Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ORDINANCE 5984
t nv� r a� { �An•.3wst'S 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 5984 File Number: 2017-0338 RZN 17-5802: (147 E. SPRING ST./TEAGUE): III II If I II I II IIII Ilf II I I I I II III II II II I II Doc ID: 017604270003 Type: REL Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 08/23/2017 at 09:23:50 AM Fee Amt: $25.00 Paqe 1 of 3 Washinqton County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk File2017_00025926 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 17- 5802 FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES LOCATED AT 147 EAST SPRING STREET FROM RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE TO RI -U, RESIDENTIAL INTERMEDIATE, URBAN 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 RMF -24, Residential Multi Family, 24 units per acre to RI -U, Residential Intermediate, Urban. 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 7/6/2017 Attest: N►r Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk TreasZ. gY..! T� •a KA TO 4111111% 0 Page 1 Printed on 7/7/17 RZN 17-5802 TEAL U, E 17-5802 Close Up View I EXHIBIT 'A' Legend Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Building Footprint CONNER ST Feet 0 75 150 300 450 600 1 inch = 200 feet RSF-4 DICKSON ST NORTH I RSF-4 RMF -24 Residential -Office Downtown Core M. Main Street Center IIIIIII Downtown General P-1 17-5802 EXHIBIT 'B' Legal description PARCEL 765-12695-000 - A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO3037'03"E 678.77' AND S87023'51"E 600.23FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE S87023'51 "E 96.67' TO AN EXISTING CHISELED X IN CONCRETE, THENCE S03012'52'W 160.56', THENCE N86052'31"W 96.67', THENCE NO3012'54"E 159.68' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.36 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 08/23/2017 09:23:50 AM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2017-0 OZ 2 Kyle Sylvester- Cir i by City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street {" Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2017-0338 Agenda Date: 7/6/2017 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Ordinance Agenda Number: C. 4 RZN 17-5802: (147 E. SPRING ST./TEAGUE): AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 17-5802 FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES LOCATED AT 147 EAST SPRING STREET FROM RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE TO RI -U, RESIDENTIAL INTERMEDIATE, URBAN 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 RMF -24, Residential Multi Family, 24 units per acre to RI -U, Residential Intermediate, Urban. 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 7!1/2017 Andrew Garner Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 20.7-033 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 6/16/2017 City Planning/ Development Services Department Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: RZN 17-5802: Rezone (147 E. SPRING ST./TEAGUE, 485): Submitted by MATTHEW PETTY for property at 147 E. SPRING ST. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.31 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RI -U, RESIDENTIAL INTERMEDIATE, URBAN, Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ Funds Obligated $ Current Balance Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Approval Date: s Comments: Ia CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO CITY OF FAYETTE ILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF JULY 6, 2017 TO: Mayor, Fayetteville City Council THRU: Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Quin Thompson, Current Planner DATE: June 16, 2017 SUBJECT: RZN 17-5802: Rezone (147 E. SPRING ST.ITEAGUE, 485): Submitted by BRIAN TEAGUE for property at 147 E. SPRING ST. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.31 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RI -U, RESIDENTIAL INTERMEDIATE, URBAN. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance to rezone the subject property to RI -U, Residential Intermediate, Urban, as shown in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located south east of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Spring Street. The approximately 0.31 acre parcel is within the RMF -24 zoning district. The property is developed with a two-family home built in 1915, and containing 2,078 square feet. Request. The request is to rezone the parcel from RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 Units Per Acre to RI -U, Residential Intermediate, Urban. The applicant stated the rezoning is needed to allow this lot to be split and developed for appropriate infill. Land Use Compatibility The proposed zoning is generally compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which include a mixture of small multi -family residential properties and one and two-family homes aligned uniformly along the street edge. The RI -U and RMF -24 zoning districts allow construction of units much closer to -the street edge, which has recently occurred across Washington Avenue from the subject property. 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, which encourages a wide variety of uses within a dense urban environment. City Plan 2030 encourages both infill development and re -development in a traditional urban form, further, infill development is the highest priority of the City Plan 2030. DISCUSSION: Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 On June 12, 2017, the Planning Commission forwarded the proposal to City Council with a recommendation for approval passed by a vote of 7-0-0. