of 2,000 square feet, while the proposed NS -G zoning district will allow a building of 8,000 square feet. In the R -O zoning a duplex is allowed, while in the NS -G zoning, residential housing is allowed up to tri- and quad-plexes. Also shares the height setback requirements under R -O, and that it would be difficult to develop to the maximum allowed height, while NS -G's setbacks allow more height near a property line. Understands that this vote may move forward, but wants it to be clear that he does not feel that this is a downzoning. Lastly, the intensity is classified as medium rather than low. Garner: Due to the proposed zoning district being new and unfamiliar to some, clarifies that the NS -G zoning district only allows for a restaurant to fill 2,000 square feet of the 8,000 square feet non-residential building size permitted. Brown: States he will not support this rezoning request as it will lead to commercial development outside the designated areas. Requests that the Future Land Use Map of City Plan 2030 be pulled up for discussion, as it may be valuable for the newer Commissioners. Notes that the Plan deliberately designated certain areas along Highway 265 to be City Neighborhood Area with non-residential uses, but designated the subject property as Residential Neighborhood Area. Also, cannot support the request due to traffic concerns along with the City Attorney's comments that the subdivision's approval constitutes a neighborhood plan. Furthermore, he notes that the existing R -O zoning district allows for limited commercial development with a conditional use permit that requires a developer to work with neighbors and the Planning Commission. Hoffman: Appreciates the Director's clarification and comments about the NS -G zoning district. With regards to the comparison of districts, he will support the one that promotes smaller buildings further from homes. In response to Commissioner Brown's comments about traffic, he contends that the problems with _traffic on College are a result of zoning at the time, more than the uses themselves. The type of development that occurred on College is a result of sprawl -oriented zoning districts like the existing R -O on the subject property. Motion: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to forward RZN 17-5733. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted `no'. X "ZONING STAFF, U'S'A: ONLY - FUZZ: $325.00 .rip,Plicufton Submitted- sygn Fee: $5,00 Accepted as Cowlete: S -1'-R. /Appeal ftmber: c Hearing Date: PP #: /.one: Please fill oat this form completely, supplying all necessary lnfornnation and documentation to support your request. Your application will not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished sia�heationr Indicate one contact person for this request: _ Applicant X Representatn e Applicant (person making r uesti: Name: Address: )r`P 9,&? ' Ile .&&rL2,) 5,1-3 Fax � Repre=sentative (engineer, surveyor, reallor, Name: Blake Jorgensen Jorgensen & ASSOC. Address:124 W. Sunbridge Dr. Suite 5 FayetteviI I e, I;, blake@jorgensenassoc.com Phone: L---LEP-442-9127 Pax: ( 479-582-4807 Site Address /Location: SE corner of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. Current rent "Zoning District: R -O & RS_F-4 Requested Zoning District: CS Assessor's Parcel Numher(s)for subject property: Parcel: 765-22244-000 & 765-22245-000 FINANCIAL RUERES7S The following entities and / or people have financial interest in this project: P , March 2014 P,4V 1 APPLICANT I REPRESENTATIVE: I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements and answers herein made all data, information, and evidence herewith submitted are in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I understand that submittal of incorrect or false information is grounds for invalidation of application completeness, determination, or approval. I understand that the City might not approve what I am applying for, or might set conditions on approval. Name (printed): 10 / �I°✓r��I`�'� Bate: G If PROPERTY OWNER(S) /AUTHORIZED AGENT: I/we certify under penalty of perjury that I am/we are the owner(s) of the property that is the subject of this application and that Uwe have read this application and consent to its filing. (If signed by the authorized went, a letter from each properly owner must be provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on his/her behalf.) Property Owners of Record (attach a&Wonal info if necessary): Name (printed)' r 11A . ll7L P r1lrC- / Si Lure: 11 Date: ) AName i.- Si tore: . Date: Address: )04,Wa, cl �r Pt Phone: I �Vf --7 1 9 r. Address:e- e t Phone: 07 1J) Rezoning Checklist: - Attach the following items to this application, (1) Payment in full of applicable fees for processing the application: $325.00 application fee $5.00 public notification sign fee (2) A legal description of the property to be rezoned. A survey may be required if the property description can not accurately be platted or if it is described by referring to other deeds. (3) CD containing a copy of the legal description in NIS Word and all required submittal items should be also included on the CD in PDF format. (4) A copy of the county parcel trap from the Washington County Assessor's office or from the Washington County website ( ). The subject propertyand all adjacent parcels should be identified on this parcel map. The owner's name, official mailing address, and the parcel number for every adjacent property shall be shown on this map. Asch 2014 NT, 4, 2 CITY OF 81 T1 Fay �. —VI I C ARKANSAS TO: THRU: FROM: MEETING DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO City of Fayetteville Planning Commission Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner April 10, 2017 (Updated with Planning Commission Results) SUBJECT: RZN 17-5733: Rezone (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR./CP PROPERTIES, 099): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at the SE CORNER OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR. The properties are zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 1.79 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NS -G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, GENERAL. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN 17-5733 to the City -Council with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings herein. BACKGROUND: March 27 2017 Planning Commission Meeting: The previous request by the applicant was to rezone the sub "ect Property to CS Community Setvices with an intention to develop the area with a restaurant and drive-thru coffQe shop. Tlais item was tabled at the March 27 2017 Planning Commission meeting to give the awficant time to reconsider and possibly revise their request accordinq to comments and concerns pA ressed bv both area residents and 117e Plannin Commission. In order to address these concerns the applicant is now proposing to rezone the ro ett to NS -Q, Nei hborliood Services General. The NS -G zoning district limits the size of commercial buildings to a maximum of 8,000 square feet and does not allow drive throe h restaurants. The proposed rezoning request is for two parcels, totaling approximately 1.79 acres to the south of Hearthstone Drive and east of Crossover Road/Highway 265. The properties are currently split - zoned, with the northern portion as R -O, Residential Office, and the southern portion as RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre. The subject property and approximately 500 acres of additional land largely paralleling Crossover Road were annexed in to the City of Fayetteville in November of 1977. Subsequently, the subject property was platted as part of the larger Stonewood Subdivision in 2001, which includes approximately 100 single-family lots and 14 lots intended for residential or office development. The subject property is among the latter, but remains undeveloped. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted on Table 1. Mailing Address: 11.3 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zonin Direction Land Use i I Zoning North Undeveloped: Property Manage ent Offices R -O, Residential Office South Undeveloped RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre East Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre West Lake Fayetteville Park/ Botanical Garden of R -A, Residential Agricultural the Ozarks Request: The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre, and R -O, Residential -Office, to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General, in order prepare the parcel for development. Public Comment from the March 27, 2017 Planning Commission: The Planning Commission received numerous comments regarding the proposed rezoning, with the significant majority stating firm opposition to a rezoning. Those that contacted staff before the meeting, as well as those that spoke at the meeting cited concerns with litter, odor, noise, and lighting, including the prospect that a dangerous traffic condition could result and that crime would increase. Numerous individuals insisted that the rezoning would decrease the property values of the adjacent neighborhood, while the existing zoning districts were part of their decision to purchase homes in this area, and are perceived to have been a promise of the subdivision's developer. Public Comment: Staff has continued to receive a significant number of comments in opposition to the rezoning request, although, given the very recent nature of the change in proposed zoning district, none have been directly in opposition to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General. Some commentary in support of rezoning the property has also been received, stating a preference for the availability of services in closer proximity to their residential neighborhood. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Both subject parcels have direct access to Hearthstone Drive, a two-lane, partially -improved Local street, with curb and storm drain. Sidewalks would be required to be constructed at the time of development. The western of the two parcels also has access to Crossover Road, which is a fully -improved principal arterial and a state highway that is signalized at 'Hearthstone Drive. City access management requirements mandate that properties shall access a lower classification street when present, as Hearthstone Drive does in this instance. Water: Public water is available to the site. An 8 -inch water main runs along the property frontage of Hearthstone Drive. Sewer: Public sewer is available to the site. An 8 -inch sewer main runs along the property frontage of Hearthstone Drive. Drainage: Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage would be determined at time of development. No portion of these parcels lie within the FEMA designated 100 -yr floodplain or the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). A protected stream, Hilton Creek, runs south of these parcels. Hydric Soils have been identified on portions of these parcels and would require a wetlands determination to be provided at the time of development proposal. GAETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 Fire: The Fire Department did not express any concerns with this request. Police: The Police Department did not express any concerns with this request CITY PLAN 2030 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates the properties within the proposed rezone as Residential Neighborhood Area. 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. Residential Neighborhood encourages highly connected, compact blocks with gridded street patterns and reduced setbacks. It also encoura es traditional neighborhood devela ment that incorporates low -intensity non-residential uses intended to serve the surrounding nei Irbor- hood, such as retail and offices, on corners and along connecting corridors. This designation recognizes existing conventional subdivision developments which may have large blocks with conventional setbacks and development patterns that respond to features in the natural envi- ronment. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF 1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which include a mixture of suburban residential development to the east, office uses to the north, and a City park and botanical gardens to the west. The proposal of NS -G zoning on the corner of a largely -improved Local Street, and a high-volume, improved Principal Arterial can create a transitional area that may be developed in a commercial or mixed-use pattern that compliments both the existing adjacent uses and existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the NS -G zoning requirements allow a lower density, smaller building size and lower height than the existing R -O zoning district. Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Area designation of the subject property and surrounding area. This location is consistent with the guidelines of City Plan 2030 for higher intensity non- residential use in corner locations and along connecting corridors. This is a corner property with a traffic signal on a busy arterial highway. Among the goals in City Plan 2030, the proposed rezoning represents the potential for both infill development and development in a traditional urban form pattern. Although less than one mile from Fayetteville's northern city boundary with Springdale, and thereby not generally thought of as an infill site, commercial or mixed-use development on the subject property can take full advantage of City facilities at the adjacent City park and the existing utility and road infrastructure. Similarly, despite being on a state highway (Crossover Road), the subject property's proximity to both a significant City park and a single- family subdivision presents an opportunity to create a mix of uses where G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 residents can live, work, and play all in the same neighborhood. The NS -G zoning district encourages patterns of development that result in realizing this goal, including an expectation that buildings will be located at the corner, creating an environment appealing to pedestrians and reducing the visual impact of parking areas, while also limiting permitted uses to those that are complementary to adjacent neighborhoods. A mixture of residential and commercial uses, which is permitted by the NS -G zoning district, is typical in a traditional urban form, with buildings addressing the street. Lastly, this area of the City has many residents, with approximately 300 single-family homes accessing Crossover Road by way of Hearthstone Drive, but lacks non-residential goods and services within walking distance. This development pattern has resulted in residents being required to drive to meet any daily needs. The FLUM designation of this area as Residential Neighborhood recognizes this issue in encouraging appropriate non- residential uses, and the applicant's proposal for NS -G at this corner location could help alleviate the lack of services in the area. