HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4179 ORDINANCE NO, 4179
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZ99- 16. 10 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 5 .2 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEDINGTON DRIVE AND
SALEM ROAD, AS REQUESTED BY MARSHALL CARLISLE
ON BEHALF OF MID-SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Lection 1 . That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From R-O, Residential Office, to C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial, for the real
property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 . above.
SSED AND APPROVED this 7h day of Scptemher 1999.
APPROVED:
! c, /Z
Evs�!t Fred Hanna, Mayor
� r T
ATTES
By:
Bather Woodruff, City Cler
Ord . 4179
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RZ99- 16. 10
A part of the SW 1/4 of the Fractional NW 1 /4 of Section 7, Township 16 North, Range 30 West in
Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a piont 496.05
feet West, S00°08'38"W 646.42 feet and 287.23 feet South from the NE comer of said SW 1/4 of the
Fractional NW 1/4, said point being on the West right of way of Salem Road, and running South with
said right of way 54.97 feet; thence S05 °42'38"W 100.50 feet; thence South along said right of way
129.90 feet; thence Southwesterly along a curve to the right with said right of way 47.22 feet to the
North right of way of State Highway 16; thence N89 °48'47"W with said right of way 686.73 feet;
thence N00°08'38"E, 315.00 feet; thence S89048'47"E 726.04 feet to the Point of Beginning,
containing 5.20 acres, more or less.
RECEIVED
STAFF REVIEW FORM JUL 1 4 1999
X Agenda Request
_ Contract Review CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE
_ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Grant Review
�j�S+ I"1 1995
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of ----, -, . 1. 499-
FROM: UrEWL ED
Tim Conklin Planning Public Works
1111 9 n 1999
Name Division Department
R�qq - I (p . 1 o CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
ACTION REQUESTED : To approve an ordinance for rezoning request FFICE
submitted by Marshall Carlisle on behalf of Mid-Southern Enterprises for property
located at the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and Salem Road . The property
is zoned R-0 , Residential Office , and contains approximately 5 . 2 acres . The
request is to rezone the property to C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial .
COST TO CITY :
$0
Cost of this request Category/ Project Budget Category/ Project Name
Account Number Funds used to date Program Name
Project Number Remaining balance Fund
BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget Coordinator Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW : GRANTING AGENCY : -
Ac un i Manager Date
� ADA Coordinator Date
City tt ne Date a Internal Auditor Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommended denial and the Planning Commission
approved the rezoning with a vote of 5 - 3- 0 . Commissioners Bunch , Hoover , and
Odom voted against the rezoning .
Cross Reference
Qinjdstratkve
Date
- Id- 479
ector .0cite New Item : Yes No
to
Da Prev Ord/Res# :
Di o
Ma r ate Orig Contract Date :
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501 ) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO : Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
FROM: Brent Vinson, Associate Planner
DATE: July 12, 1999
RZ 99-16.10: Rezoning (Mid-Southern Enterprises, Inc., pp 401) was submitted by Marshall
Carlisle on behalf of Mid-Southern Enterprises for property located at the northwest corner of
Wedington Drive and Salem Road. The property is zoned R-O, Residential Office, and contains
approximately 5.2 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C- 1 , Neighborhood
Commercial.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning from R-O to C-1 based on the findings
included as part of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: YES Required
Approved Denied
Date: July 12, 1999
Comments:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: YES Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12, 1999
RZ 99- 16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4. 1
BACKGROUND :
A past request to rezone this property to C-2 was denied by the Planning Commission on
November 27, 1989. This petition included this property on the west side of Salem Road as well
as property east of Salem Road. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended and the
City Council approved the rezoning of the property on the east side of Salem Road to C-2. The
subject property on the west side of Salem Road was not rezoned at this time (see minutes for
November 27, 1989 Rezoning Petition #R89-32 for Bob Davis.)
The applicant then brought forward a modified request on November 24, 1997. The request
proposed rezoning 5 .45 acres to C-2 and 3 .34 acres to R-O. Staff recommended denial of the
requested rezoning as inconsistent with General Plan 2020 and not justified or needed at the time.
It was noted that an abundance of vacant C-2 property was in existence to the east (see Planning
Commission minutes for November 24, 1997 RZ97-21 .00 for Mid-Southern Enterprises.)
The applicant later brought forward a request to rezone 5 .20 acres of the subject property to R-O.
This request was recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council
(see Planning Commission minutes for January 12, 1998 RZ98-2.00 for Sam Rogers.)