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: • Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Application • Planning Commission Staff Report I RZN 17-5802 T EAG U E 17-5802 dose up view EXHIBIT 'A' RSF-d DICKSON ST NIM SPRING ST f CENTER ST R-0 CONNER ST ALLFY1i2 a Subject Property sir Z i LU a 0 J C Legend Planning Area Feet Fayetteville City Limits 0 75 150 300 450 600 Building Footprint 1 inch = 200 feet R M F-24 1'-tF:'YD)O1,%r Sr 3 NORTH RSF-4 RMF -24 Residential -Office Downtown Core Main Street Center Downtown General P-1 f 17-5802 EXHIBIT 'B' Legal description PARCEL 765-12695-000 - A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO3�'37'03"E 678.77' AND S87023$1 "E 600.23' FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE S87e23'51"E 98.67' TO AN EXISTING CHISELED X IN CONCRETE. THENCE S03012'52"W 160.56', THENCE N86G5Z31"W 96.67', THENCE N03012'54"E 159.68' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.36 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. CITY OF FAYETTEVIL.L:E, ARKANSAS REZONING FOR STAFF USE ONL Y FEE: $325.00 Date Application Submitted: Sign Fee: $5.00 Date Accepted as Complete S -T -R: Case I Appeal Number: PP#: Pi(blic Hearing Date: Zone: Please fill out this form completely, supplying all necessary information and documentation to support your request. Your application will not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information isfurnished. Application: Indicate one contact person for this request Applicant (person making request): Name: john Brian Teague Address: 100 W. Center St., STE 300 Applicant x Representative Representative (engineer, surveyor, realtor, etc.): Name: Matthew Petty Infill Groan LT.(' Address: 100 W. Center St., STI: 202 Fa et v'lle tl R 72701 L -maul.: 'brian@cotfiitnunitybydesignllc.com C-inail: mat (W in fill group,com Phone: ( 479 ) 790 - 6775 Fax: Phone: ( ) - _(479) 595 - 8703 Fax: Site Address / Location: 147 E. Spring St., Fayetteville, AR 72701 Current Zoning District: RMF -24 Requested 'Zoning District: RI -U Assessor's Parcel Number(s) for subject properly: 765-12695-000 FINANCIAL INTERESTS The following entities and / or people have financial interest in this project: 13riatir Teague - March 2014 Page I . fiPPLIC.4NT 1 REPRESE,;VTtl TII`E: I certils, tinder penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements and answers herein made all data, inlorntation, and evidence herewith submitted are in all respects, to the best ot'iny knowledge and belief, true and correct. I understand that submittal of incorrect or Use infonnntion 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. Tante tprintedt: Date: 4/25/2017 PROPCR7'Y OIV.VFR(S) /A(rTHOR1ZED AGE.'%'T: 1'"ie certify under penalty of perjury that I su vwe are the owner(s) of the property that is the subject of this application and that I'we have read this application andeonsent to its filing. (If signed by the author)«t'a'ngent, a letter front each property owner must he pro►sided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on hisAer behalj.) Property, Owners y Record (attach additional info ij'neressary). damettarnncd)'.,��N -P1 'VE Address:21 � 1 `il # Ja Date:qPPhone:� i +!1 790 —, Name (printed): Address: Sienature: Phone: t7rrhr Rezoning Checklist: Attach the Jrtlltatwni q items io thiapplicatimi (1) Payment in hill of applicable fees for processing the application: $325_00 application fee S?.00 public notification sign fee (') 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 \xTS Word and all required submittal items should be also included on the CD in PDF format. (d) A copy of the county parcel map front the Washington COunty Assessor's office or from the Washington County websiteThe subject property and 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. I WOO CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director FROM: Quin Thompson, Planner MEETING DATE: Jtme-1,2.,2017 _ OF E)ATED v-15-2017 SUBJECT. RZN 17-5802: Rezone (147 E. SPRING ST./TEAGUE, 485): Submitted by BRIAN TEAGUE for property at 147 E, SPRING ST. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.31 acres. The request is to rezone the property to Rl-U, RESIDENTIAL INTERMEDIATE, URBAN. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding RZN 17-5802 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings herein BACKGROUND: The subject property is located south east of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Spring Street. The approximately 0.31 acre parcel is within the RMF -24 zoning district. The property is developed with a two-family home built in 1915, and -containing -2,078 square feet The surrounding land use and zoning is depicted on Table 1, Table `I _Surrounding Land Use_ and Zoning, _ Direction Land Use Zoning.__ _ North Single-family Residential RMF -24, Multi-fanuiy Residential South Single-family Restdc-Filml RMF -24, Mulfl-fannily Residential Fast Sirtqle-farnily Residential _ RMF -24, Multi-farnilv Residential west Singik� fancily Residential RblF•24, MultI famii Residential Request: The request is to rezone the property from RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 Units per Acre to RI -U, Residential Intermediate, Urban. Public Comment: Staff has received several comments aboutthe proposed zoning district. These comments have expressed opposition to the proposal, citing concerns with increased intensity of land use that would be allowed within the proposed zoning district. Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Mailing Address: 17-5802 Teague 1:13 W. hPcuntain Street wwmf ayettevlweal.obv Fayetteville, AR 72701 INFRASTRUCTURE;: Streets: The subject parcel has access to Spring Street and Washington Avenue. Both streets are improved local streets with curb/gutter. Spring Street has sidewalk at back of curb and storm drainage. No sidewalk is currently existing on Washington Avenue. Any street improvements required in these areas would be determined at the time of development proposal. Water: Public water is available to the site. There is an existing 12" main along Spring Street and an existing 6" main in Washington Avenue. Sewer: Sanitary Sewer is available to the site. There are 8" public sewer mains existing in both Spring Street and Washington Avenue. Drainage: Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage will be determined at time of development. No portion of this property is identified as FEMA regulated floodplains. No protected streams are located on this property. No portion of this parcel lies within the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, however, some areas of 15% slope appear to be present onsite. Fire: T1 ie Fiie Department did not comment on this request. Police: The Police Department did not comment on this request. CITY PLAN 2625 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as Residential Neighborhood Area. These areas are primarily residential in nature and support a variety of housing types of appropriate scab; and context, including single-family, multi- family and rowhouses. The Residential Neighborhood Area designation _encourages highly connected, compact blocks with gridded street patterns and reduced setbacks. It also encourages traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity non-residential uses intended to serve the surrounding neighborhood, such as retail and offices, on corners and along connecting corridors. 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 environment. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: The proposed zoning is generally compatible with surrounding land use patterns in this area, which include a mixture of small multi -family residential properties and single-family and two-family homes aligned uniformly along the street edge. The RI -U and RMF -24 zoning districts allow construction of units much closer to the street edge, which has recently occurred across Washington Avenue from the subject property. A survey of the existing development pattern in the immediate area shows that the neighborhood density is approximately 6-7 units per acre. The current zoning district allows 24 units per acre. The subject property Planning commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 G'tETClDevelopment Services RevioM20MDevelopment Reviewkl7-5802 RZN 147 E. Spring St 17.5$02 Teague (Teague) 485103 Planning CommissionQ13-12-20171Commenis and Redlines Page 2 of 23 contains 0.31 acre, which at a density of 24 units per acre would allow a maximum of 7 units on the property. The RI -U zone does not place a limit on the density of development, and thus should not be considered a 'downzone' in terms of overall development potential. Development under the proposed zoning could significantly increase the allowable density and intensity of use allowed on this site. Land Use Plan Analysis: The proposed zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) and consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Area designation of the subject property and surrounding area, which encourages a wide variety of uses within a dense urban environment. City Plan 2030 encourages both infill development and re -development in a traditional urban form, further, infill development is the highest priority of the City Plan 2030. 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 RI -U zoning to allow reduced lot size which is beneficial for project financing. Staff finds that the project is justified by the overall goal of City Plan 2030 to make infill development the City's top priority. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion, Finding: The RI -U and RMF -24 zoning districts allow similar uses, including development of attached buildings. The proposed rezone does allow unlimited density, which does have the potential to create increased traffic in the area over the existing RMF=24 zoning district, or current low density development pattern. In staff's opinion, Washington Avenue and Spring Street have the capacity to support traffic from a higher density development on the subject property. 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 sewer facilities. Finding: With consideration for the subject property's current low development density, a rezoning of the property is likely to lead to an increased load on public services and increased population density in the area. The subject property has access to existing infrastructure, and re -development is not expected to have undesirable adverse impacts on public services or facilities. The Police and Fire Departments have not expressed objections to the proposed zoning. 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: Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 G:1ETC\Development Services Review120170evelopmetit Reviewt17-5802 RZN 147 E. Spring St, 17-5$02 Teague (Teague) 485\03 Planning Commissioi7\06-12-2017\Comments and Redlines Page 3 of 23 I 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 17-5802 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings discussed throughout this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: June 12, 2017 © Tabled h Forwarded Motion: BELDE Second: SCROGCIN Vote: 7-0-0 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES Date: August 7, 2017 n Approved F3 Denied BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • UDC 16115, RMF -24 Residential Multifamily 124 Units per Acre UDC 161.12 Residential Intermediate -Urban Public comment • Request letter One Mile Map • Close -Up Map Current Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map G_\ETC\Development Services RevieM2017\0evelopment RevieW17-5802 RZN 147 E. Spring St. (Teague) 485103 Planning Comrnission106-12-20171Comrnents and Redlines 17 Denied Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 4 of 23 161.15 - District RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family - Twenty -Four (24) Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RMF -24 Multi -family Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the developing of a variety of dwelling types in suitable environments in a variety of densities. (E3) Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 g Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 44 Cottage Housing Development (2) Conditional Uses. Unit 2 1 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 11 Manufactured home park Unit 12 Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 . Professional offices Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density, Units per acre 24 or less (D) Bulk and Area Regulations. (1) Lot Width Minimum_ Manufactured home park 100 feet Lot within a Manufactured home park 50 feet Single-family 35 feet Two-family 35 feet Throe or more 70 feet Professional offices 100 feet (2) Lot Area Minimum. Manufactured home park 3 acres Lot within a mobile home park 4,200 square feet Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 5 of 23 I Townhouses: individual lot 2,000 square feet Single-family 3,000 square feet Two (2) family 4,000 square feet Three (3) or more 7,000 square feet Fraternity or Sorority 2 acres Professional offices 1 acres (3) Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. Manufactured Home 3,000 square feet (E) Setback Requirements. Front A build -to zone that is located between the front property line and a line 25 feet from the front property line. Side Side Single & Rear ' Rear Other Other Single Uses Two (2) Uses Family Family j 8 feet 5 feet 20 feet 5 feet (F) Building Height Regulations. Building Height Maximum 30/45/60 feet' f 'A building or a portion of a building that is located between 0 and 10 .feet from the front property line or any master street plan right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 30 feet, between 10-20 feet from the master street plan right-of-way a maximum height of 45 feet and buildings or portions of the building set bark greater than 20 feet from the master street plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of 60 fest. 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. The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 50% of the total lot area. (H) Minimum Buildable Street Frontage. 50% of the lot width. (Code 1965, App. A., Art. 5(111); Ord. No. 2320, 4-6-77; Ord. No, 2700, 2-2-81; Code 1991, §160.033; Ord. No_ 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord, No, 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. No. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. No. 5079, 11-20-07; Ord. No. 5224, 3-3- 09; Ord. No. 5262, 8-4-09; Ord, No. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. No. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. No, 5495, 4-17-12; Ord. No, 5592, 6-18-13; Ord. No. 5664, 2-18-14; Ord. No. 5800, § l(Exh. A), 10-6-15) Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 6 of 23 Thompson, Quin Frorn: rallioinery <rrnjoinery@gmaiIxom> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 11,08 AM To, Thompson, Quin Subject: 147 e, Spring rezoning Mr Thompson, I understand Brian'I'cague is wanting to rezone his property for avery dense development. While this neighborhood could certainly handle some infill, as with a couple tiny houses, putting in triplexes would change the neighborhood too much. My wife and I own 200 e. Spring. We live out in a rural area now, but plan on retiring into our house when age makes it best to live in town. We have worked hard trying to Tent to people who love and respect the area. Over the years we have only had one renter in there that was not a good neighbor, as far as we have heard. Trying to rent out bunch of units will make it very difficult to find enough of the right people, and bring down the quality of life there. Thank you for your firtic. Rick& Mary (,00t$ 4179 595 5153 Soil from iny (,ataxy Tali -As A Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 7 of 23 161.12 District RI U, Residential Intermediate - Urban (A) Purpose. The RW Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of detached and attached dwellings in suitable environments, to provide a range of housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes and to encourage a diversity of housing types to meet demand for walkable urban living, A Uses. (1) Permitted Uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by right Unit 3 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two (2) family dwellings Unit 10 Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings Unit 44 Cluster housing development (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 S Government facilities Unit Limited busi"ss 12a Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 Pa&W-1$02 Teague Page 8 of 23 (C) density. None. (p) Bulk and Area Regulations. Dwelling, Gail toes) Lot width minimum 18 feet i Lot area minimum None i (E) Setback Requirements. Side Side (tear 1Single Rear, from & Front Other Other Two (2) centerline Uses Uses of an alley Family A build -to zone i thatislocated between the front iaroperty,Jine.and None 5 feet �� 5 feet 12 feet a line 25 feet from the front property line. (F) Building Height Regulations_ building height maxit,num ! 30/45 feet * A building or a portion of a building that is located between 0 and 10 feet from the front property line orany master street plan right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 30 feet. Buildings or portions of the building set hack greater than 10 feet from the master street plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of 45 feet. (G) Building Area. The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total lot area. Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 PaAf�-942 Teague Page 9 of 23 (H) Minimum Buildable Street Frontage. 