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The applicant has requested the zoning change to develop the property in manner that can serve the surrounding community, which is generally not as feasible under the existing RSF-4 and R -O zoning districts. The proposed NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General zoning will encourage appropriate commercial or residential development on this corner parcel in an area that has seen limited, and largely -residential development -over the last two decades. The NS -G zoning district is designed primarily to promote complementary _neighborhood businesses that are compatible in scale, aesthetics, and use with surrounding land uses. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: A NS -G zoning allows a limited range of commercial activity and a residential density that is currently lower than that allowed under the R -O zoning district. Given the property's undeveloped state, any development would invariably create the potential for increased traffic in the area, but not necessarily greater than could result from the existing RSF-4 and R -O zoning districts. The property is located on the southeast corner of Crossover Road and Hearthstone Drive, a fully -improved Principal Arterial and partially - improved Local Street respectively. The intersection adjacent to the subject property is signalized, and includes pedestrian crosswalks. While there will -be an appreciable increase in traffic with any development, Hearthstone Drive does not connect to any significant transportation routes to the east, and, as a result, any increase in vehicular movement will likely move westward through the existing traffic signal to Crossover Road. As such, traffic danger and congestion is not expected to increase appreciably. 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 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 sewer facilities. Finding: Although the property is currently undeveloped, development under the current zoning or the proposed zoning will likely result in a comparable increase in the load on public services and may increase population density in the area. The NS -G zoning allows a range of commercial activity but a lower residential density than R -O. Despite this, the subject property has access to existing infrastructure, and is an area where development would not have significant adverse impacts on public services or facilities. Additionally, neither the Police nor Fire Departments have expressed objections to the proposal. 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: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN 17-5733 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings discussed throughout this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: April 10, 2017 O Tabled Motion: Quinlan Second: Hoffman Vote: 8-1-0, Commissioner Brown voted'no'. ® Forwarded O Denied CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES Date: May 2, 20117 (planned) O Approved O Denied G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Unified Development Code: o §161.03, RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre o §161.18, R -O, Residential -Office o §161.20, NS -G, Neighborhood Services — General o §162.01, Unit 12b, General Business • Revised Request letter • Public Comment o Public Comment leading up to the March 27, 2017 Planning Commission meeting o Public Comment leading up to the April 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting • Memo and Spreadsheet from Commissioner Brown • One Mile Map • Close -Up Map • Current Land Use Map Future Land Use Map GAETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 4 161.07 - District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family - Four (4) Units Per Acre (A) Purpose The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family 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 5 Government facilities Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12 Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development (C) Density. Single-family Two (2) family dwellings dwellings Units per acre 4 or less 7 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. Single-family Two (2) family G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 feet 80 feet width Lot area 8,000 square 12,000 square minimum feet feet Land area per 8,000 square 6,000 square dwelling unit feet feet Hillside Overlay District Lot 60 feet 70 feet minimum width G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 Hillside Overlay 8,000 square 12,000 square District Lot feet feet area minimum Land area per 8,000 square 6,000 square dwelling unit feet feet (E) Setback Requirements. Front Side Rear 15 feet 5 feet 15 feet (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 45 feet 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. (G) Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area bf such lot. (Code 1991, §160.031; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. No. 4858, 4-18-06; Ord. No. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. No 5128, 4-15-08; Ord. No. 5224, 3-3-09; Ord. No. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. No. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. No. 5921 , §1, 11-1-16) G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Comm ission\04-1 0-2017 161.18 - District R -O, Residential Office (A) Purpose The Residential -Office District is designed primarily to provide area for offices without limitation to the nature or size of the office, together with community facilities, restaurants and compatible residential uses (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12 Limited business Unit 25 Offices, studios, and related services Unit 44 Cluster Housing Development J (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 11 Manufactured home park' Unit 13 Eating places Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities` Unit 42 Clean technologies Unit 45 Small scale production (C) Density. Units per acre 24 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. (Per dwelling unit for residential structures) (1) Lot Width Minimum. Manufactured home park 100 feet Lot within a manufactured home park 50 feet Single-family 60 feet GAETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 4 Two (2) family 60 feet Three (3) or more 90 feet (2) Lot Area Minimum. Manufactured home park 3 acres _r__ Lot within a manufactured home 4,200 square park feet Townhouses: No bedroom Development 10,000 square 1,000 square feet feet Individual lot bedrooms 2,500 square Fraternity or Sorority 500 square feet per feet resident 6,000 square Single-family feet Two (2) family 6,500 square feet Three (3) or more 8,000 square feet Fraternity or Sorority 1 acre (3) Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. Manufactured home 3,000 square feet Townhouses & apartments: No bedroom 1,000 square feet One bedroom 1,000 square feet Two (2) or more 1,200 square feet bedrooms Fraternity or Sorority 500 square feet per resident (E) Setback Regulations. Front 15 feet Front, if parking is allowed between the right- 50 of -way and the building feet Front, in the Hillside Overlay District 15 feet Side 10 feet G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 feet Side, in the Hillside Overlay District 8 feet Rear, without easement or alley 25 feet Rear, from center line of public alley 10 feet Rear, in the Hillside Overlay District 15 feet (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum- 60 feet Height Regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line of an adjacent single family district an additional distance of 1 foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. (G) Building Area On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. (Code No. 1965, App. A., Art. 5(x); Ord. No. 2414, 2-7-78; Ord. No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord. No. 2621, 4-1-80; Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.041; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. No. 4726, 7- 19-05; Ord. No. 4943, 11-07-06; Ord. No. 5079, 11-20-07; Ord. No. 5195, 11-6-08; Ord. No. 5224, 3-3-09; Ord. No. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. No. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord No. 5735 1-20-15; Ord. No. ;)-800 , § 1(Exh. A), 10-6-15; Ord. No. 5921 , §1, 11-1-16) GAETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Comm issi on\04-10-201 7 161.19 - Neighborhood Services, General (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Services, General district is designed to serve as a mixed use area of medium intensity. Neighborhood Service, General promotes a walkable, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood development form with sustainable and complementary neighborhood businesses that are compatible in scale, aesthetics, and use with surrounding land uses. For the purpose of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Neighborhood Services 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 (2) family dwellings Unit 10 Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings Unit 12b General Business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 41 Accessory dwelling units Unit 44 Cluster 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 Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 r Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Governmerit Facilities Unit 13 Eating places Unit 16 Shopping Goods Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 25 Offices, studios and related services Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 36 F Wireless communication facilities" Unit 40 1Sidewalk cafes Unit 45 _ Small scale production (C) Density. Eighteen (18) or less per acre (D) Bulk and Area. (1) Lot Width Minimum. All Dwellings 35 feet All other uses None G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 4 (2) Lot Area Minimum. Single-family 4,000 square feet Two (2) family or 3,000 square feet per dwelling more unit All other uses None (E) Setback Regulations. Front: Side r A build -to -zone that is located between the 5 front property line and feet a line 25 ft. from the front property line. Rear, when contiguous to a single-family Side -Zero Lot Line Rear residential district A setback of less than five mm - feet (zero lot line) is permitted on one interior side, provided a None 15 maintenance agreement is feet filed. The remaining side setback shall be 10 feet. (F) Building height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 45 feet (G) Minimum Buildable Street Frontage. 50% of the lot width G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2017\Development Review\17-5733 RZN SE of Crossover Rd. & Hearthstone Dr. (CP Properties) 099\03 Planning Commission\04-10-2017 §162.01— Establishment/Listing (M) Unit 12b. General Business, (1) Description. Unit 12b consists of small-scale establishments offering commercial goods and services that are accessible for the convenience of individuals living in residential districts, while compatible in size, scale and appearance with the surrounding neighborhood. These uses shall be subject to the regulations in Chapter 164. All uses classified under Unit 12b must be within a building containing 8,000 square feet or less, excluding area dedicated to residential uses. (2) Included Uses. Personal services -Day Care • Dry cleaning • Salon/Barber shop • Tailoring Retail I • Antique/home decor sales • Apparel • Art/Architectural supplies • Bakery/Pastry shops • Bicycle shop • Bookstore • Coffee shop • Delicatessen • Drugstore • Florists • Food specialty stores • Grocery • Hardware store • Health food store • Hobby/Craft shop • Ice cream • Meat market • Restaurant/Cafe • Small Appliance Repair • Stationary store • Toy store • Video rental Professional Offices • Accountant • Architect • Attorney Broker • Busine"gmt. Consultant • Doctor JORGENSEN +ASSOCIATES 40 April 6, 2017 City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Attn: Development Services Re: Hearthstone Properties Rezoning To Planning Commission/Planning Staff CUP 17-5733 Request Letter 124 W Sunbridge Drive, Suite 5 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Office: 479.442.9127 Fax: 479.582.4807 Please accept this request to alter the previous rezoning from Community Services (CS) to Neighborhood Services -General (NS -G). After meeting with staff and the owners of the property, we feel that this zoning classification is the optimal zoning request and that it is a downzone in regards to both CS as well as RO. This zoning classification would eliminate any concerns that have been brought up associated with the CS request in regards to gasoline service stations as well as drive through restaurants. This zoning classification would also have reduced building heights, as well as limit the by -right foot print of the building(s). We appreciate both the community's and the staff's time and input on this matter and look forward to discussing this rezoning with the Planning Commission. Jorgensen + Associates CUP 17-5733 Public Comment for 3/27/2017 Planning Commission Meeting We, the undersigned owner and residents of Stonewood, are strongly inclined to support the requested zoning change from Max Parker. For decades we have enjoyed the higher property_ values and enhanced city services provided by Fayetteville's adherence to a strict policy of planned development. Evidenced by Fayetteville's repeated listings as one of the top ten places to live in the US ... a distinction not awarded to our neighbors. The stringent signage, greenspace, parking, etc. codes, requirements and ordinances have continued to make Fayettevile a desirable place to live although other cities in our area may be more attractive from a property price point view only. We trust the planning commission and other regulatory bodies to allow only a tasteful commercial establishment that would enhance the neighborhood. We believe that an attractive, unobtrusive restaurant/coffee shop between our neighborhood and the Botanical Gardens would be very desireable. As for the future risks, any business would require design, elevation and building permit approval. History has proven that Fayetteville protects both its residential and commercial areas by a policy considering aesthetical, environmental and service support availability. Thank you, Janet Watkins, Elizabeth Blackburn, Barbara George Public Comment for RZN 17-5733 (CP Properties) 3/25/2017 Mr. Curth, I understand there is a question of rezoning property that is at the front entrance of Stonewood from office, and the like, to one that would allow for the building of restaurants. In particular, there is the building of a pizza shop being currently considered. I would like to let you know that 1, and my family, are strongly against this change. When property is purchased, there is an expectation of maintaining value and a level of comfort. Nuisances like this restaurant destroy that value and comfort. It materially alters the initial purchase agreement. The restaurant will produce noise, smells and dangers that were not presented to the current owners when they first agreed to purchase the property. In addition, there is a safety issue when you place a business -in with homes. Business often request and received liquor licenses. In addition to provided this to there customers there is parking and increased traffic or congestion. The two combined can be dangerous to not only the people living in the neighborhood but visitors to the Botanical Garden across the street. Many people walk, bike and move back and forth across that intersection. I think you all should be on notice of these danger and nuisance issues when you are considering these zoning changes. Any changes you make and the consequences that might occur should be carefully considered. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Monika Szakasits Resident of Stonewood Subdivision 3/26/2017 Hello Mr. Curth: I'm a new resident to the Stonewall community. My property directly abuts the R -O zoned properties along Crossover. Recently it has come to my attention that there is the potential for the R -O zoned lots in front of Stonewall to be rezoned to allow an eatery of some type. While I like the convenience of another great food joint nearby, I certainly wouldn't welcome the lights, sounds and smells that would come along with it, staring right into my backyard. I have voiced my opposition to our POA President, but thought it wouldn't hurt to let you know how I feel as well. I am against the proposed rezoning. Thanks for listening! Vic Kennett Founder / CEO �w.ar xooR a.,�r. Phone: 870-423-6242 Web Site: www.kerusso.com r ��a+crrafrrcn�o+ ,.600 ?cam - Oac'KJ&;M/., CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message, from Kerusso Inc- contains information which is privileged and confidential and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. IF you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited If you have received this in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at: 800-424-0943 3/27/2017 Mr. Curth: I write this email to register my objection to the proposed rezoning of Lots 1 & 2 of Stonewood from R/O to CS. I understand that the planning commission will consider this rezoning request at their meeting at 5:30 this afternoon. I plan to attend. Thank you. ste"M E. `vOUWK Taylor Law Partners, LLP, 303 E. Millsap P. O. Box 8310 Fayetteville, AR 72703 (479) 443-5222 (479) 443-7842 svowel lfir,tayiorlawpartners.coan Dear sir, As I understand the present proposal for the property on Hearthstone and 265 across from the Botanical Gardens there are positive aspects to the proposal. My concern is as planned another pizza parlor will be there. Should the council not take into consideration multiple ones in close proximity? I would hope the council would consider what is best for the community. In addition,.a major reason I chose to purchase a home in Copper Creek subdivision was the location of the Botanical Gardens and the hiking trail. Another fast food place -is not in concert with those amenities. If it at all possible to take into consideration this great local asset and what would enhance rather than detract from it, I would sincerely recommend the council doing so. — Margret Walker 3441 Peppermill Place Fayetteville, AR Sent from my iPhone Hello Mr. Curth, I'm a resident of the Copper Creek neighborhood and will attend this hearing to learn more about the rezoning request. Would you please provide a copy of the comprehensive plan for this area? I look forward to seeing the comprehensive plan. My thanks, Susan Holmes 3404 Jasper Lane Fayetteville AR 72764 479-225-6175 susan.holAnes95 a7 iraail.cc)ni Dear Mr. Curth, My husband and I would like to voice our opinions *against* the proposed rezoning for Stonewood Lots 1 and 2 (RZN 17-5733). One of the benefits of this neighborhood is privacy. Bringing commercial property to the front entrance of the neighborhood will undoubtedly bring increased traffic to the area. There are other downfalls as well, which will be shared by Stonewood POA. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer & Michael Moffitt 4652 Stonewall Xing Fayetteville, AR 72764 Jonathan, Attached is a spreadsheet showing the responses to the proposed rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 in the Stonewood subdivision. As you will readily see, there are clearly two sides to this proposal. The developers are all for it, and the homeowners are almost 100% against it. I don't need to repeat the I L I Nil■ ,:DI Lq RZN 17-5733 1 SE OF CROSSUNTR RD.& If V k10 IIs I OV: f]It. � ny �r.N.MY irr'MwinYi vM.AIM-r.v�ipl4+l �nf1vAra RSI'n.�,�v4%AYMI}IN4{IGIRTI�t(DLIYL �efwyMnw, xrr.w�V.taiu�tAa�.s1 fE`f�. ��M+�•Y.1 WHYfvI.�C/CrWra/t..�'s3-y�t'�ns�i1 _ . Eisai . PFULIC• 11F.M NG DATE TIME N[_NNNM%(a �inia.du�, a;,ill P.M. C'YiMMMSIO �Aarxh :7, 2417 I look forward to seeing the comprehensive plan. My thanks, Susan Holmes 3404 Jasper Lane Fayetteville AR 72764 479-225-6175 susan.holAnes95 a7 iraail.cc)ni Dear Mr. Curth, My husband and I would like to voice our opinions *against* the proposed rezoning for Stonewood Lots 1 and 2 (RZN 17-5733). One of the benefits of this neighborhood is privacy. Bringing commercial property to the front entrance of the neighborhood will undoubtedly bring increased traffic to the area. There are other downfalls as well, which will be shared by Stonewood POA. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer & Michael Moffitt 4652 Stonewall Xing Fayetteville, AR 72764 Jonathan, Attached is a spreadsheet showing the responses to the proposed rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 in the Stonewood subdivision. As you will readily see, there are clearly two sides to this proposal. The developers are all for it, and the homeowners are almost 100% against it. I don't need to repeat the reasons the homeowners oppose the rezoning - you've seen multiple emails from them already. I trust that you will include this spreadsheet information in the package that you provide to the Planning Commission. Bob Anderson Treasurer Stonewood P.O.A. The subject spreadsheet is attached to this packet ofpublic comment. Mr. Curth: I am opposed to the rezoning of the 1.79 acres east of Crossover and south of Hearthstone My plan to attend tonight's meeting has been foiled. Therefore, here is why I am opposed to the rezoning from "Residential Office" to "Community Service." 1. Crossover's median prevents easy access. 2. Gridlock at Crossover and Hearthstone would be inevitable. 3. The Botanical Garden's beauty and purpose would be in jeopardy. 4. CS zoning will likely impact the existing residential environment and property values. Honestly any savvy commercial/retail developer (independent or franchise) would see these same concerns and would not pursue this land in question. Thank you for including my concerns in tonight's meeting and subsequent decision. Also, we really appreciate the work that you and the Planning Conunission do to make Fayetteville a great place to live! Best regards, Daniel Hocklander Past President Copper Creek Homeowners' Association TO: Jonathan Curth Fayetteville City Planning Department I am opposed to the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 in the Stonewood Division for the proposed development of the lots. Current property owners have bought lots and built their residents with the knowledge of the current written commercial zone guidelines (residential office building). I am also concerned about the effect this might open up for the other commercial zoned property fronting the Highway. 1 would appreciate the planning board taking my opinion into consideration. Stonewood Division property owner Jo Ann Woodward 4 CUP 17-5733 Stonewood Subdivision Responses to a POA S u rvey Stonewood Subdivison Rezoning Proposal for Lots 1 & 2 Commercial Lots 92.9% Percentage of lots voting 13 For the rezoning 4 Against the rezoning Homeowner Lots 72.4% Percentage of lots voting 1 For the rezoning 75 Against the rezoning Lot Parcel Name Address 1 22244 C P Properties, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 2 22245 C P Properties, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 3 22246 Kjune LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 4 22247 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 5 22248 Parker Investments, LLC Castlewood Ln. (Commercial Lot) 6 22249 Parker Investments, LLC Castlewood Ln. (Commercial Lot) 7 22250 Parker Investments, LLC 4790 Castlewood Ln. (Commercial Lot) 8 22251 Fochtman, Earl & Gayle Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 9 22252 Fochtman, Earl & Gayle Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 10 22253 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 11 22254 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 12 22255 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 13 22256 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 14 22257 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 15 22 25 8 Ellison, Frances Anita 4843 Lavendon P1, 16 22259 Ingram, Justin &Andrea 4857 Lavendon Pi 17 22260 Watson, Gaye F. 4869 Lavendon Pl. 18 22261 Olive Trust Joshua 'Hicks 4881 Lavendon PI.- 19 22.262 Stevens, Robert & Karen 3116 High Meadows Dr. 2.0 22263 Liu, Pu & Li -Chuan Chang 3140 High Meadows Dr. 21 22264 Oswald, Robert & Anne 3162 High Meadows Dr, 22 22265 Roberts, Barbara 3186 High Meadows Dr. 23 22266 Szakasits, Monika 3200 High Meadows Dr. 24 22267 Nielson, Bradley & Uchelle Roberts 3224 High Meadows Cir. 25 22268 Murphy, Rona Yan 3246 High Meadows Dr 26 22269 Hicklin, Michael & Lynda 4884 Trails End Ln, 27 22270 Voweil, Stevan & Peggy 4868 Trails End Ln. 28 22271 Hopkins, Wade & Sharon 4856 Trails Encs Ln. 29 22272 Aldridge, Bret & Barbara 4842 Trails End Ln. 30 22273 Hubbard, Thomas & Shareinea 4830 Trail's End Ln. 31 22274 Zimmerman, Brent & Cassandra 3229 High Meadows Dr. 32 22275 Woodward, Billy Ray & Joann High Meadows lir (Vacant Lot) 33 22.276 Scarbrough, Troy & Amy 3191 High Meadows Dr. 34 22277 Cox, Winfred M, & Clarice W. 3163 High Meadows Cir. 35 22278 Caldwell, Nelson & Terrie 3141 High Meadows Dr. 36 22279 Augustine, Merlin & Beverly 4862 Lavendon PI. 37 22280 Anderson. Bob 4844 Lavendon Pl. 38 22281 Parker, Terry & Ellen 3142 Greystone Dr. 39 22282 McLaughlin, Gary & Susan 3164 Greystone Dr. 40 22283 Mitzel, Marvin & Christel 3190 Greystone Dr 41 22284 Welker, Juanita M. 3204 Greystone Dr. 42 22285 White, Bryan & Susan F. 3228 Greystone Dr 43 22286 Davis, Jerry & Brenna 4808 Trails End Ln, 44 22287 Marley, Mark & Cheryl 47§2 Trails End Ln. 4 Stonewood Subdivison Rezoning Proposal for Lots 1 & 2 Commercial Lots Homeowner Lots 92.9% Percentage of lots voting 72.4% Percentage of lots voting 13 For the rezoning 1 For the rezoning N` 4 Against the rezoning 75 Against the rezoning Lot Parcel Name Address 45 22288 Mize, Andrew M. & Page Finn 4774 Trails End Ln. 46 22289 Salsbury, Randy & Shana 4758 Trails End Ln. 47 22290 Ashley, Larry & Martha 4749 Trails End Ln, 48 22291 Bunn, Richard & Margaret Werner 4773 Trails End Ln. 49 22292 Bradbury, Michael & Sharon Etchinson 4791 Trails End Ln. 50 22293 Glenn, Ryan & Mararitia" 48+07 Trails End Ln. 51 22294 Wynne. Thomas B. & Marley M. 3203 Greystone Dr. 52 22295 Rigo, Gilson & Vania 3189 Greystone Dr.. 53 22296 Sasnett,Erin 4790 Stonewall Crossing 54 22297 Crawford, John & Beverly 4772 Stonewall Crossing 55 22298 Davis, Doris & Kim 4754 Stonewall Crossing 56 22299 Hughey, Gary & Sandra 4738 Stonewall Crossing 57 22300 Gillihan, Betty Kaye 3202 Hearthstone Or 58 22301 Jezewski, Jeffery & Jennifer 3226 Hearthstone Dr.. 59 22302 Matthews, Andy & Cheryl 3244 Hearthstone Dr 60 22303 Scalise, Mark & Jacqueline 3268 Hearthstone Dr. 61 22304 Malone, Noel & Ada Lee 3677 Greystone Dr. 62 22305 Smith, Virginia 3103 Greystone Dr. 63 22306 Mueller, Phuong & Ellen Gebhart-Mueller 3119 Greystone Dr. 64 22307 Mosby, Keith & Katherine 4807 Stonewall Crossing 65 22308 Stephens, George L. III 3144 Ladelle Pl. 66 22309 Alisha Sutton 3120 Ladelle Pl. 67 22310 LaGrone. Dean 3102 Ladelle Pl. 68 22311 Kennett, Vic & Melody 3078 Ladelle PI. 69 22312 Flynn, Mike & Courtney 3663 Ladelle Pl. 70 22313 Henry, Clay & Jean Ann 3079 Ladelle PI, 71 22314 Wright. Warren & Linda 3101 Ladelle Pl. 72 22315 Draper, Joe & Clancy 3145 Ladelle Pl. 73 22316 Draper, Joe & Nancy 3145 Ladelle Pl. 74 22317 Draper. Joe & Nancy 3145 Ladelle Pl. 76 22318 Draper, Joe & Nancy 3145 Ladelle Pt. 76 22319 Davis, Rick & Shawna 3100 Hearthstone Dr. 77 22320 Pianalto, Nick 3080 Hearthstone Dr_ 78 22321 Hudgens, Patricia 3081 Hearthstone Dr, 79 22322 Ashby, Charles & Debbie 3033 Waterstone Dr. 80 22323 8usken, Gerard &. Tammy 3057 Waterstone Dr. 81 22323-001 Collins, Craig & Bethany 3089 Waterstone Dr. 82 22324 Cantu, Jeffrey 3123 Hearthstone Dr. 83 22325 MacDade Properties LLC 3044 Waterstone Dr. 84 22326 Watkins, Janet & Catherine Vantine 3072 Waterstone Or 85 22327 Head, Steven & Hillary 3104 Waterstone Dr. 86 22328 Stanch. Jim & Susan 3130 Waterstone Dr. 87 22329 Forga, Maxine 3152 Waterstone Dr. 88 22330 Mazili, Christine A. 3186 Waterstone Dr. Stonewood Subdivison Rezoning Proposal for Lots 1 & 2 Commercial Lots 92.9% Percentage of lots voting 13 For the rezoning 0 Against the rezoning Lot Parcel Name Homeowner Lots 72.4% Percentage of lots voting 1 For the rezoning 75 Against the rezoning Address 89 22331 Andrade, Juan & Ana 3208 Waterstone Dr. 90 22332 Levy, Lynn Revocable Trust 3224 Waterstone Dr. 91 22333 Green, Cynthia K. 4657 Stonewall Crossing 92 22334 Moore, Jennifer Paige 4665 Stonewall Crossing. 93 22336 Young, Dena 4673 Stonewali Crossing 94 22335 Young, Alex Alden 4687 Stonewall Crossing 95 22337 Wilson, Hugh E. & Audrey A. 4695 Stonewall Crossing 9❑ r7.23', 22 �k.. .. - .__.. 3147: -Hearthstone fir - 4��_.:: 97 22339 Porter, Kenneth B. & Andrea 3267 Hearthstone Dr. 98 22340 Zavaleta, Julio Cesar 3243 Hearthstone Dr. 99 22341 Taylor, Lawrence & Brandy 3225 Hearthstone Dr. 100` 22342 (Moore, Samuel & Margaret 3201 Hearthstone Dr. 101 22343 Gotlins. Randall 3,185 Hearthstone Dr, 102 22344 Hardcastle, Andrea 4692 Stonewall Crossing 103 22345, K le,,8 Caitlin Pennington 4664 Stonewall Crossing 104 22346 Bowlin, Philip & Brenda 4658 Stonewall Crossing 105 22347 --0 , Jennifer & Michael 4652 Stonewall Crossing 106 22348 Brown, Michael.