A lot split was granted on March 23, 1998 to create a 1 .6 acre lot and an 8.36 acre lot. Arkansas
National Bank was built on the 1 .6 acre lot at the intersection of Salem and Wedington Drive
(see Planning Commission minutes for March 23 , 1998 for LS98-9 for Sam Rogers).
The applicant recently requested that the back 4.77 acres of the 8.36 acre tract presently zoned R-
2, be rezoned to R-O. This request was approved by the Planning Commission in the June 28
Planning Commission Meeting. The applicant also requested the rezoning of the front 5 .2 acres
of the tract, including the existing Arkansas National Bank, to C-2. This request was denied (see
Planning Commission minutes for June 28, 1999 for RZ99- 16 for Mid-Southem Enterprises.)
The applicant is now requesting that the front 5 .2 acres (including the 1 .6 acre tract with the
existing bank) which is currently zoned R-O be rezoned C- 1 (Neighborhood Commercial.)
ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING :
North: Single family, R-2
South : Sports park, A- 1
East: A bank and undeveloped land, C-2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12, 1999
RZ 99-16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4.2
West: Single family and undeveloped land, A- 1
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: The site is adjacent to Highway 16 West (Wedington Drive) which is classified as
a Principal Arterial with 110' of R.O.W. Highway 16 West is in the process of
being widened to five lanes. Salem Road to the east is classified as a Collector
with 70' of R.O.W.
Water: There is an 8" waterline along Highway 16 West and Salem Road.
Sewer: There is an 8" sewer line to the north along Mica Street and on Salem Road.
LAND USE PLAN:
The General Plan 2020 shows this area as Residential. The area to the east of Salem Road is
designated as Community Commercial.
PERMITTED USES IN C-2 THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED IN C-1 :
C- 1 (Neighborhood Commercial) : C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial):
(not permitted) Unit 14- Hotel , Motel and
Amusement Facilities
(not permitted) Unit 16- Shopping Goods
(not permitted) Unit 17- Trades and Services
(not permitted) Unit 19- Commercial Recreation
(not permitted) Unit 20- Commercial Recreation,
Large Sites
(not permitted) Unit 21 - Warehousing and
Wholesale (with P.C. approval)
(not permitted) Unit 24- Outdoor Advertising
(not permitted) Unit 28- Center for Collecting
Recyclable Materials (with P.C.
approval)
(not permitted) Unit 32- Sexually Oriented
Business (with P.C. approval)
(not permitted) Unit 33- Adult Live
Entertainment Club or Bar
Planning Commission Meeting
July /2, /999
RZ 99- 16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4.3
§ 161.13 DISTRICT C-1 NEIGHBOR-HOOD COMMERCIAL.
A. Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is designed primarily to provide
convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas.
B. Uses.
1. Permitted Uses.
Unit 1 City-Wide Uses by Right
Unit 12 Offices, Studios and Related
Services
Unit 13 Eating Places
Unit 15 Neighborhood Shopping
Unit 18 Gasoline Service Stations and
Drive-In Restaurants
Unit 25 Professional Offices
2. Uses Permissible on A eal to the Planning Commission.
Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by
Conditional Use Permit
Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility
Facilities
Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational
Facilities
RZ 99.00-6.00 FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
1 . A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The Land Use Plan (General Plan 2020) shows this area as residential. The
zoning of C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) is not consistent with the plan.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning of C-1 is not justified and needed at this time because
there is adequate commercial property adjacent to and east of this site which
is currently undeveloped.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12, 1999
RZ 99-16.10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4.4
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning would not create or appreciably increase traffic danger
and congestion.
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: The proposed zoning would not undesirably increase the population density
and would not undesirably increase the load on public services including
schools, water, and sewer facilities.
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
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12, 1999
RZ 99-16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4.5
Planning Commission
November 27 , 1989
Page 9
Directors and asked Mr . Cummings if he would like to speak again as requested .
Mr . Cummings stated the matters that he needs to discuss are probably matters
that should be somewhere other than this , in litigation . It certainly doesn ' t
involve the Planning Commission . He added that he thinks there is a little
problem with the sewer that they should try to get straightened out and he would
be more than happy to work with the City to do that . He commented that it has
been brought to his attention sufficient times and they need to have an
understanding regarding the sewer line that runs across this property . He noted
that he would ask that the committee would allow him or get authorization for
him to visit with whomever they feel is the correct management person about that .
Chairman Jacks advised that he should probably discuss this with the City
Engineer who should be available at just about any time .