50% of the lot width. (Orth No. 5945, §5(ENh, A), 1-17-17) Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 P0&'-3802 Teague Page 10 of 23 Thompson, Quin From: Barbara Boland <barbaraboland@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 3:10 PM To: Thompson, Quin Subject: rezoning of 147 E Spring St Hi Quinn, I have lived at 148 E Spring Street for almost 20 years now and I am strongly opposed to the proposal to rezone the property at 147 E Spring Street. I understand from my conversation with you, discussions with my neighbors and a presentation by Brian Teague on Friday, May 26th, that the proposed zone designation (RIU) is quite similar to the existing zoning ( RMF24) with some, what I think are, significant differences. Most importantly the unlimited density allowed by RIU and the allowance for zero set -backs seem quite unacceptable for this neighborhood. I think it is important as our population grows that we do some in --filling close to the city center, however, I think the character and quality of the neighborhood would both suffer if the proposed zoning change were allowed. The existing set -backs in the neighborhood give it an open, approachable, and, I feel, more walkable character. Building at the edges of the sidewalk would be bad enough; but the height allowances could make for looming buildings... not a pleasant sight or experience; and in my opinion, not acceptable across the street. I understand that Brian mainly wants to have the zone change to make his financing easier, and though I wish him well with his financing, I don't think -it is worth opening the neighborhood to the potential of what RIU allows. I do think we should be changing the zoning, however. -to a less dense RMF than 24. This proposal is tending in the wrong direction, With thanks, Barbara Boland - 148 E Spring Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 521-2.801 Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 11 of 23 Thompson. Quin From: Bill Browner <tribrow@sbcglobal,net> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 6:30 PM To: Thompson, Quin Subject: Reference rezoning request for 147 East Spring St. Quin, I'm writing to voice my objection to Brian Teague's request to rezone the property at 147 East Spring St. from RMF -24 to RI -U. My wife and I own the property at 203 East Spring, directly east of Brian Teague's residence at 201. 1 personally believe that the RMF -24 zoning is inappropriate for this neighborhood as a casual drive through the area will confirm that the majority of the structures along Spring Street from College east to Fletcher and the adjoining side streets both north and south are single family residences with a smattering of duplexes and older, larger houses that have been subdivided into rental apartments, similar to the existing structure on the property in question. The RMF -24 classification allows for a density of 24 units /per acre which is not in keeping with the existing makeup of the neighborhood. The RI -U classification is worse, in my opinion, as it has no density limits; the proposed plans that I've seen, Site Improvement Plan SIP 16-5480, indicates 11 potential units on the 147 East Spring property, 3 more than would currently be allowed by the RMF -24 zoning, for this 0,36 acre property. We've owned our property for 26 years and we were drawn to the location because it was an older, single family neighborhood, close to our daughter's school and our workplaces, Along with most of our neighbors, we have invested in our property, made improvements to our houses and yards and have contributed to the reason that this once overlooked area has become a desirable place to live in Fayetteville. I am in favor of infilling where appropriate to increase density so that others can also enjoy living in a walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhood close to downtown, but not at the expense of changing from residences with yards and long term neighbors to a development of small, single bedroom apartments. our section of Spring Street is pretty neighborly, most of us know each other and occasionally we get together for impromptu porch parties. Brian has been our neighbor for the past 14 years and we get along fine. We along with a number of our neighbors recently met with Brian in an effort to foster communication and to better understand his development plans. Overall, the discussion Was amicable and while objections to certain as of his plan were voiced, some support was offered as well. The concerns that I voiced include the following: While the rezoning is noted for 147 E. Spring, I am not in favor of the change to RI -U as It seems to me it could open the door for rezoning the 201 E Spring property directly east of me at some point in the future, As the 147 and 201 lots are under single ownership and the 147 development plan requires a driveway easement across the 201 property to access the garages below the 2 proposed triplexes on Washington Street, it appears that this could open up the possibility of a future proposal to rezone 201 to RI -U as well. In my nightmare scenario, the existing house at 201 could be torn down and we could end up with a cluster of townhouses along our western property line. With the 5' setback allowed, this is particularly problematic as those buildings would destroy the existing densely wooded tree row on the property line and more than likely kill every tree along the west side of my property, as maximizing the buildable space would put the buildings within the tree lines / canopies of the existing trees. To make it worse, as we're already 4' to 5' lower than the 201 property, we'd be looking at a 35' +/- high wall, probably rising to 45' 10' back from that, studded with numerous windows overlooking our yard, gardens and house! While I understand that this is not part of the current plan, the possibility that this could happens is frightening. It would completely destroy the look and feel of our yard and our home. • The development plan notes a building A to be constructed between the sidewalk along the curb line of Spring Street and the existing structure at 147. This building would require the removal of 2 significant trees, a 24" maple and a 30" oak, along with a number of understory trees