& Ana 4646 Leiston PI. 107 22349 Demarest, Chris & Alicia 4640 Leiston PI. 108 22350. Antoine. Ronald & Zenarea 4632 Leiston Pf. 109 22351 Rhodes, Array S- 4624 Leiston Pl, 110 22352 Chamberlain, Carel Jean 3267 Waterstone Dr. 1 i 1 22.353 Locey, Ryan & Monica 3245 Waterstone Dr 112 22354 McCarley, Timothy 3223 Waterstone Dr 113 22355 Morris, Nicholas & Lydia 3209 Waterstone Dr 114 22355 Sandfin, ,names & Renee 3187 Waterstone Dr, 115 22355 Carrasco-Ctuezada, Erika 3165 Waterstone Dr. 116 22356 Black. Nancy Waterstone Dr. (Vacant Lot) 117 22357 Mathias, David & Ashley 3129. Waterstone Dr 118 22357-001 Siebert, Eric & Katlyn 2111 Waterstone Dr 119 22358 Zamora, Rosanna 3352 Waterstone Dr. Ij CUP 17-5733 Public Comment for 4/10/2017 Planning Commission Meeting 3/28/2017 Thank you for your response. We attended the planning meeting last night and were so disappointed the issue of rezoning our neighborhood was tabled instead of being voted down. We retired four years ago and moved to this area from NE Arkansas. One of our prime reasons for choosing this subdivision was because of its beauty and cleanliness. My husband is in bad health, so we felt the neighborhood afforded us safety with proximity to doctors and the hospital. We knew it was zoned R/O but believed office type buildings would be built in the frontage area with day hours, not a lot of congestion, or loud noise. With so many of the homeowners in Stonewood voting not to change the zone to CS, my prayer is that the planning commission will vote the will of the people. The fact that the 2030 goals of the city have this area marked to remain residential impressed me that the city felt it important to protect some residential areas and not turn everything into commercial. Thank you for your work. If_ my husband is able, we will attend the next meeting. Sandy Hughey 4738 Stonewall Crossing 3/30/2017 Jonathan, As I did at the hearing Monday night, I would like to again voice my opposition to the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 in the Stonewood subdivision from R -O to CS or any other zoning designation other than what they have always been. I am disappointed that the Planning Department would recommend approval when the rezoning clearly doesn't fit the City's own master plan, Plan 2030. When you drive the length of Crossover within the city limits, you can clearly see the commercial areas at the intersections identified by Thomas Brown at the hearing. What you don't see when you drive north of Zion is anything resembling a commercial area, just as Plan 2030 indicates. Doesn't the Planning Department look at Plan 2030 when they are deciding to recommend approval for a rezoning? - Bob Anderson Treasurer Stonewood P.O.A. Dear Jonathan, Please accept this correspondence as a vehement objection to the proposed rezoning of the 2 lots adjacent to the Hearthstone Drive entrance. It was accepted when we all elected to build our homes, and invest substantial monies to do so, that there would eventually be office buildings at the entrance. That was the accepted deal. Be assured it was an arrangement we were all aware of and accepted. Why is this relevant? Because we were also aware of what was NOT allowed to be built at the entrance, namely convenience stores or fast food or any number of high traffic / high-volume business of those type. If the deal when we build houses and moved to the neighborhood was that there would be a convenience store or McDonald or etc. at the entrance, MOST if not ALL of the present tenants would have elected to forego building or moving into Stonewood or Copper Creek, and would have established our homes and neighborhoods elsewhere. Myself absolutely! It was a CONSCIOUS decision, not something that had not been considered until now! That is a fact. A rezoning would be an unfair change of rules mid - game. Not fair. Not equitable. It completely fails the "Do Right" rule! It was NEVER part of the deal that those lots would be allowed to be rezoned in a manner that would allow fast food or convenience stores or any number of high traffic / high-volume businesses or retailers to clog the intersection and attract persons of every ilk to our neighborhood!! It is simply not acceptable to the residents who have made this neighborhood their home to suddenly allow it. Please respect this request to deny the rezoning and request the opinions of the residents. Consider for a minute and take into account the extremely negative impact this rezoning would have on a population of citizens that more than pulls its weight paying the taxes which fund the activities and salaries of the employees of this city. We trust you will pass along these sentiments to the Commissioners hearing this request.?! Your, and their consideration in this regard would be greatly appreciated!! Best, Mark Scalise Mark N. Scalise 3268 Hearthstone Drive Fayetteville, AR 72764 (479) 466-7712 Dear Jonathan, the letter you received from Mark Scalise is exactly what I wish to convey regarding my feelings about the rezoning of Stonewood property. My husband and I relocated here 2 years ago and we were assured the rezoning was for RO and told that was for office buildings. My husband had complete faith that this was the case. He passed away last year after a sudden illness but he loved living in Fayetteville. Please do the right thing and do not disappoint us. Thank you. Anita Ellison 4843 Lavendon Place. 870 919 5965Sent from my iPhone Mr. Curth: My husband and I live in the Stonewood Subdivision on Trails End Lane. We are opposed to rezoning the lots in the front of our neighborhood from RO to CS. We have several concerns, most of which were addressed by our neighbors at the meeting on March 27. However, I do have a few comments I would like to make. First of all, I cannot understand how the Commission can say that the addition of the proposed restaurant (which would be allowed under the CS zoning) would not increase the traffic in our neighborhood. I think it is logical and commonsense that if this establishment is successful, traffic will increase in our neighborhood. Steve Vowell told the Commission about the heavy traffic in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood. What I don't think the Commission appreciates is that between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. at many times there is a line of between 7 to 9 cars waiting to turn left (South) at the light at Hearthstone and 265. If you add a coffee shop with a drive thru at the location with the only entrance and exit to that coffee shop being on Hearthstone, it will create a traffic issue. I believe the busiest hours for the coffee shop would also be between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. I have no doubt that many of the people exiting the coffee shop will see the line of cars waiting to turn and decide to take a right onto Hearthstone to try to find a different and quicker exit. Since they are not familiar with our neighborhood, they will not know that the Hearthstone exit is the only exit from the neighborhood which allows you to exit and travel South. Those people will end up driving through the side streets until they realize their only exit is on Hearthstone. The comment that the rezoning is needed so the restaurant can build on the street as opposed to a setback as required to keep AHTD from widening 265 further is ridiculous. AHTD has no plans in the foreseeable future to widen 265 to more than the four lanes it already has. Further widening is not on any of AHTD plans. A major concern is the safety of the crosswalk at Hearthstone and 265. If the Commission wants to put in restaurants/shops, etc. to encourage people from the trail system to cross the road to visit those establishments, the crosswalk will need to somehow be made safer. We utilize the trail system regularly. It is one of the reasons we like our neighborhood so much is that we have convenient access. However, the crosswalk is not safe. I cannot tell you the number of times someone traveling South has run the red light. If a pedestrian is unfamiliar with the safety issues and simply steps out into the crosswalk thinking they have the right of way, the likelihood of someone getting injured is very high. Also, the traffic coming out of the BGO cannot see traffic or pedestrians because of the slope of the hill as they exit. They do not see anything until they get to the top of the hill and have started to make their turn. There have been several times that bicyclists have almost been hit by cars turning out of the BGO. Also, vehicles that stop in the crosswalk or beyond the cross walk far outnumber the vehicles the stop before the crosswalk. Plain and simple — to be safe, pedestrians at that crosswalk have to wait to make sure. the vehicles are going to stop at the light, and also that they are not going to stop in or beyond the crosswalk. When the current owners of the RO lots purchased them, they knew that they were zoned RO. When the people in the neighborhood bought their houses, they knew that the zoning was RO. It is completely unfair at this point to change the zoning from RO to CS so that the owners of those lots can sell them. The rezoning benefits the owners of the 1.4 RO lots to the detriment of the 105 owners of the houses in the Stonewood Subdivision. If the lots are going to be rezoned, a far more appropriate and fair rezoning would be to Neighborhood Services. Thank you for your time. Sharon Hopkins Cox, Cox & Estes, PLLC 3900 Front Street, Suite 203 P. O. Box 9630 Fayetteville, AR 72703 P: 479-251-7900 F: 479-251-7910 Dear Mr. Curth : We are owners in Stonewood. We were in attendance @ the City Planning meeting on Monday, 3/27/17. It was encouraging to note the civility & good order, especially in these times. There were some most tender issues addressed in a very respectful manner by you & the commissioners. It was nice to see. Thanks. However, the commissioners seem to be much disposed to approve the above cited proposal to rezone & know what is to follow .This is not good. And that persuasion, despite cogent & honest testimony by a multitude of residents to indicate the predictable harm rezoning will bring. This includes, & is not limited to, increased commercial traffic, pedestrian adults & kids struck / injured by vehicles, trash, vermin, food odors, noxious, mephitic smells, dumpster drawbacks, decreased home & property value, reduction in the solace, comfort, & peace of the Stonewood home environment, general discontent, excessive unneeded transients passing through with the probable chance for increased crime in Stonewood & the area . Folks did not buy there to be degraded & marginalized in such a way. The effort seems invidious .Land owners & developers on Lots 1 & 2 will benefit mightily; the merchants & beaneries that establish there may do OK ; the city will surely benefit from the lucre of more tax income , and development will creep on up the road & down it soiling all in its path. The 14th Amendment says a lot indeed. Respectfully, it is venal, selfish ,biased, & improper to do this without equal consideration of Stonewood and sentient consideration of its position. A sense of decency here is hard to spot presently. The spirit & intent of the rezoning effort is surely incompatible with good citizenry & consideration of the decent people of Stonewood. I hope the commissioners do not share that view of us. We pay our bills, keep your city alluring, and dignify yourselves and Springdale as a fine place to be. Please do consider us. Sad to say, at this juncture we are meat for your grinder. And it's for a purpose that defiles the common good of the area, the common weal, and even yourselves as advocates for something which, in the long view , is detrimental for the surround & us. It was somewhat surprising to hear the nice Nature Center spokeswoman's comments last Monday. "Neutrality" noted in her stance. There is solid irony in favoring some beaneries to be close by , feeding their patrons after a healthy heart ramble in the Center. And knowing that these food places are established on , & adjacent to , clean salubrious neighborhoods that are being soiled by the enabling rezoning & planned development. These are juxtaposed to the healthiness & good stuff of her nature unit. Ugh. Well, opinions are that way, and no hypocrisy is suggested. I am hopeful that all of you will put your political & mercenary hats aside to consider what you are doing to some of your very own good ones in this fine multicultural neighborhood. It is improper, & tends to do real harm. I trust Homo sapiens would never eat its own. We should all have that confidence. Thank you Sincerely, Albert Mac Dade Owner- Stonewood 3/31/2017 WE HAVE LIVED IN STONEWOOD FROM DEVELOPING FIRST BEGAN. WE BOUGHT LOTS 72,73,74,75. WE MOVED HERE FROM THE KANSAS CITY AREA AND PREVIOUSLY TO THAT LIVED IN HOUSTON WITHIN BOTH NICE BEGINNING SUB -DIVISIONS. AFTER BEING IN EACH AREA FOR 21 AND 16 YEARS RESPECTIVELY, THEY WENT THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS FROM RO. THEY BUILT A ALDI FOOD STORE IN KANSAS CITY AND A CONVENIENCE STORE IN HOUSTON. BOTH SUB -DIVISIONS STARTED GOING DOWN HILL AND DEFINITELY DE -VALUED THE PROPERTIES. BY THE TIME WE SOLD AND MOVED. WE WERE ON OUR WAY FROM KANSAS CITY TO TEXAS TO RELOCATE FROM RETIREMENT IN 2001. WE STOPPED IN FAYETTEVILLE AND AFTER LOOKING OVER THE AREA, DECIDED TO SETTLE HERE. WE CHOSE STONEWOOD WITH ALL THE PROMISES FROM THE DEVELOPER, MARK FOSTER, WHICH HE FAILED TO CARRY OUT. WE'D LIKE TO REMAIN IN STONEWOOD, BUT IF HOME VALUES START GOING DOWN, WE WON'T STAY. WE'VE BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT. WE KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN. I FEEL THE ENTIRE SUB -DIVISION FEELS THE SAME WAY. IF THAT HAPPENS, I CAN SEE FAYETTEVILLE HAVING A LOW CLASS HOUSING AREA WHICH COULD ALSO HURT THIS ENTIRE SIDE OF FAYETTEVILLE INCLUDING THE BOTANICAL GARDENS. WE OPPOSE THE REZONING. HOPE THIS WILL BE PASSED ONTO THE CITY COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. JOE DRAPER Hi Jonathan, I own property in the Stonewood Subdivision. There is no reason for commercial work or business to be on Crossover across from the Botanical Gardens. The strip that Mike Parker owned was always meant to be R/O. Please work to make that the case moving forward. Nobody wants the Pizza Place. Please do whatever you can to stop this rezoning and keep the area Residential / Office Thanks and let me know how I can help you. We are counting on you to help. Regards, Mike Flynn Central Garden and Pet Walmart Business Development Team ntfl nn(g)central.com 479-268-7202 (0) 479-616-0707 (M) Disclaimer: This communication and any attachments contain private, confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information intended solely for the Recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended Recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If received in error, we apologize and ask that you please notify the Sender by returning this e-mail and permanently deleting this communication from your computer, including destruction of any printed copies. Any views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Company represented by this e-mail source. No contracts, agreements or legally binding understandings may be entered into solely by an e- mail communication. Dear