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION 11R89-32
BOB DAVIS - N OF HWY 16 W , E & W OF SALEM ROAD
The fourth item on the agenda was a rezoning petition #R89 - 32 submitted by Bob
Davis and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen Engineers for property
located north of Highway 16 West on the east and west sides of Salem Road
containing 16 . 84 acres more or less . Request was to rezone from R- 2 , Medium
Density Residential to C - 2 , Thoroughfare Commercial .
John Merrell , Planning Management Director , stated that he doesn ' t have a lot
to add to the written staff report that was furnished in the agenda packet . He
advised that the staff has taken the position that they can not support the
rezoning requested based on the surrounding land use and surrounding zoning and
what they view as the growth trends in that area . He added that should it be
the inclination of the Planning Commission to favor a rezoning in this area , the
staff feels that the various alternatives of R-0 , Residential- Office , might fit
the best and might represent some form of a buffer zone . He commented that he
has spoken to Bob Davis a couple of times about this petition and Mr . Davis has
certain information that he would like to present to the Commission . Staff
basically sees the issue here as where should the commercial development occur
on Wedington Drive and where should they draw the line from residential to
commercial . The point the staff is trying to imply is if this rezoning is
granted to C- 2 , it might be pretty difficult to refuse to grant later rezonings
to the west of this location . Although , the staff realizes that the petitioner
would like to have more options available to him and C - 2 certainly allows for
more than R- 0 .
Commissioner Hanna stated that when they had the workshop with Al Raby on the
new General Plan , Mr . Raby proposed a mall in this area . He noted that Mr . Raby
didn ' t pick the site out , but he assumes that Mr . Raby was considering the
location to be across the street from this property and slightly to the West .
Judging from what he has seen in other areas with a mall , he has a hard time
envisioning how they could fail to have rezoning requests to commercial for a
lot of property around the mall area . For example , there is a lot of commercial
( across the highway and to the south of the Northwest Arkansas Mall . He asked
Mr . Merrell if he had taken this into consideration when he made this
recommendation . Mr . Merrell stated that he remembers that at one of the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12. 1999
RZ 99- 16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4.6
r
Planning Commission
November 27 , 1989
Page 10
workshops with Mr . Raby , someone disagreed with the amount of proposed future
commercial land use that was shown in this area and he feels the same way . He
noted , however , that Mr . Hanna ' s point is well taken because if the final version
does show that much commercial in the area then the whole stretch of Hwy 16 West
between the Bypass and Rupple Road and maybe farther West would clearly be an
emerging commercial area . It depends on what the City decides on as far as the
Land Use Plan . He noted that he personally feels that Mr . Raby went a little
overboard with commercial in that area .
The public hearing was opened .
Dave Jorgensen , representative , handed out to the Commissioners some color- coded
zoning maps to show the surrounding zoning . He noted that he had submitted a
letter of transmittal for this request that is attached to the agenda . It states
that 1 ) the property has about 1 , 222 feet of length along Highway 16 and is
about 600 ' deep with R- 1 bordering on the west , R- 2 on the east and R-0 & C- 1
on the south . 2 ) Present Land Use : The existing property is vacant except for
Salem Road which runs though the center of the property in a north- south
direction . Salem Road was presumably intended to tie Highway 16 to Mount Comfort
Road to the North . There are several businesses to the South and the property
to the North ( Walnut Grove Addition ) has quite a bit of R- 2 and R- 1 property .
3 ) Water & sewer are in place on a portion of it and is readily available . 4 )
Fire Protection would be present with suitable fire hydrant installations . 5 )
Highway 16 is considered a principal arterial and Salem Road has a 60 ' right -
of -way . The intention is to tie Highway 16 to Mt . Comfort Road to the North .
He explained that in general , they believe there is a public need for additional
commercial property in this area . There are presently 73 acres of single- family
or multi - family housing to the North with another 34 acres to the South of R- 2
property . There is only about 2 1 / 2 acres of land zoned C - 2 that can be
purchased west of the Bypass . He commented that he has been told that it is very
wise to allocate commercial property on an arterial street for various reasons
with a reasonable depth and width as opposed to striping with 100 ' to 200 ' strips
of commercial from one year to the next . He noted that they feel that this
development would enhance the surrounding property and with the high
concentration of R- 2 property , more commercial property is necessary in this area
to provide service to the surrounding area .
Mr . Jorgensen stated that when Mr . Davis came in and talked with him about this
particular rezoning request , he tried to keep an open mind about it . He
commented that this really isn ' t a frivolous request . He noted that the 71
Bypass will be Interstate 171 one of these days and probably in the near future .