and shrubs. Mature trees overhanging the street are a hallmark of this and many other older Fayetteville neighborhoods and I am totally against them being removed. The City is currently attempting to recreate the tree lined streets that historically have graced our town, the College St, improvements being a case in point. Why are we then willing to allow removal of mature, healthy trees in this instance? I'd hate to think that it possibly had more to do with the neighborhood being less Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 12 of 23 valued, than say similar properties in other older neighborhoods, like the historic district. Granted, while the wealthier historic district may have the advantage of more favorable zoning, would the removal of 2 similar trees for the construction of a 17' wide by 52' long triplex in front of a similar house on North Washington Street be allowed? Shouldn't our neighborhood be treated with similar concern and respect? At our meeting with the neighbors, everyone voiced similar concerns to Brian that the trees should be preserved. Visually, the placement of a narrow and tali building directly behind the sidewalk on the north side of the existing structure at 147 is not in keeping with the layout of any of the existing houses on the block, and with the exception of the new single family home being built on the southwest corner of Spring and Washington, not with virtually any other structure on Spring between College and Fletcher. Again, when you drive through the neighborhood, what you see are primarily single family houses on lots with yards, set 25' back from the property line. I do not believe that what is being proposed, visually, is in keeping with the existing look and feel of the neighborhood. The proposed buildings will be very tall, 3 stories is my understanding. Most of the existing structures immediate to the development are shorter, with the majority of the houses around us being single story. The 147 property is also the high point of the block which will further exacerbate the heights of the buildings, making them appear even taller. At our neighborhood meeting, Brian explained the design of the proposed triplexes, following what he termed as an "Ozarks vernacular" with the general widths of the structures, particularly the 2 along Washington, and the exterior clapboard siding and detailing, mimicking existing older Fayetteville residences. Those in attendance agreed that the proposed look of the buildings were in keeping with the look of the neighborhood. One point that I made was that the elevations that he presented, that I assume were also submitted to the City, shows each structure individually rather than grouped together, 10' apart and adjacent the existing wood framed house. The elevations make the structures look like they're sited in a large greenspace,_when in actuality, they will be crowded together. I don't know what the elevation of the entire development along Washington Street will look like, but as noted above, the close proximity of these buildings, combined with their height and the narrowness of the street, is concerning. I believe that the very tall residence currently under construction on the west side of the street, sited on a lot -that is substantially higher than 147, in combination with this development, will create a narrow, tunnel like passage, dissimilar to any other street intersection within the immediate area. Regarding development of the space south of the existing structure at 147, it appears to me that potentially 2 buildings could be situated in the space, fronting Washington Street. The width of the structures shown on the development plan are similar to the mine and my neighbors as well as other structures along Washington and infill of this area would be acceptable, in my opinion, as long as parking and access to adjacent properties are properly addressed. As I noted above, while I believe 24 units per acre as currently zoned is too dense, construction of 2 triplexes combined with the 2 units in the existing house, would result in 8 units, which i understand would be the current allowed maximum for this 0.36 acre parcel. Personally, I'd rather see 2 affordable single family houses with small yards rather than triplexes, but I'm not the one worrying with the economics either. Parking and traffic are huge issues in my opinion. Anyone who's lived on this street has come to realize that it's one of the major east -west cut-throughs as well as south to Huntsville Rd. There is a lot of traffic going up and down Spring and parallel parking is only allowed on the north side, It's not unusual to have cars parked across from our house all the way west to College Ave. The plans appear to show a single parking space or garage for each unit, but in reality, a single bedroom unit could be occupied by a couple with 2 cars, plus the units in the existing house are 4 bedroom and 2 bedroom, meaning potentially 6 more vehicles. Folks already in the neighborhood are utilizing the parking on Spring. 