Jonathan, Please accept this correspondence as a vehement objection to the proposed rezoning of the 2 lots adjacent to the Hearthstone Drive entrance. It was accepted when we all elected to build our homes, and invest substantial monies to do so, that there would eventually be office buildings at the entrance. That was the accepted deal. Be assured it was an arrangement we were all aware of and accepted. Why is this relevant? Because we were also aware of what was NOT allowed to be built at the entrance, namely convenience stores or fast food or any number of high traffic / high-volume business of those type. If the deal when we build houses and moved to the neighborhood was that there would be a convenience store or McDonald or etc. at the entrance, MOST if not ALL of the present tenants would have elected to forego building or moving into Stonewood or Copper Creek, and would have established our homes and neighborhoods elsewhere. Myself absolutely! It was a CONSCIOUS decision, not something that had not been considered until now! That is a fact. A rezoning would be an unfair change of rules mid - game. Not fair. Not equitable. It completely fails the "Do Right" rule! It was NEVER part of the deal that those lots would be allowed to be rezoned in a manner that would allow fast food or convenience stores or any number of high traffic / high-volume businesses or retailers to clog the intersection and attract persons of every ilk to our neighborhood!! It is simply not acceptable to the residents who have made this neighborhood their home to suddenly allow it. Please respect this request to deny the rezoning and request the opinions of the residents. Consider for a minute and take into account the extremely negative impact this rezoning would have on a population of citizens that more than pulls its weight paying the taxes which fund the activities and salaries of the employees of this city. We trust you will pass along these sentiments to the Commissioners hearing this request.?! Your, and their consideration in this regard would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks, Mike Regards, Mike Flynn Central Garden and Pet Walmart Business Development Team mflynnC central.corn 479-268-7202 (0) 479-616-0707 (M) Disclaimer: This communication and any attachments contain private, confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information intended solely for the Recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended Recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If received in error, we apologize and ask that you please notify the Sender by returning this e-mail and permanently deleting this communication from your computer, including destruction of any printed copies. Any views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Company represented by this e-mail source. No contracts, agreements or legally binding understandings may be entered into solely by an e- mail communication. 4/3/2017 Mr. Curth, I wish to comment on the meeting of 03/27/2017 concerning the rezoning of property and the intersection of Hearthstone and Crossover. I will reiterate my opposition to permitting the rezoning of that property. Again, if the government decides to interfere with a contractual agreement between members of the public (who have not been under coercion or misinformation) there must be a substantial benefit to the citizen received from such interference. Even in takings of personal property, the public use benefit must be considerable. The committee response did not assure anyone of a significant benefit from the zoning change. There is no benefit from rezoning as would be received from things like new roads to reduce traffic, signs for security, an easement for better infrastructure, or any other advantage. It will only help one person sell his property to the detriment of many homeowners. It was repeatedly mentioned that a nice business or small shop would be permitted under current zoning for this property. This current zoning protects the owners of the property from nuisance. Smells, noise, order and other problems that might occur could be addressed under these ordinances. Changes would deprive owners of these protections from businesses that failed to keep up an amicable existence in the subdivision and negatively affect property values. I understand the planning committee is a voice for business in Fayetteville. However, they are also a part of the city government and need to recognize and rights they would be compromising. I urge them to reconsider. Monika Resident of Stonewood Subdivision I recently sent you an email stating that if certain assurances could not be met, my wife and I would be opposed to rezoning the front lots. In our opinion, those assurances can not be met. We want to go on record as specifically being opposed to the rezoning that is being proposed! Samuel and Margaret Moore 4/5/2017 Mr. Curth, Prior to your revised report that will be sent to the Planning Commission on 4/6, I wanted to reiterate my opposition to RZN 17-5733. Many concerns were well communicated and supported in the last planning meeting; however, I wanted to highlight only a few for continued consideration. I . 74 of 75 Stonewood Residents are against rezoning according to a poll conducted by the Stonewood POA Treasurer. If Copper Creek and Embry Acre residents were polled, you would see the number of residents opposed increase significantly. 2. Both the developer and Stonewood homeowners bought property and adjacent properties with the understanding that the entrance to Stonewood would be zoned RO. I disagree with staff finding 5b in the original memo regarding this matter which states "It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications." The office park north of Hearthstone appears to be fully leased/owned, making this a practical development for RO zoning. 3. I fully support Commissioner Brown's comments that rezoning to CS does not support the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for this neighborhood. 4. 1 fully support Commissioner Hoskin's comment that the plan for an end use with a drive thru window application does not fit the adjacent properties and should not be considered. 5. 1 fully agree with the Commissioner's comments that in order to vote to rezone this property to CS the Commission would have to turn their backs on all the residents opposed to the rezoning. Thank you for considering these points as to draft your revised report for the Planning Commission. Best regards, Ryan Parrish Copper Creek Home Owner My name is Joe Rocko, I am a resident of the Embry Acres/Stonewood/Copper Creek subdivision in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I think having local businesses in that area is a no brainer. It increases the value of the houses and can offer the neighborhood much needed restaurants. I can't begin to tell you how often our Facebook page shows people asking for more restaurants in the area. Personally that would be amazing. I also can't help but think that a pharmacy, restaurants, bike shop, or coffee shop would be amazing. A few of our neighbors seem to be upset by this possible rezoning. Honestly though what did they think would go there? No one would buy that land to put a house on it. It's too close to 265 and it would be a bad spot for a small group of houses to be on. When thinking about this area I always thought about how great it would be to have local businesses within walking distances from the park and neighborhood. Thank you for letting us speak out on this topic Joe Rocko Dear Mr. Curth, My family and I live on Waterstone Drive in Copper Creek. We are strongly Opposed to the rezoning of the SE Crossover Rd & Hearthstone Dr. We moved to this location to enjoy the lovely & quiet access to The Botanical Gardens as well as Lake Fayetteville, not to mention the feeling of "Safety" in our neighborhood. The proposed rezoning would create unwanted noise (live music into the late evenings @ MJ's Pizzaria) would you want to have to listen to this from your back yard or even inside your home when trying to relax after work or put your children/grandchildren to bed. I am actually wondering why would ANOTHER pizza place want to go in within such a small proximity to Jim's Razorback on corner of Joyce and Crossover, Marco's just down road at corner of Don Tyson and Crossover, then there is Papa Murphys a the next intersection of Hwy 412 and Crossover... seems like a possible front to me... once they get the rezoning they switch things up! This is not to mention the extra traffic and possible cut thrus into the subdivision and create unwanted mischief. We are ALL (Copper Creek, Stonewood and Embry Acres) worried that this will cause many issues and unhappy residents. The current property's on Castlerwood Ln where Elder Management, Prime Real Estate & Development & the new office for financial planning are wonderful and welcome additions to the front of the neighboorhoods! Please keep the areas zoned for businesses such as this in order to maintain the peaceful tranqiulity of the front of the subdivision as well as the lovely Botanical Gardens across the street. Thank you for your time & consideration, Renee Rogers 3373 Waterstone Drive Fayetteville, AR 72764 CUP 17-5733 Memo from Commissioner Brown Fellow Commissioners The Guiding Policies of the 2030 Master Transportation Plan encourage the Planning Commission to consider the impacts of land use decisions on the the transportation network. Using 2011 to 2015 Average Daily Traffic Count Data supplied by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and 2011 to 2015 Traffic Accident data supplied by the Fayetteville Police Department through the City GIS, I have calculated the level of traffic volume needed to produce a traffic accident (see attached Traffic Volume and Accidents.xlsx) on the following two Principal Arterials: Crossover/Hwy265 - 39,815 vehicles. College Avenue/ 71 B - 13,737 vehicles. The lower Traffic Volume needed to produce an accident on College Avenue/71 B compared to Crossover /Hwy265 is a result of land use, road design and the access management policy differences. For example, College Avenue has more curb cuts, intersections and bordering retail commercial land uses than Crossover/Hwy265. Therefore, reducing traffic accidents and insuring the effective functioning of this Principal Arterial should be a major reason why we need -to avoid continually approving retail commercial land uses outside the designated City Neighborhood Areas within the Crossover/ Hwy265 Corridor and thereby setting precedence that may eventually result in another College Avenue along Crossover/Hwy265. Tom Brown L 4' W a0 00 W I� r n r Y N N N N N N N N O N d N W 41 g M H � � r C 0 ppp (�p pp p p{y (fp�� �ypp oop p p II 9 0p 0 0 Q G fi a 0 Cp tl C� M Q 4 N O L 4' W a0 00 W I� r n r Y N N N N N N N N N « o m o m m m m m m ry m m m oo N N N N N N N N N N N N a r H W O N 00 o = a ppp (�p pp p p{y (fp�� �ypp oop p p II 9 0p 0 0 Q G fi a 0 Cp tl C� M Q O N « o m o m m m m m m ry m m m oo N N N N N N N N N N N N a r H W RZN 17-5733 One Mile View 1 I r LAKE RD„ WA 4 CP PROPERTIES NORTH ,�8g11111 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles rtrt�$fI111pA1i97ili all 4 I I I I i I_ .... � ALBRIGF! Q J Subject Property RSF-4 I � I 1 1 1 t - I I Zto'�' J I i I . I I 1 I R-0 I C-1 I RU D .-.._. Cr 1 -Y wW of I 0 uD 7 C� f Zo��inq RESIDENTIAL SING LE -FAMILY EXTRACTION 00Fi Legend ...... MKai"rai COMMERCIAL omee 1 ' Planning Area 4 RSF r FORM BASED DISTRICTS 1 1RSF �iO Sal we mwn. cope 4 - Fayetteville City Limits RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY to rei cmere - '$� Rr t1 R siDenlial Two anarmx is �p pow" n r ...... Shared Use Paved Trail Brl coww a RMF�i7 i o is rTa �e gnm a o�erva "R 111111: (Proposed) RMFaTrail PLA WED ZO NM UISTRICTy. Planning Area 9 - - - INDUSTRIAL """"""'" °'""' IN, TUTIONA Building Footprint Fayetteville City Limits mm s s4 a"ea "o�,a RZN 17-5733 Close Up View R -A Legend s Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint CP PROPERTIES RSr-4 Feet 0 75 150 300 450 600 1 inch = 200 feet LADELLE PL HEARTHSTONE DR WATERSTONE DRI A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural R S F-4 Residential -Office RZN 17-5733 CP PROPERTIES A& Current Land Use NORTH - r w y l i`x.- ft • ray, t'y, 7 GCLLE PL raj\ "� - 'x: i —� Stonewood Subdivision �- Subject Property- 4\ A Botanical Garden t' of the Ozarks ' HEARTHSTONE DER rY IL p,k a Vir rt" j I ,MRZN17-5733 FEMA Flood Hazard Data P.o— Streams Street Iop-YEar Eloodplalrs PRIN ARTERIAL PKWY • m • Shared Use Paved Trail Feetrlaodway t € 1 19 Trail (Proposed) 0 75 150 300 450 600 County Parcels �Planning Area 1 inch = 200 feet 11 Fayetteville City Limits RZN 17-5733 Future Land Use Legend 4 ' Planning Area ' Fayetteville City Limits t--- Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint CP PROPERTIES a W vk- U Feet 0 75 150 300 450 600 1 inch = 200 feet LAOELLE PL NORTH 0 z X J Q W O 0 HEARTHSTONE DR WATERSTONE DRI FUTURE LAND USE 2030 Natural Area Rural Area Residential Neighborhood Area City Neighborhood Area Civic and Private Open Space/Parks CityClerk From: Bob Anderson <anderhog@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:10 PM To: CityClerk Subject: City Council Meeting 5-2-17 Attachments: Rezoning Proposal.xls Attached is a spreadsheet that shows the property owners' votes concerning RZN 17-5733. Would you please see that this is included in the package of materials provided to the council members prior to the hearing Tuesday night. Thank you. Bob Anderson Treasurer Stonewood P.O.A. Stonewood Subdivison Rezoning Proposal for Lots 1 & 2 Commercial Lots 92.9% Percentage of lots voting 13 For the rezoning 0 Against the rezoning 100.00/0 Percentage for rezoning Homeowner Lots 83.8% Percentage of lots voting 2 For the rezoning 86 Against the rezoning 1 In between 96.60% Percentage opposed Lot Parcel Name Address 1 22244 C P Properties, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 2 22245 C P Properties, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 3 22246 Kjune LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 4 22247 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 5 22248 Parker Investments, LI_C Castlewood Ln. (Commercial Lot) 6 22249 Parker Investments, LLC Castlewood Ln. (Commercial Lot) 7 22250 Parker Investments, LLC 4790 Castlewood Ln. (Commercial Lot) 8 22251 Fochtman, Earl & Gayle Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 9 22252 Fochtman. Earl & Gayle Crossover Road (.Vacant Commercial Lot) 10 22253 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 11 22254 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 12 22255 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 13 22256 Parker Investments. LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 14 22257 Parker Investments, LLC Crossover Road (Vacant Commercial Lot) 15 222.58 Ellison, Frances Anita 4843 Lavendon fel, 16 22,259 Ingram, Justin & Andrea 4857 Lavendon PI, 17 22260 Watson, Gaye F. 4569 Lavendon PI. 18 22261 Olive Trust Joshua Hicks 4881 Lavendon Pl. 19 22262 Stevens. Robert & Karen 3116 High Meadows. Dr. 20 22263 Liu, Pu & Li -Chuan Chang 3140 High Meadows Dr. 21 22264 Oswald, Robert & Anne 3162 High Meadows Dr, 22 22265 Roberts, Barbara 3186 High Meadows Dr. 23 22266 Szakasits, Monika 3200 High Meadows Dr. 24 22267 Nielson, Bradley & Michelle Roberts 3224 High Meadows Dr. 25 22268 Murphy, Rong Yan 3246 High Meadows Dr 26 22269 Hicklin, Michael & Lynda 4884 Traits End Ln, 27 22270 Vowell. Stevan & Peggy 4868 Traits End Ln. 28 22271 Hopkins, Wade & Sharon 4856 Trails End Ln. 29 22272 Aldridge, Bret & Barbara 4842 Trails End Ln 30 22273 Hubbard, Thomas & Shareinea 4830 Trails End Ln. 31 22274 Zimmerman, Brent & Cassandra 3229 High Meadows Dr. 32 22275 Woodward, Billy Ray & Joann High Meadows Dr. (Vacant Lot) 33 22276 Scarbrough, Troy & Amy 3191 High Meadows Dr. 34 22277 Cox, Winfred M. & Clarice W, 3163 High Meadows Dr. 35 22278 Caldwell, Nelson & Terrie 3141 High Meadows Dr. 36 22279 Augustine, Merlin & Beverly 4852 Lavendon PI. 37 22280 Anderson, Bob 4844 Lavendon Pl_ 38 22281 Parker, Terry & Ellen 3142 Greystone Dr. 39 22282 McLaughlin, Gary & Susan 3164 Greystone Dr. 40 22283 Mitzel, Marvin & Christel 3190 Greystone Dr. 41 22284 Welker, Juanita M. 3204 Greystone Dr. 42 22285 White, Bryan & Susan F. 3228 Greystone Dr. Stonewood Subdivison Rezoning Proposal for Lots 1 & 2 Commercial Lots Homeowner Lots 92.9% Percentage of lots voting 83.8% Percentage of lots voting 13 For the rezoning 2 For the rezoning 0 Against the rezoning 86 Against the rezoning 100.0% Percentage for rezoning 1 In between 96.6% Percentage opposed Lot Parcel Name Address 43 22286 Davis, Jerry & Brenda 4808 Trails End Ln. 44 22287 Marley. Mark & Cheryl 4792 Trails End Ln, 45 22288 Mize. Andrew M. & Page Ann 4774 Trails End Ln - 46 22289 Salsbury, Randy & Shana 4758 Trails End Ln. 47 22290 Ashley. Larry & Martha 4749 Trails End Ln. 48 22291 Bunn, Richard & Marrgaret. Werner 4773 Traits End Ln. 49 22292 Bradbury, Michael & Sharon Etchinson 4701 Trails End Ln_ 50 2229:3 Glenn, Ryan & Maranda 4807 Trails End Ln, 51 22294 Wynne, Thomas B. & Marley M. 3203 Greystone Dr, 52 22295 Rigo. Gilson & Varna 3189 Greystone Dr_ 22296 Basnett, Erin 4790 Stonewall Crossing 54 22297 Crawford, John & Beverly 4772 Stonewall Crossing 55 22298 Davis, Doris & Kim 4754 Stonewall Crossing 56 22299 Hughey, Gary & Sandra 4738 Stonewall Crossing 57 22300 Gillihan, Betty Kaye Abdaft 3202 Hearthstone Dr. 58 22301 Jezewski, Jeffery & Jennifer 3226 Hearthstone Dr 59 22302 Matthews, Andy & Chery 3244 Hearthstone Dr. 60 22303 Scalise, Mark & Jacqueline 3268 Hearthstone Dr. 61 22304 Malone, Noel &,Ada Lee. 3077 Greystone Dr. 62 22305 Smith, Virginia 3103 Greystone Dr_ 63 22306 Mueller, Phuong & Ellen Gebhart-Mueller 13119 Greystone Dr 64 22307 Mosby, Keith & Katherine 4807 Stonewall Crossing 65 22308 Stephens, Trey Ili 3144 Ladelle Pt_ 66 22309 Alisha Sutton 3120 Ladelle PI. 67 22310 LaGrone, Clean 3102 Ladelle PI. 68 22311 Kennett, Vic & Melody 3078 Ladelle Pi. 69 22312 Flynn, Mike & Courtney 3063 Ladelle PI. 70 22313 Henry. Clay & Jean Ann 3079 Ladelle € i. 71 22314 Wright, Warren & Linda 3101 Ladelle Pl. 72 22315 Draper, Joe & Nancy 3145 Ladelle Pl. 22316 Draper, Joe & Nancy 3145 Ladelle Pl. 22317 Draper, Joe & Nancy 3145 Ladelle Pl: 22318 Draper, Joe & Nancy 3145 Ladelle Pl. 22319 Davis, Rick & Shawna 3100 Hearthstone Dr. 22320 Planalto, Nick 3080 Hearthstone Dr_ 183 22321 Hudgens, Patricia 3081 Hearthstone Dr. 22322 Ashby, Charles & Debbie 3033 Waterstone Dr. 22323 Hus'ken, Gerard & Tammy 3057 Waterstone Dr,. 22323-001 Collins, Craig & Bethany. 3089 Waterstone Dr. 22324 Cantu, Jeffrey 3123 Hearthstone Dr. '22325 MacDade Properties LLC 3044 Waterstone Dr. 84 22326 Watkins, Janet & Catherine Vantine 3072 )1Vaterstone Dr Stonewood Subdivison Rezoning Proposal for Lots 1 & 2 Commercial Lots 92.9% Percentage of lots voting 13 For the rezoning 0 Against the rezoning 100.0% Percentage for rezoning Lot Parcel Name 85 22327 Head, Steven & Hillary 86 22328 Stancil, Jim & Susan 87 22329 Forga, Maxine 88 22330 Mazili, Christine A. 89 22331 Andrade, Juan & Ana 90 22332 Levy, Lynn Revocable Trust 91 22333 Green, Cynthia K. 92 22334 Moore, Jennifer Paige 93 22336 Young, Dena 1 22335 Young, Alex Alden 95 22337 Wilson, Hugh E. & Audrey A. 96 22338 Serrano, Jose & Maria 97 22339 Porter. Kenneth B. & Andrea 98 22340 Zavaleta, Julio Cesar 99 22341 Taylor. Lawrence & Brandy 100 22342 Moore, Samuel & Margaret 101 22343 Collins, Randall 102 22344 Hardcastle, Andrea 103 22345 Kyle & Caitlin Pennington 104 22346 Bowlin. Philip & Brenda 105 22347 Moffitt. Jennifer & Michael 106 22348 Brawn, Michael & Ana 107 22349 Demarest. Chris & Alicia 108 22350 Antoine, Ronald & Zenarea 109 22359 Rhodes, Amy S. 110 22352 Chamberlain, Carol Jean -111 22353 Locey, Ryan & Monica 112 22354 McCarley, Timothy 113 22355 Morris, Nicholas & Lvdia 1,14 22355 Sandlin, James & Renee 115 22355 Carrasco-Quezada, Erika 116 22356 Black, Nancy 117 22357 Mathias, David & Ashley 118 22357-001 Siebert, Eric & Katiyn 119 22358 Zamora. Rosanna Homeowner Lots 83.8% Percentage of lots voting 2 For the rezoning 86 Against the rezoning 1 In between 96.6% Percentage opposed Address 3104 Waterstone OF. 3130 Waterstone Dr. 3152 Waterstone Or 3186 Waterstone Dr. 3208 Waterstone Dr. 3224 Waterstone Dr, 4657 Stonewall Crossing 4665 Stonewall Crossing 4673, Stonewall Crossing. 4687 Stonewall Crossing 4695 Stonewall Crossing 3147 Hearthstone Dr. 3267 Hearthstone Dr. 3243 Hearthstone Or 3225 Hearthstone Dr. 3201 Hearthstone Dr. 3185 Hearthstone Dr. 4692 Stonewall Crossing a 4664 Stonewall Crossing 4658 Stonewall Crossing 4652 Stonewall Crossing 4646 Leiston Pl, 4640 Leiston Pl. 4632 Leiston Pl. 4624 Leiston Pl. 3267 WaterstoneID3245 Waterstoner. 3223 Waterstone Or 3209 Waterstone Dr. 3187 Waterstone Dr. 3165 Waterstone Dr. Waterstone Dr. (Vacant Lot) 3129 Waterstone Dr. 2111 Waterstone Or 3352 Waterstane Dr. CityClerk From: PETER TONNESSEN <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 3:40 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; CityClerk; City -Attorney Cc: Bob Anderson; svowell@taylorlawpartners.com; Mark Scalise; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: Rev. 8 and Rev. 9 of the HANDOUT (Spreadsheet), plus redacted copies of each Attachments: POWERPOINT - ZONING DISTRICTS COMPARED with Excel Chart.pptx Mr. Curth: I am attaching PowerPoint slides of two Revisions (Rev. 8 and Rev. 9) of the HANDOUT (Spreadsheet), plus redacted copies of each, for use at the City Council Meeting tomorrow night. Please let me know if you have any problems downloading them so they can be available. Sincerely, Pete Tonnessen 3500 Hearthstone Drive 719-338-7329 Sent from my iPad 4 a CD u 6 m Ln N wGo 8 N R U3 8 & e e E LU a Lu; g q u r -I m Z ? (D Z -0 .� oc o O a Er U. ... ca u (D Ln N 8 N R U3 8 & e e E LU a Lu; g q u r -I m Z u (D Ln R v Ln E LU 4 u r -I m Z ? (D Z -0 .� oc o O a Er U. ... ca W 0 U u W D. 4-J U • r -J v I C) W ■ 0 J w m Ul 41 M D C cq Q E U ro Z n +n Q r1 '�� fa Z T3 p W u O aj a O LO ^ o L /��- Y rLL w m Ul 41 x�M E 8 S 9} m w w m N _ IKs I' 9 T }� i m S k f - N E V��'�$j� �y„ �4 ✓.c �a�u}'�VuE'.�.0 �j' TO� HH�11.�Lv V] a J-_ LU ui LL 4—) ,U -� .N bn C: O N o m m A ar V E ro m w > - Qi d m m � O w O p A O y� a`d 0 ? LLJd o U n 0 0 o o. O y c 0 C oaN zCO 0 �m _ ovEi 'c a _ cr- m > y 0 �:E- . v W j E t p LL of a a a a 0 3 t d i► 3 a T qw 13 v 3 ai _ o a E v �' o v � . O E 3 E u d u 7 a m � V E a aN 3 v o �'•y�i C H o m o 'u ro w 'c m Eio_ro.:.nN 0 0l m 0 :n m CL A ar V E ro m w > - Qi m m � O w O p A O y� a 0 ? LLJd o U n 0 0 o o. m C y c 0 C oaN �m _ ovEi 'c a d 0 m s ro y 0 �:E- . v W j t p LL of a a a a 0 3 t d i► 3 a T v H v ai o a E v �' o 3� O E 3 d r u d u 7 I2 m a c- o u aJ ro w 'c m Eio_ro.:.nN d �1 io w u 0 0 a O4-0 Q o O/w Et -,D75 .nLrR bA C W « .II d p `o a m A ar av v n A O " O a = v O y� a - c a@ ? y o o a 0 0 o o. m C y c m U0 _ ovEi 'c a 0 m s ro d E ° v3 a m o b o ; v Q c p �, S o a E v �' o 3� O E {cc u ; lR x Q u u d u 7 I2 m a c- o u u uJ ,3 z m u m A E v n A u O K m O y� a - c a@ ? 6a a M d o a 0 0 o o. m C JJ !. U0 _ ovEi 'c a m d n u c - a - c a@ o E r O w J C m C cc C a 0 m s ro d E ° v3 oro '0 E,. a N x Q c p �, S 1p 1 E v �' 'o m E w�-75r v n x Q u u d u 7 I2 w o 2� '��n LA F a w O d NY to. ,s. 4 m E � •3 an d U A N ro Wym �=l��i oi��'m 3! o ?> m � e m N eeLwii ++1 o � E E m O r @ 2U u wC= ,� O a to- n '� u 0 i m m?La W O� h �a m ' a � O U i •�. q C ? tooEL w s m h t m m O M_Ri m OwE�$ W • o C w == ffor LL t&, ,m ; a 9 c TjZ m� C 3 Z O y m � N 7 � d cu y m �.3 O O Vro 4+ O =' F a w O d NY n. ,s. 4 _ E O E h Li an d U A N ro a•uL° C G C oi��'m 3! o ?> Q d E 3> m o p a E L c®i b o of c vS O��i7avl9 u F a w O E i 0 n R m d NY n. ,s. 4 _ E O E h an d U A N ro m C G C L o 0 7 j p C Sp o p a E L a m 4.1 "ND`s ¢ of c vS O��i7avl9 u E i 0 n R m N Y 4 h 7 P m wC= ,� O C N 'V L '� u l3 ti Tj qR1 a Gl 'd Q. i •�. � M w s m m m CityClerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 3:46 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; CityClerk; City_Attorney Cc: Bob Anderson; Stevan Vowell; Mark Scalise; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 inch (Rev. 8, 4-28-17).xlsx Attachments: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 inch (Rev. 8, 4-28-17).xlsx Mr. Curth: Attached is the Excel version of the FAYAR ZONING CODE (Rev. 8) for tomorrow night. Again, please let me know if you have any problem downloading this. Pete Tonnessen 3500 Hearthstone Drive 719-338-7329 Sent from my Wad 3 � E m oz m Quo v. cl O 0 > 3 0 o a v rA mj L E Z. a N 42 E ioiu ........ 4-Z _sv tlni�o° RJ � r m m c o o o m _ c m c E n � tl oc: 0 a :L ' a' tl Qoom ^ to 7 m ffie"' VY t9 � n o ri `m m .� TI Q O •s c a •l� � E O .' d ai to N A cE =� v E :i LL �, -0 m s _ Z a o E t .::z m 3 � E -0 cl O 0 > 3 0 o a v rA L v r 42 E ioiu vEi a cuN Z n Q !"� 0 '; CityClerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 3:54 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; CityClerk; City_Attorney Cc: Bob Anderson; Stevan Vowell; Mark Scalise; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: FAYAR ZONING COE 14 inch (Rev. 8, 4-28-17) REDACTED.xlsx Attachments: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 inch (Rev. 8) REDACTED.xlsx Mr. Curth: Attached is the Excel version of the FAYAR ZONING CODE (Rev. 8 REDACTED) for tomorrow night. Again, please let me know if you have any problem downloading this. Pete Tonnessen 3500 Hearthstone Drive 719-338-7329 Sent from my Wad o To Qi U .N N � � N SF:• Q O N (UCt)v, w "i KL o_v CD rVw - v mo O Li u '%1 a0 L own C Sq y y -p O 6 �s C VY U.E. _ 3> __ -c o �.. o 0 f. 3 v' mIV 10a °Q 3 •E I 0 w c v n .'a o u O O N V 'U Vl z H J d' V U C U d N a C 1 Y o • E ° m 4) d d N N N ° E o d :? rn ,m cr E N p O � QBE 0 LU at O CU a� 0 'al 0 uai E O o E V -:t •0 m ri C y N0) '� d (n C C C . 7. 7 W c- 0 O_ a�,0ao p :• a� /1/> _ 3 `a 1i r -e�+ a _o �►>c v= m ` w my txG o w A .? W o�rf of av�� L a ayi Z ai tm o s,�vvE �d€a, °per' Q A w C v N `� U U r ljr N d 0 r, ° a o s c, iE � m v E � m Y (/1 o v d4Tirn'� o° Z o E Eom:..((� N p o U N >- m th Z G' o t ieU y, v u y .; f C E o w m O J N LA N A E `�i O (n L 4D C~ l(5 Y C N O ¢ O 4 ,. O dC C ,eE a C: O OCL m c ...Wr: ho v ou m m O= .. i+ S d ya C 0 7 L •p �.. d v m L •z a.i;t N C T =3 Nv 9 V° dE 0fl L L3€ _}(p T.qc. J p Ovv Tc ° '�-' o FD i yod d d, V' o z E w•YT_ riZ a c> c r0dC 9 E _ °B E ma QOa cU.a;;(('i 0�o :l MN c 3 u Vi r r O S o Q u u d U l.7 w Z V O ? V1 Cit Clerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:12 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; CityClerk; City_Attorney Cc: Bob Anderson; Stevan Vowell; Mark Scalise; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 inch (Rev. 8, 4-29-17) PERMITTED sq ft.xlsx Attachments: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 inch (Rev. 9, 4-29-17) PERMITTED sq ft.xlsx Mr. Curth: Attached is the Excel version of the "FAYAR ZONING CODE (Rev. 9) PERMITTED sq ft" for tomorrow night. Again, please let me know if you have any problem downloading this. Pete Tonnessen 3500 Hearthstone Drive 719-338-7329 Sent from my 1Pad » - - 3 ° E m E g y m apo s ti—` th TE»gEam ao2o wad ,UIYD 'w n v zi p g�mgE=o��m e E _ G c U r s ° Q � ` m maEE�gz a_= cc m YM1 Sin tSF 0 � aaci�N .43 o_ °aEo- d:ze g `n • ma c .. 5 w � m � di ave u - o ` Q %�m W m o - C1 'y Tl 3 m } a' g ¢ool� m « 4 a E tel' •7 m 3� m Ol 0 +�+ » -0 om3A ° t u m » s z Z a m1 m E a `iLL.z m 1; L: ss� E E _ _ 3 alo z i � E Qi !" � - fA O Ln rq N E W I- a tly u �roZ� W E V1 a •I y � W �/ o O ^� •y Li 0 V/ c p m ad 1 L ai m N ? Q LL 4. -0 f0 1; L: ss� E E _ _ 3 alo z i � E Qi � - fA Vl 7 tlJ � E tly W E H y o O Wim- m= -_ _oao - m ad ° s�;• [ra �aaP 9 $$$$¢¢ vEi T ♦♦c��a N, v H a r x a u .W....17 1; L: ss� E E _ _ 3 alo z i � E Qi � - fA Vl 7 � E W ad I n u J i° o vEi T N, v H a r x a u 1; L: ss� E E _ _ 3 alo z i � E I n u J i° o vEi E E e E E c CityClerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:18 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; CityClerk; City -Attorney Cc: Bob Anderson; Stevan Vowell; Mark Scalise; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 inch (Rev. 9) PERMITTED sq ft REDACTED.xlsx Attachments: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 inch (Rev. 9) PERMITTED sq ft REDACTED.xlsx Mr. Curth: Attached is the Excel version of the FAYAR ZONING CODE (Rev. 9) PERMITTED sq ft REDACTED for tomorrow night. Again, please let me know if you have any problem downloading this. Pete Tonnessen 3500 Hearthstone Drive 719-338-7329 Sent from my Wad d Y � a € TI Vy E o *Aft,ca LU C C C u a) 2 � E ° :. n •0 v+ c O 'Ocl �� . o V C� E Q) ^..': C N O .: L Q C W/� N )_- w n C O w y O o— -o >- E a _ r: O r w E n o v Q m v� m _� C E: "' "' L v z Q 7 d •3 L -" LL L.V ., N = �_ n m c N CL L :ai .. Z d of , -- c� /` ; " v ^ v Y m o E :: /� ;" v N n=> e a E o f d '« C w ,, v E )€ m Q A m o w C ., �� � N c a t c o �� u v) H Y- .7 2 .� o ¢ V �� u 2 V (7 w L o V1 V _ E O M N o 7 m N (1 c Ol �y a) 7t% E N v c p N c E O0, b v > w E o=— m `. = U fn w0 L m C 10 d V O a •VS .� m Y CL 4 Y C •� w J 3 N N o > C `1 L d o 0 in 0 E O o E 3 0 v m v u 10 a) 3Z3 v v ry ,w. v i 3= y c m v c Q O O top u lOJ v) H z O u u a to W. Z x P2 v vEi 1 a N r:. _0 GJ a) a V �> x Y o,-1 = N m v V1 Z v ^ W E E N O 0 E m =:s N 0 C a _ G u O^ C N tr ; U a)15 E G a N N C '. ' O(n t c m c v c v O Y d A i C OO " C2 O pE L o v m g v LL m v E C a a) v e w o ` a y as o ccsiLL.� v E° m o ° v n v E o �+ µ E y u Z _'3 o y c a— .`.°-t o= a a— = a N E d 2,f N G .>. m a o u Y o A a _a .. a E Q a] w C U€ .+: N u V1 {-- 1- J 2 Q V u V l7 Z P II j� CityClerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:05 AM To: CityClerk Cc: City -Attorney; Bob Anderson; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: PHOTO EXHIBIT for RZN 17-5733 & VAC 17-5753 Categories: Forwarded Gb61sk SYLT%sa, "rn51rea5ww..