1 question whether adequate parking is even available. I believe that the added parking combined with the traffic volume on Spring Street along with the narrowing of the Washington & Spring intersection visually by the addition of these taller buildings crowing the street is a recipe for disaster. I realize that rentals are a fact of life in many neighborhoods and while I don't begrudge folks subdividing older homes or infilling where appropriate with duplexes, it needs to be kept in check in established residential neighborhoods. As I've noted, we've lived here for 26 years and have had various bouts with unruly and loud renters in the house across from us and the building at 147. For the last few years, things for the most part have Planning Commission 2 June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 13 of 23 been quiet and we've had few issues. This is fantastic and how it needs to be. No offense to renters, but they don't always have the buy in to respecting the notion of the "commons", that public area that we ail share, as regards issues like noise, for example. This being a college town, I've no interest in dealing with kids who think it's perfectly fine to party on their porches all night. Granted, who's to say who these units will rent to, but adding 9 units to the mix definitely gives me pause. In closing, I don't believe rezoning this property should be allowed as the density, siting and heights of the structures that are being proposed along with the removal of significant mature trees is in keeping with the existing fabric, look and use of my neighborhood. Rather than allowing for even denser development, I am requesting that the City consider rezoning this neighborhood to something less dense, that will allow for the existing 2 to 4 unit structures, and discouraging anything larger than currently exists. I believe this neighborhood should be protected like others in the City so that it not succumb to the massive apartment developments that seem to be springing up all over town. I have invested a lot of time and effort into maintaining my home and in improving my neighborhood. I've done this as I've felt secure that my future here in the City would be maintained. I recently retired with the intent to enjoy my remaining years in my own home, in a city and neighborhood that I love. My sanctuary is the garden behind my house, currently bordered by similarly sized, single family residences and yards. Opening the door to clustered housing on an adjacent property places all of this in jeopardy. I've done the right thing, played the game, invested in what I have, knowing that by maintaining my place, I've increased the "desirability" and value of our neighborhood and Fayetteville in general. I don't believe that those of us who have worked to create a neighborhood should have it be potentially upset, so that another can make a few bucks on some rentals. Thanks for your consideration. - Bill Browner 203 East Spring Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 387-0207 Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 14 of 23 Thompson, Quin ------ J� From: Russell Sharman <russell,sharman@gmail.com> Sent. Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:46 AM To: Thompson, Quin Cc: Cheryl Harris Sharman Subject: East Spring Rezoning Dear Quin, I live at 21 0 East Spring Street and am writing as a concerned neighbor regarding the proposed rezoning of 147 East Spring, the lot on the comer of Washington and last Spring. While I am supportive of the plan to develop the lot to a certain extent, I am concerned with the plan to re -zone the property to do so. While the proposed R1 -U zoning for that lot seems to speak to many of the issues I support, including "the development of detached and attached dwellings in suitable environments" and providing "a range of housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes and to encourage a diversity of housing types to meet demand for walkable urban living," it lacks any limit on density per acre, and erases the setbacks that would keep the neighborhood's residential aesthetic. So while I am not strongly opposed to re -zoning as a matter of principle, it has brought to my attention that we are currently zoned RMF -24, which is already a much higher density than neighborhoods directly adjacent to us. If anything, I'd like to see the whole area re -zoned to a lowe), density. In fact, I would really like -to see the city engage in sonic kind of'specific plan for our neighborhood going forward, especially as, the city grows more and more rapidly each year. Sincerely, Russell Sharman Planning Commission June 12, 21017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 15 of 23 Thompson, Quin From: Cheryl Harris Sharman <sharman.cheiyl@,gmaiLcom Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 201-7 9;57 AM To: Russell Sharman Cc: Thompson, Quin Subject: Re: East Spring Rezoning Hi Quin, I share the same sentiments as my husband Russell here. Wanted to also tisk if there's a way for us -- for our entire street (Brian Teague, Carrie Trinka, her husband Bill, a few others who are engaged in this topic) -- to be involved in any city plan for our neighborhood going fonvard. We neighbors don't always agree on everything, but we're mostly on the same bigger page and want to remain neighborly about everything. Also, Russell and I have lived in places ranging fiord the heart nF New York City to rural Costa Rica, when: both urban planning and rural preservation have informed our work and our lives. In Costa Rica, you have to get permission to cut down even a dead tree on your property, which preserves its rich ecosystem. And in New York City, urban planning has been done exceedingly well, and quite terribly, with great consequences in each direction. I'm also a new member of the recently -revamped board of the Continuum of Care (CoC ) for homelessness 1n the region, so I'm a big advocate of the need for thoughtful, affordable housing. We'd love to have a seat at the table where such things are being deliberated about our city, our neighborhood, and our street. with flexible jobs, we could've moved anywhere in the world, or any street in Fayetteville, and we chase this one right here. Thanks so much for listening, for caring, for all you do. Blessings, Cheryl Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that. - Martin Luther King Jr. Strength to Love On May 30, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Russell Sharman wrote: Dear Quin. I live at 210 East Spring Street and am writing as a concerned neighbor regarding the proposed rezoning of 147 East Spring, the lot on the corner of Washington and East Spring, While I ant supportive of the plan to develop the lot to a certain extent, I am concerned with the plain to re -zone The property to do so. While the proposed RI -U zoning for that lot seems to speak to many of the issues I Support, including "the development of detached and attached dwellings in suitable environments" and providing "a range ofb0USing types compatible in scale with single-family homes and to encourage a diversity of housing types to meet demand for walkable urban living," it hicks any limit on density per acre, and erases the setbacks that would keep the neighborhood's residential aesthetic. So white.[ am not strongly opposed to re -zoning as a matter of principle, it has brought to my attention that we are currently zoned RMF -24, which is already a much higher density than neighborhoods directly adjacent to its, If anything, I'd like to see the whole area re -zoned to a lower density. In fact, I w=ould really like to see the city engage in some kind of specific plan for our neighborhood going forward, especially as the city grows more and more rapidly each year. Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 16 of 23 Sincerely, Russell Sh3mnan Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 17 of 23 Written description of rezoning request Prepared 4/25/2017 for parcels: 765-12695-000 a) Current ownership information and any proposed or pending property sales. The current owner John Brian Teague. b) Reason (need) for requesting the zoning change. The owner is planning to develop triplexes. The proposed development is already allowed by -right in the existing zoning, but the owner would like to subdivide the parcels so that each building may be sold in a fee -simple sale. c) statement of how the proposed rezoning will relate to surrounding properties in terms of land use, traffic, appearance, and signage, The proposed rezoning is consistent with surrounding properties. In terms of land use, the surrounding properties are used as single-family dwellings, duplexes, and missing -middle multi- family. In terms of traffic, E. Spring Street has excess capacity. In terms of appearance and signage, the design standards of ill -U will ensure that any new development is contextually sensitive to the existing neighborhood character. d) Availability of water and sewer (state size of lines). E. Spring Street ROW: 8" sewer / 12" water. N. Washington Ave. ROW: 8"-sewer/6" water. e) The degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. The proposed zoning is consistent with City Plan 2030. Given the existing zoning and surrounding land uses, RI -U allows for appropriate infill and advances Fayetteville's goal to grow a livable transportation network. f) Whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time of the request. - The proposed rezoning is needed to allow for lot splits necessary for bank financing and to establish the owner's option to sell each building individually. g) Whether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion, The proposed rezoning will not create a traffic danger or appreciably increase congestion. h) Whether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. While the proposed rezoning will alter the population density, it will not undesirably increase the load on public services. A moderate increase in density increases the operating and/or maintenance efficiencies of public services: it allows more children to be bussed per mile and more residents to be served per linear foot of water or sewer line. Planning Con7mission June 12, 2017 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 18 of 23 I) Why it would be Impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classification. RMF -24 does not allow for small lot sizes or narrow lot widths. The proposed development is allowed by -right under the current zoning but does riot allow the developer to split the lot so that each building may be sold individually, Planning Commission June 12. 2017 Agenda Item 11 17.5802 Teague Page 19 of 23 n RZN 17-5802 I TEAGU E O/Ie Mile View 0 0.125 0,25 am-' OW rPZD t Subject Property a ivi dip � MCA �- i� t ■ Pig non in -.2I Legend : 7 ^� Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits "•"""". Shared Use Paved Trail erk��P Trail (Proposed) i Ptenr,!ng Area , Building Footprint Fayetteville City Limits 0 5 Chiles Ct NIP -23 N N -:A RSV -4 So..a MAMMOIN APRWf ••i�it!'-ftc F.ANL, M, ..• erti FORM PAHO P" MI:11 i REylO€w+naL.•roen.Eaui�r . .. w•sA ..•�.. _.., it w., AQYS1q Al VIA71'4fliliY;,'••w ."a" Pl2hning Commis ion 17 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 20 of 23 RZN 17-5802 Close Up View TEAGUE lu 7_ _j ✓3 { RSI -4 DPCKSUN y R_n AllFY I! - Subject Property 1 �. Af�pyp�yV 5T w z J.,ml y IL oil I NORTH RSF-4 RMF -24 Legend Residential Office Feet Do+�)nto+nrn Core P+anninc. Area -VA Main Street Center FaYattevplle City Limits 0 75 150 300 450 G00 Downtown General Building Footpr n# 1 inch = 200 feet P 1 Planning Commis c 1 n 7 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 21 of 23 NIsC: TEAGUE lu 7_ _j ✓3 { RSI -4 DPCKSUN y R_n AllFY I! - Subject Property 1 �. Af�pyp�yV 5T w z J.,ml y IL oil I NORTH RSF-4 RMF -24 Legend Residential Office Feet Do+�)nto+nrn Core P+anninc. Area -VA Main Street Center FaYattevplle City Limits 0 75 150 300 450 G00 Downtown General Building Footpr n# 1 inch = 200 feet P 1 Planning Commis c 1 n 7 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 21 of 23 RZN 17-5802 Future Land Use r 1 Q Uj V TEAGUE CONNER ST w K C7 ALLEY 172 SProperly k SPRING, S7 ubject CENTER $T W 61EM)ow ST CENTER ST w 5 a z O z rn s Legend -, Feet ,- - " Planning Area fl 75 150 300 450 600 Fayetteville City Limits 1 inch = 200 feet Building Footprint NORTH DICKSON ST MEADOW ST FUTURE LAND USE 2030 Residential Neighborhood Area Complete Neighborhood Plan Planning Commis: on 37 Agenda Item 11 17-5802 Teague Page 22 of 23 rage Z3 yr ca 1 JUL 21 2011' CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ,` i' i i i 111 i'; �I I �n j i ► f ► J BOX 1607, A %_`T . I ' P R 72;