- s�bN.c c n srsr oa,e. �npY, an Y4as true vn R -O Residential Office (A) Purpose.... designed prime* to provide area for offices :yufti9ttf. rr{,�riYkrron ISp Mo 0plur-4.. kF s„a_itr-me office- together wffh community facilities, restaurants and compatible residential uses. (1) PERMITTEE[ Uses. Cit,, -wide uses by right Government faclft e Single-family dwellings Two (2) family dwellings thnnt:d SuslnesS (Eafing x2'000 $4 ft] Offices, studios and related services Custer Housing Development (2) Conditional Uses. City-wide uses by conditionat use permit Public protection and utility facilities Cultural and recreational Facilities Manufactured home oar4` €atingplaces Neighborhood Shopping goods Home occupations Multi-famUy dwellings Wireless communication faclllles• Clean technologies Small scale Production I.— mo,,...e,a Neighborhood Services - Limited (A) Purpose, . designed to serve as a mixed use area of lOVI intensity. . promoles a Vnftbj0_ggdsstri92_ oriented neluhboahaQq development form with sustainable and cn mplementnry neihborhood businesses that are -c, r..na'l.a_;tt1J „it kQ,1ije,, .,- thUr'se<.a., ..1..,. For the purpose of Chapter 96: ;`foise: G,ontrci, the Neighborhood Services district is a It.lil zone City-wide uses by right Single-family dwellings Two tT) famify dwellings Three (ll and Imn (4) family dwcllingt Ummdowiness EEatingc2000scift] Home occupations Accessory dwelling units Cluster Housing Development City-wide uses by conditional use [permit) Public protection and utility facilities Cultural and recreational facilities Government facilities Neighborhood Services - General (A) Purpose.. - designed to serve as a mixed use area of lllk'ti!)u4rt intensity . promotes a �yiflh&g, ocdestrian•arionted noMj&gjhg" development form with sust.tn:kblc end gg.�rJpl�ementarr neighborhood business that are &4l .. I D -d For the purpose of Chapter 96: Ncisa Control the Neighborhood Services district is a zone. (1) PERMITTED Uses. City -Wide uses by right Single-family dwellings Two (2) family dwellings Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings Unit 12b Gfnaral lust,*,, (,3000 Set mre feet]. Home occupations Accessory Dwelling Units Cluster Housing Development (2) Conditional Uses. City-wide uses by conditional use permit Public protection and utility facilities Cultural and recreational facilities Government facilities :arlins Naos m raring p44cas INtiighborhovd shopping goods — _ - - �hpppmgitpt,df Commercial recreation, small sites Commercial recreation, small sites Offices, studios and related services Multi -family dwellings Wireless communication facilities* Sidewalk safes Small-scale production Offices, Studios and gelated Services Muitvfamilydwellings Wireless communlcatlon fadllUes• Sidewalk cafes Clean technologies Small scale production Sent from my Wad Cit Clerk From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Categories: Sent from my Wad Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:11 AM CityClerk City -Attorney; Bob Anderson; pete012639@yahoo.com PowerPoint Slide FAYAR ZONING CODE Spreadsheet (R -O NS -L NS -G) FAYAR ZONING CODE (Rev. 10) R -O NS -L NS-G.xlsx Forwarded N m I y L N C N O O O Q N a x m O L a oM a o 17. U) c Y o O O 'W N L m l9 A LL rn M u aZi ° m ❑ `- n ° 4E, UJ ED O N N 2 0p y 00) � _0 O G bl3.�_' '- av2 LL 3 o o =moo C o 3 ' e i E o 0 C L a.i W v > c 3 Q v v = o d 4` O E a c d 3 Lll CL N 'a: = — N -� ro ` �ri A aa+ 7 6/:; L N 3 L C O O N O q O 3 a 01 E QW O 3 d u{ U �� V N H H .7 S Q U �� V d V l7 W L N V O i 3 in V of O � 1 p C O ..,. O. ^N, W N r 0-U) '3 U v 0 ;;y o •' x m - E= ``l o E O O,"i LL O N N Y C E 0 a� 3 o 0 m._'1 Z n) c y O r w O EI a E }` c a N o= a = _ L J c Eo o m0a OV a)F0 ' c� 0 � v a m.40 o L c N Y _� u m ? N 3] C C 0 > v =• ° N d —y c 3 E • a N 'a co c c d N= a m a io O� v -' c E '". m 7 a 3 .N c a n o m > E y 'E d Z Q d a c m f0 N c N Gl ;1 N � v :� E 1O m w m O O m y O a m c q L _ n 0 - N - m Y u ;.» c;9 c a 3 uv ^' v ;; v .v. 3 Q V V a V 0 W Z V O C N N L ,�O N cts U C To CIOh a . 14 Q'I in cl s � Q �, 'Q c v ❑ LU vvi — v ly D, E L V 1•�Y c \ w O u C o L op E O c rua ow r 0 CL ow n o 2CC y o z W >> _o ` Q v z v v a v E o o CIL 3$ c a v E E m '° = V v o n m 0 a oM. E L u o v v ,u, o «' Qoom ��� G u n� :1o Lj 2Wz = ?3 W � CityClerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:45 AM To: CityClerk Cc: City -Attorney; Bob Anderson; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: RZN 17-3733 & VAC 17-5753 PHOTO EXHIBIT re FAYAR PLANNING CODE (Rev. 12) Categories: Forwarded 4 (Rev. 12, 5/2/17) R -O Neighborhood Services - Neighborhood Services Residenfiai Office Limited General Fayetteville AR UDC fN NIP,— des jm!u lu serve as a mii<aa Hse (qI Pup—_ y.,pr.rd b fares e a mMe ua. 0 of 3QiV lnlanslly. - Ilrarrcd. -0 of ump ]Lwrp Mli M11' pfdnW]Sl (Zoning) as amended (A) laurp-- despmed prunanly 4 p 0 de B en M dylop—m m O/IhBEltliM1dIP 1/1WC04Fl IC.15rt FHV7i1v W. AQY.0AWfl.th u@Nm " `�s ft,by vwgH doveb trvh ai. es .I I.: ORDINANCE 5945 ,. Fbr 1N0 Wryoae or Ch pl blfi •„ ar +6 1/17/2017 Ne Ne19HbOfaood 5ervires dl3lripl t6 Lg „_. AOM ft1,;"'�^w/+; .•.. approved i (1) PERMITTED Uses. fl) PERMITTED Uses. 6 UnRI OH-wldeuses by ugm C" ae usesw,h. c•4 w.5c wr. nr••gr. ,_w. .,... r Wits G nl facilites Gwtenmanl radaes e unitg single'famaY QwellMgs SirKle—d, dwA.p Single hmiry dwcllvsgs •.+4:a •.•a, n:.:•.1• 9 IFIL IF 1rw l]I lfrmrydwiAwgs iuro l])—tydwelMlgs Iwof2l Yam'Y flwePor(f. klJr+•Wr �•a-f• t] uM 1011.1.1ll.r+d 11. f411e••aydMllM. film III 6.,q 4) flmlg ewew,y. :M1v tl:'r-arlvL :a•re-�-: r..l�w,.: of 5N1l IL— Muer.. if-Lb#-M10141{r IYrxlra"- [rAt4rR e200 Kh,{ �Ni1 y/AYeyi j[JI�Iwe;W-4,h[ 12 5►a0 tze �.w lh kl Moo [g[f * 1'M0 Lw Hi 10MI 13 ua4 r4 r6,mp o<eurvrin... aaren eenp:nnwl rr�r�xe.�rlw,. V Umf25 fNlkrl.fp.Ckn xArn4`-etl sarvirns OIAmz, sfudwi andtry,M afrwao 15 Vnit 41M[ -Y I]"W"r 1e a<cessu:y dwellin5 ulrls A.A.-}Rent UNb I6 Unit 44[luster lluusmg Oevebpment Uueel Housmr 0evelopmml rlwlw l4�IIK OneYwrMM Il.alel rbulel{Cew 1 11 (2) Conditional Uses. (2) Conditional Uses, Ig Un,t2 elly wide a. es by cnndinarul toe --Orv.•Ar wr•.pl eanda�lVvr6amil .,widen:es Lw .tdi.1� 1nee tvem�itl ner..a.. w.]•h t+-�w.w w'++.ye,:-+ 1? Unita Pobic yr, -10n end I WILY ra0llties Aublk pMactbn and WN, fa[ih— " mo-. P, —i'.ane mility laalnles ha. vue.00,...p..waa.�rw 20 Unit4 cunu:alana rauealional bldilis h:wr.W fR..] AfaWrics rrdww rldfermnagral raed:liet OAunl afldrtoeNfaM fa{ftl 21 11n',lSfi(nvmmrnsuell:llt urwemmmll NJ ilea f fry.. �. •!]nv 11 u ew.mhrJr w.— '-Y+Ilrm•xrtfamrAM' 23 IlAl4 Sr aNFy r114N 4liy frWel fflrry rffaA gM�1114�IfM 24 Nr1 IS N4rd2[Hvwmedlryac�'i1 4r utY•ra•1 yrFpr,A iaON Mr'{°�`hAmd ar'MMYr�r 2n Wdl 1t Ywppth V—” '!#NMff� 26 unN 19(--ftW (eralA:--0 An (prvnprfall rgr"e ua4Y W+r V rrxY rrur+l4f*. rr,A Mtf 21 Una 241bma0[wpaldm NOmraRYpollpll$ n U:A Uftces, sluJfas and refiled services plbcc>-dl ... relates±micas Olflms, St fd wd 0¢IpedServrc¢s 1, W126 htulli-lamirydweairyls Mumlft dwellings MOW fam:rytlwelllrys g4WEtvrdfYdw�np • WrI�144nrnnliwrarrwwmm� farlMra' WUeleal rommrinlcaunn la[IIlies' VYirclr.=.s ronimunlrangn fullllies' 1W Wr.lwr+�..M•ff+eat• 31 tram 40 W-4 oin Slrlwralk Bales Sf0erah rafei 32 Unil42 Clean lechnolpgles Clean lecnnoagms Um h[hnalagas ;J unn 4S S all sra!e proeunivn Small vale prmunien fmali smly pmdueNon Small rollelewmunior �. rrumn:y?+1 Sent from my iPad CityClerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:49 AM To: CityClerk , Cc: City_Attorney; Bob Anderson; pete012639@yahoo.com Subject: RZN 17-5733 & VAC 17-5753 PowerPoint Slide FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 -inch (Rev. 12, 5-2-17) R -O NSL-L NS -G Attachments: FAYAR ZONING CODE 14 -inch (Rev. 12, 5-2-17) R -O NS -L NS-G.xlsx Categories: Forwarded Sent from my Wad 1 m m -' r• 'I_ � S 3 0 y N N m aN m m m EO m '.. :,rn DE 'V) M n t E A a Q n _m _� W g �tv$ ,.Utn Q v c •m m y 'I o o .E N E C LLp�' v a c - o C w 0 � m � � - � � a � -c0 R m - p _ v eI m vas G E o 0 c,� ° "�a 4i yl� 0,;=�Z N N " c mss c o o o W N >-a o.� O N y o - Z R o m E m m r m o E Win:., s- E i � a u �u d u i Ru H u° o 3, u 1 IA N C Ci a Ea r, Qi N x Y O Qi O m m m 0 E m <^ ` p o fa U m N c Qi �+ O o O L LmC Ot at yO -E L J m Nm •Y O Na E mmcm 2 C 00N > m� o aa. - u t o3 Z - w m .c E - v 3 m m u::,.i m c rig: ,.. __� _ 3 j s a u u ii t7 w z u o 3 E u r o m c IW m � � aj m m m v y N ` iF O N N Q O N Q = iulu E v _ - ' - o u o, _. m ._ _ n c a m v n o - o - ai o 0 L> V o - Q3 m O .� m v m oom .� p - J to o w 7 .. — d o iul7�F o u uau' Wz �� Q -0 VY) O Ln N x CC V vi N m N o rte' a E _ °° N Y_ z—0r `o a a ° o W`y M °' a v m .. L m m v H N N a O o _ E s o v s — my,r� a o a o E o 0 Ln /^1�' ��/^� W buo Q \ ? c '' n o - w a c .°i o �' o N � •— Lim O Qi LL � E = ,'�. o - o== a n- m t a a 3-- O i Ul)LLI mo v J E �� �- Y m'cs mo E E (O\ a� -o O Q V V a U l'J W 2 vti u x 0 2i V vEi l7 F~ p � \ ,g m r 'c '- N c c c 'E c== ._ ._ .E a E CityClerk From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt@prodigy.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:52 AM To: CityClerk Subject: Fwd: CORR Subject: RZN 17-5733 & VAC 17-5753 PHOTO EXHIBIT re FAYAR ZONING CODE (Rev. 12, 5-2-17) R -O NS -L NS -G Categories: Forwarded Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Tonnessen <ptt cr,prodigy.net> Date: May 2, 2017 at 6:44:31 AM CDT To: citvclerlci`ct)fayettevillc-,,tr, oovv Cc: city attorney(cilfayetteville-ar.gov, Bob Anderson <anderbogCJ,yahoo.com>, _ "pete0I26390iyahoo.coin" <Rz!012639fa) ahoo.com> Subject: RZN 17-3733 & VAC 17-5753 PHOTO EXHIBIT re FAYAR PLANNING CODE (Rev. 12) 0 ,:dab „tX,�nnX�X.,.r..u,a.laam�ia<. ,, ts.na4at.m< sem rn„n.ny iraa Xegin fn,.ramee ny:aaasa: From: Uv: NI'acyle2, ID171.16,44A I1 AM 4CtlDI To:: p:iViruLfiiVloaiic.%y:l1: _ Cc:4iil a� XUM1jccl: N% 111]] C VAC PINOitleOrsuf.n\�XtiR irrruz FAVA+R`-PLANV1 IVGC01�pf IRM12) .. (Rev. 12, 5/2/17) R•O C Neighborhood Services - Neighborhood Services - ResidentialOffice Limited General Fayetteville AR UDC ,A,PM1,ptla&...deeigX•d11-1eamaed— ,aa"- �q,ade­ml. ate,Ut (£3W nieNatty._ pmmotbs a xsp�apua —tt M a lso!u201nlmaity pm—ft:M (Zoning) dS amended {A/FWPtlwa tJ W+2 tP •:>•ry ns eYwMilw ih Ae^r _. felm MN NAnP+NiMrti+H-xYM1 rvkl pN�uM1lre.G'.aFt•dltN �� mY60dretgbnrrua •s IMI Me'L^AkVIliA Al �ahOtlf�+I+• by ORDINANCE 5945 ""� b"" ”""�" `""` •^`b a^4beFl,ipm. X-Tatlt%rft°"'a�. ti:_q. Fof krb pllppNlrW4131A1pF19& e4 ae GatNtgf •1❑ Fp lra pspp+, MlCisAp�u+7L 1 e_rUrv.' Ne Neighborhood fiervicea �awtkl. fz2yL.�ar Iha 7lrt(�INi1M1GSd SaPMpa•OIIMait It rt •__relO'.i approved 1/17/2017 (BLuses. (1) PERMITTED Uses. (1) PERMITTED Uses. 4 UnitlCity wile user try right CUVwide un b"iA.M OtYwWa user by riP,na Otyw,de mesa N, Lluit,Government faeiitttea GuvemmmlfacilRiaa g rarvt4 irgradlme,r tt e, s Ln[te-lamiry Gwe6np iing b•lamiydwellings iei{M1W'4 JaaRa{r a Unit, Two l2) family dwelift, Twu 121 I.." drmm�a T wo(2) hmity dnelli— few121 raad(WAa/r .6 Unp lY T..lAl nip o- l+I la.aatdmW."p! Ilnn 1-4kWONPI—ilt" Ti,,.a lfi va6RV•C+I haal'r 4>,.lrry :1 teeal4s4Vda:Aiwa—JiNwkij;4wNN4Ygl1i .. ""iMlt-h"soft ImN�2t v +k+M+wrr.a'lo taaana`nall z I,wu,w�..t.r..a.isaue�awuaretni �Qi�iv'iIl�nira;.femarauAr*relrts µ:.pt .y.t us[uVa,i...„ Ihreotatyrip.Nl+b! 1ptia KaagRK'ei Unn 25 ONires, su�dbs and slated;crvirea Ogres, nudies aM related servces :5 nit 41 n my Jwelbng Unna nttzx- iinX units �lrttesa,Y D,relbnb Urab iN Unit 44 rlusle: Xuntlnp Ueyebnmrn: Cluster I,-—UeveW-1 Outte llnus ng UnveloVmerX Ower ltoutlnA pevebpmen (2) Conditional Uses. (2) Conditional Uses. 16 Unit2 CirV •+ntle runt by ceixliuunal use pzr nut fllywine wzs Xy rontliwnaluu PRmn fIT!-gWI,»faCA'rvN+iraW wrlMtX^U Oryr.+da utn Xy wrrd4bnal use permit Unita Public,,,t lbn ami Many larihuet Ptrli:cpmtec!irm and wM1ty facile,n ruNic p,rvecLi;v, aMxl'"ty lWiaaa Prbbe gvle<tim drat uulnylxil"hies 2U &-1 and, ecreaH-0 tadblics WR al and rccree[Iurw lanXries 2] Un�tS Gu.¢ntmentF ulitizt Gavernrnznl rmibbes Gwomrcnt fuiptmi 2z unN 22 Nannh[1P.ea lM,ne uarax 2dey.!eraw°E lraav pyL° x3 ,�yr++r+liWlr IMYQrybw Irllry 4tYna .Ir+YI�.11fALM 24 1N`t lA%Ava u{ tferaMbJ P g" 25 u."lAattow4p.6 :1•IOWI�aAA41dI. 2<. ani; 1, LPrnmercial rec e4Gpn. trnall,ne, tanntwm+Mwa. a=adrrn cry+.wyw aean.e.u., aaww.n 21 nit 24Nonre uccVVaiim,s - ifanM •pT.paXam � ' 2xT Umt 25 ftl. ,auidioa and relnleJ tennces Olh,es. ituJios m:tl rzlaLetl services plM1tn 3tWim mid RekteJiervi[es nit 2b Mvlii-booty tlwellinas Multi-Pamrly dwebmgs 10 Iln+lR.garbinl+N ik .iM4144Al1 %WMlM1CMtNW1M4iri+UGiYL' Wuelesx cummunbarian Wilk TMWIi Inwl+ltaF✓ipn NRFK• �t Una 4G Sidewalk cafes seewalLeafea SiJewhcales 4y Uni t 42 Clenn [ttlmclugie; z<linalogies Uee.+txhndoyws .a gva 4y Sandta.ax pr+aawst+wr Srwll stale nrmun�un S,saw xM Vnid:nimr SmaJ scale hrecluclipn IW uw, m 111,t Sent from my Wad Y +- N d m a 4, w as N x m j ; N` N♦ d w O E > i.E Y y a via Ti L m 3 2 a, .N YC yC C!B N aN W m C E L M O OO CE tcvou �O� C c CL m C d \ C O _ O S 0a je O ai n . u N _ > c v_ 'C m m C LL a -0 o O 3 = m �' v " 3 7 0o v p�� •� O O'_`'TZ N o a,�° Q a o E o 0 +� �3r h L L -ft W 7 /O� 7 C V °EO 10 O m C y LL yL CL O ao E ate- u �' ° 7 U N 0 N m � In E H y cu u O m L I�3 vN v ; � 3 Q m€ .� u r on o v +' E u n y 3 o f �N .... u n z a u `� u a u' 0 ubi vti u° o� V - 7 d cn d yz N ^ L m C If 'D- ui O a) O m N m ` N ' E E O a) Z c n a) Av « WFU N O O V _L�., ~i OlU �_ Y N m C U O > V •u O 'u O mmw oo am E o•'-' m Eco E w w L 'N C ,_i N O m w M O C C C d " O C O ✓+w O. oa m c=aU9 7 v cv•� v a g °°m g T U) AD C C p > O t0 cCL U Q 'O rV j N Z O v v° m c v v v o 3 E o O m N v > —'' , c a 3 m ° — v a E w a • y o^� j NC L O 'L_' Pty° 7 E ] 7 7 O C C V Z m O V N o r 0 m E° m° w o m° E o e' O LL ..m O o x v a c a 0 �' w m m Z a �' r z "n! >' w- avLm E 77 € Y m o E _ d m cr ns c a r $ o u _7 ' o plpyp ar o 5 E C �'d C„) `i u N F F 1 x 'Q u u d u 0 b1 Z u 0 3 N N O ca lzm 10 L > O o, o m s o E 0 u -.= 0 �... NLu= O u Y. Q) c E Qz m v E o= �° `x CA r- O V " t a m ro m c as 'm ,>r< t oo _ AS a c O a co o IL O Cc v 0 m 3 v m L° u - ' o c E o m y0 (D cuv o N v b v M 0 CL In E ° m° 0 7 p` E w E w cu a 3 u 7 C t w y v _ C — > c 3 Y 6 _u 0 E 7 m E [ap + o o m u l7 M H O u u a u u� z x° 3 u n Ln ON V Ln W \ M E N m CD vY u 4 N d Y u r -I _ Oca C '' , c0 .0 � w a O C 'u O N z -0 H. .. "=��oO�� E o /mi IwAA� ^, '... > ,� m 3 o v° m_ m_> c v .E r N y c o `° v S m A\ M A Q V! a 3 v c o w c -X >- O LL v o L o 3 E o 0 Ln W `w1N ' a v 3 ~ v Y� v ° o n v E m o a N •� O Wil m E Y rm o " u`o = o E »"m d O e u x N " a 7 L E, w W> o° t 47 0 u //O�� ,�>, a"> '� m o E E 01 w E u O in 3 L 2 O Q u V 0 a u 0 2 m Z '� u= O u 'n A' O N Vl .-I .-1 m m 01 t 0 w w O N lfl >- Q �1 /� .--1 to W 01 rl K N N Q V �� N rn V in r1 eS It a4 N N N N m V t* V C C C C C 7 c c c c c C C c c c C' C C c c C C c c C C 4 i _ ! r r �ftp i ... � S d�'+►�,A 1 LOTS 1 & Z RESTAURANT COMPS 2 3 BuiLdjAg Area Designated Paved Area 4 Restaurant Acres eIssq.—ftl Parking spaces (sci. ft s e I Lots 1 & 2 (MJ PIZZERIA?) 89% 1.79 6,410 122 42„954 7 AVERAGE of Rows 9: 19 1.99 7,202 1.37 47,140 i e 9 Red lobster 1.75 7,872 134 64,800 j f so Colton's 1.95 7,274 152 44,879 11 Kobe Hibachi Grill & Sushi 1.82 7,202 107 39,840 12 Outback Steakhouse 1.47 61985 121 38,000 13 Red Robin Gourmet Burgers 2.02 6,606 124 34,589 14 Chili's Grill & Bar 2.12 5,364 167 _S4,S00 is OG [Lot 1) 1.48 81 16 OG [Lot 2]87 70 17 Olive Garden [TOTAL] 2.35 8,058 151 48,795 18 Logan's [Lot 11 2.03 19 Logan's [Lot 2) 0.40 20 Logan's Roadhouse [TOTAL] 2.43 8,2S6 137 51,720 21 4 OFF-STREET PARKING COMPS 2 3 Designated Paved Area 4 PROPERTY Parking Spaces ParkiU Location Acreage (sq. ft 5 G Lots 1 & 2 125 Rear 1.79 > min 34,500 t Parking Spaces per Acre 70 8 Paved Area per Acre 19,274 9 % Paved Area 44.25% 10 1x Kopper Creek Pool & Park 6 Front (i.e., street -side) 1.80 2,520 12 Copper Creek Tennis Court 3 Front (i.e., street -side) 0.51 1,408 13 Lots 5/6 - Prime R/E & Dev, Inc. 14 Front (i.e., street -side) 0.58 6,633 e 4 Lot 7 - Elder Management Co. 6 Front (i.e., street -side) 0.46 3,230 15 I MAW,A 16 Community Average 0 7 0.84 3A44 17 Parking Spaces per Acre 8.66 18 Paved Area per Acre 4,117 19 % Paved Area 9.45% 20 z1 Botanical Garden of the Ozarks 59 Front (i.e., street -side) 37.34 24,500 22 Fayetteville Park Public Parking 42 Front (i.e., street -side) 163.0© 21,500 23 110 200.34 46,000 24 Public Property Average ff 51 100.17 25 Parking Spaces per Acre 0.50 26 Paved Area per Acre 230 22 % Paved Area 0.53% 28 29 Neighborhood Total 13U 203.69 59,791 3o Neighborhood Average # 31 Parking Spaces per Acre 0.64 32 Paved Area per Acre 294 33 % Paved Area 0.67% 4 \VIA owl �� �• � � � ��\ � © , � • � w F., n. !+ 6 ♦ 2 It rkk ^ r5 xw. ••o 8 .r; � v `l M r r z 14 ..r. Pte!" -- r I•a irr:ora-aror.x PI It WE A a] fr";Vmr rot Olt DIM lour op I im EXISTING STREETS I U of A Campus Master Plan COLLECTOR FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY MINOR ARTERIAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL PRIM ARTERIAL PKWY . ... ...... . . "PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL PAR"'AY„ Crossover Road is a PARKWAY • Crossover Road was planned, built and landscaped as a PARKWAY • TREES are planted every thirty (30) feet • 30 trees and 3 shrubs between Zion Road and Hilton Creek • 39 trees and 3 shrubs from Hearthstone Drive to Albright Road • 61 trees from Albright Road to Ivey lane View across Crossover Road Parkway towards the NE and Lots 1 & 2 View across Crossover Road Parkway towards the SE and Milton Creek From Parkway median, looking NNE towards Lots 1 & 2 I k 1 I 4 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: Mayor Jordan City Council Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Rhonda Lynch Paralegal CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Andrew Garner, Planning Director Jonathon Curth, Senior Planner FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: May 2, 2017 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Lots in Stonewood Subdivision Planning staff has been making a reasonable and good faith effort to help the developer with his proposed project. They have presented some worthwhile discussion and relevant factors in support of their initial recommendation to approve the applicant's requested Community Services rezoning and now the applicant's requested Neighborhood Services - General -rezoning. Reasonable minds may differ on rezoning issues. In recognition of the residential neighborhood's substantial opposition, let me present further analysis. HISTORY OF STONEWOOD AND COPPER CREEK The neighborhood roaster pian for the Stonewood Subdivision and the Copper Creek Subdivision was approved when they were zoned completely singlet family residential except for a buffer of Residential - Office lots along Highway 265 near its intersection with Hearthstone Drive by the Fayetteville City Council. The precise subdivision layout with streets and lot boundaries for this residential neighborhood was approved when the Fayetteville Planning Commission in 2001 approved its Preliminary and Final Plat. These rezonings and the Final Plats approving the neighborhood layout constitute a detailed master plan for this area. The question for this rezoning 4 request is whether this long-established neighborhood plan relied upon by hundreds of home buyers through the years should now be changed to allow much larger restaurants and other commercial developments to replace the small restaurants and stores allowed in the Residential - Office buffer along Highway 265. This request would also rezone for a possible commercial use a significant triangle of Residential Single Family zoned land. After their zoning and development approval, the single-family house lots in the Stonewood and Copper Creek Subdivisions have been almost completely built out pursuant to this neighborhood plan. These residential subdivisions have become some of the more desirable and attractive neighborhoods in Fayetteville. Some of the Residential - Office Lots along Highway 265 have been developed with no complaint by the neighbors. However, the owner of a couple of the remaining vacant R -O and RSF - 4 lots now wishes to change the approved neighborhood master plan by inserting medium density commercial urban "form -based" zoning near Fayetteville"s northern city limits and several miles from Fayetteville's urban core. A rezoning to Neighborhood Services - General which allows large retailers, restaurants and fourplexes as of right would significantly change the Residential - Office and RSF - 4 buffer upon which the neighbors relied when deciding to build or buy their homes in Stonewood or Copper Creek. INITIAL REZONING REQUEST The applicant/ developer stated he initially wanted to rezone to Commercial Services in order to build a drive-through coffee shop. Such drive-through establishments do not appear compatible with the adjoining residences. A drive-through restaurant or coffee shop is described in the Unified Development Code as being "significantly objectionable to nearby uses...." § 162.01 (R) Unit 18. This "significantly objectionable" use would adjoin the backyards of several residences. Much of this "significantly objectionable" designation is tied to the substantially increased traffic generation of a drive-in/drive-through restaurant, donut or coffee shop compared to a small, non -drive-through restaurant or coffee shop which is allowed in Residential - Office. These commercial uses are not allowed in the RSF - 4 land that the applicant wants to rezone for possible commercial or fourplex uses. Although, Community Services was recommended for approval by the Planning Department, the applicant backed off slightly to z 4 Neighborhood Services - General in the face of strong and reasoned objections of almost all of the neighbors. URBAN ZONING vs. RESIDENTIAL OFFICE Urban "form -based" zoning is especially inappropriate at this location because the rear of the lots adjoin the backyards of several houses. Pushing the large restaurant or other commercial building to the front of the lot (as required in a "form -based" zone) to hide the parking lot behind the building might shield the view of the parking lot from highway drivers, but it puts the parking lot in the face of the home owners and invades their privacy. A standard form zoning district like Residential - Office does not force the building to the front of the lot. Most small commercial developments that are allowed in R -O parcels would likely locate their parking lot in the front so that the come -and -go of cars would be buffered from the residential neighborhood by the restaurant or other limited business building itself. The proposed urban zoned districts would force the parking lots and traffic to the back of the lots causing all day and late at night noise and light disturbances for adjoining residences. Neighborhood Services - General has a lot width requirement of thirty-five (35) feet and a minimum lot area of 4,000 square feet for a single family house. The single family residential lots in Stonewood and Copper Creek require a minimum lot width of seventy (70) feet and a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet. Thus, single family lots in Neighborhood Services - General are only half those minimum requirements for the neighborhood. The current Residential - Office zoning requires a single family lot width and area 50% larger than Neighborhood Services - General and thus is much more compatible with the existing neighborhoods and the adjoining single family zoned lots along Highway 265. These urban, "form based" zoning districts may be fine in the denser downtown area, but are far from compatible with standard residential neighborhoods like Stonewood and Copper Creek built on Fayetteville's outskirts. That appears to be the almost unanimous opinion of the many homeowners who attended the Planning Commission's meeting to voice their opposition to this rezoning. 3 THIS IS NOT A DOWNZONING The Planning Commission thought that this rezoning could be considered a "downzoning" and thus more compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods of Stonebridge and Copper Creek. The neighbors almost unanimously disagree. While the overall residential density limitation might be somewhat higher, 24 as opposed to 18 units per acre in R - O, this density could only be achieved by apartments, which are not allowed except by Conditional Use which provides some protection for the neighbors. It is also theoretically possible to build a large office building fifteen feet higher in R - O than in Neighborhood Services - General. This has been possible for 16 years, but has not occurred. The current office buildings constructed on other R- O lots in this subdivision are very compatible with these residential neighborhoods. Most offices keep fairly normal 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. hours and are thus "good neighbors" and good buffers for nearby homes. Large restaurants and commercial stores usually operate long into the evening hours with much more come and go traffic than offices. Large restaurants especially can be "significantly objectionable to nearby" homes. Residential density should be measure by what is allowed by right in a zoning district. The current residential zoning of R - O allows only single family houses and duplexes. The existing RSF - 4 only allows single family homes. Neighborhood Services - General allows triplexes and fourplexes by right and single family houses on much smaller lots. That is increased density by right. Single Family Residential, four units per acre allows no real commercial uses by right. Residential - Office allows only Limited Business which limits restaurants and most other commercial retail to 2,000 square feet. Neighborhood Services - General allows restaurants and other commercial retail up to an 8,000 square foot building. Allowing restaurants and commercial buildings four times the size is an "upzoning", not a "downzoning." 4 While the 2030 plans description of Residential Neighborhood areas which was assigned to Stonewood and Copper Creek encourages "low intensity non-residential uses intended to serve the surrounding neighborhood." Neighborhood Services - General is "designed to serve as a mixed-use area of medium intensity." § 161.19(A). A 2,000 square foot low intensity restaurant, bakery or coffee shop would certainly be enough to serve the surrounding neighborhood of Stonewood and Copper Creek. An 8,000 square foot "medium intensity" restaurant would need to serve primarily Highway 265 users to be economically feasible. This is the reason the applicant is requesting this higher commercial intensity E rezoning with higher residential density by right. I Pushing a form based, mixed-use (allowing 8,000 square foot commercial buildings) zoned district into large area zoned in Fayetteville's most traditional residential single family four units per acre, RSF-4 district would be a classic example of "spot zoning" which has been criticized by the Arkansas Supreme Court and -property law authorities. "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 ...." `I'lionias Pot-oletlill uC Flelens, 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). 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). 5 CONCLUSION During my 16 years as Fayetteville City Attorney, I have often reminded the Planning Commission and City Council: "Probably the most important factor and the underlying reason to have zoning in the first place is to promote COMPATIBILTY among neighboring parcels." (City Attorney Memos of November 15, 2012; October 13, 2014; January 12, 2016; emphasis in original). I have also informed the City Council: "Substantial evidence of compatibility or lack of compatibility is found in the reasonable concerns and opinions of neighbors. City of Lowell v. M&N Mobile Home Park (1996); Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992); and Tanner v. City of Green Forest (1990).... I remain convinced COMPATIBILITY with neighboring parcels must remain the lodestar in every rezoning consideration." (City Attorney Memo of February 17,2016; -emphasis in original memo). 6 NORTHWEST .ARKANSAS TN Democrat 0azette DOX T-V ( E, AP d !2C 479.442 .G., "�A'Xi -,79699 1.18 CC ..,t,. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I Karen Caler, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, printed and published in Washington County and Benton County, Arkansas, and of bona fide circulation, that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Ord. 5972 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: May 25, 2017 Publi ation Charges- $ 76. Karen CZ -6i Subscribed and sworn to before me This 31 day of A000-12017. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Z-kv -T 1.1 r Ul t c. r **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. RECEIVED JUN 05 2017 CITYOCLERKS OFFIICE Ordinance: 5972 File Number: 2017-0207 RZN 17-5733 (SE OF CROSSOVER RD. & HEARTHSTONE DR.): AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 17-5733 FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.79 ACRES LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CROSSOVER ROAD AND HEARTHSTONE DRIVE FROM R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND RSF4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE TO NS -G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, 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 property shown on the map (Exhibit A) and the legal description (Exhibit B) both attached to the Planning Department's Agenda Memo from R -O, Residential Office, and RSF-4, Residential Single Family to NS -G, Neighborhood Services, General. 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. PASSED and APPROVED on 5/16/2017 Approved: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer 74144797 May 25, 2017