Sooner or later , there will have to be something commercialized out there .
Mr . Jorgensen read from the proposed General Plan 2010 that was put out by Al
Raby ' s group which states that "primarily the western side of Fayetteville beyond
the bypass remains undecided . With the opening of Interstate 171 , the western
area will be the primary target for new growth . Given the established land use
plan and growing economic trends , there is likely to diversify that will include
a demand for major new commercial areas , industry , middle income housing and
transportation facilities . " He advised that all of this does not apply totally ,
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12, 1999
RZ 99-16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4. 7
Planning Commission
November 27 , 1989
Page 11
completely because this is not the final version of the proposed plan . Mr .
Jorgensen noted that concerning the mall mentioned by Mr . Hanna , this report
states that "a secondary commercial mall of 100 thousand square feet is projected
for the southwest quadrant of the interchange . " Mr . Jorgensen stated that it
might be hard to squeeze in a mall in the southwest quadrant . He advised that
it would be impossible to put a mall in there without having some support
commercialized area in the vicinity of the surrounding area . He read the
following statement from the proposed General Plan : "The mall should be of
mixed use character and is proposed as an alternative to the emerging strip
commercial along Highway 16 . " Mr . Jorgensen noted that the staff ' s
recommendation states that the Commission does have the option of recommending
to the Board of Directors a more restrictive zoning such as R- 3 , R- 0 or C- 1 .
It states that none of these options are recommended by the staff in that they
feel that the R- 2 is a viable zoning designation for the property . He added that
he finds this tremendously hard to believe . R- 2 or R- 3 is not the most desirable
zoning for this location especially when you consider the fact that there is a
tremendous amount of multi - family/ single- family to the north and to the south .
The Planning Commission will sooner or later have to make the decision as to
where they want the commercialization in this area because it will eventually
happen . He noted that the major intersection there has C- 2 on the northwest and
a little bit to the southwest and this particular property begins about 1100 '
from the ramp . He advised that after talking with the staff , etc . , they have
decided that it would be wiser to request a C - 2 possibly . on the east side of
Salem Road and very possibly a C- 1 or C - 1 & R-0 combination on the west side of
Salem Road . In addition to that , they have R- 2 just to the north of this and
Mr . Davis has mentioned that he would like to possibly have a strip of property
in between this commercialized property and the R- 2 property for a greenspace
( possibly 15 ' wide ) as a barrier between the two . Mr . Jorgensen commented that
as an engineer , he sees another reason for making this particular property
commercial as opposed to the commercial to the north and to the south to keep
the heavy traffic on the State Highway system as opposed to going through the
residential property which is on a city street to hold down any heavy traffic
on the main drag . The average daily traffic count is 5600 as of last year .
Mr . Jorgensen advised that some of the possible uses that the owners have
mentioned such as a financial institution or a Wendy ' s restaurant would fit into
C - 1 as well as C - 2 .
, . Bob Davis stated that he is representing the Bryce Davis Estate and it has ^ been
mentioned in the newspaper articles in the past year that the city was going to
move to the West so it is time for to plan in that direction . He noted that
the Bryce Davis family has never built anything that the City could not be proud
of . They feel that this property is a major portion of the intersection since
their property is less than 2 / 10ths of a mile from the highway .
Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak to this petition . There
being no response , the public hearing was closed .
r
Commissioner Hanna stated that he thinks it is just a matter of time before this
area is developed in commercial .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12, 1999
RZ 99- 16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4.8
Planning Commission
November 27 , 1989
Page 12
MOTION
Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested ,
seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion .
Commissioner Klingaman asked when Highway 16 is going to be made into a four -
lane highway and has there been adequate right- of-way dedications so that it can
be four- laned . He stated that he is concerned that the accesses to this should
be controlled more than Highway 71 which has driveways about every 100 ' .
Mr . Jorgensen stated that the access would be covered in a large scale
development plan and as far as the right- of-way goes , he assumes that there has
probably been adequate right - of - way purchased for future expansion .
Don Bunn , City Engineer , stated that this would be dealt with at the large scale
development stage and he doesn ' t know when the highway would be widened .
Jerry Allred commented that since growth is going to be in that direction , if
they don ' t do some sort of alternative commercial zoning , there will be a bigger
impact put on College Avenue . As that area grows and develops and the traffic
increases , the residents would have to come to College Avenue in order to reach
the support services . He noted that he is in favor of the rezoning petition due
to future growth out in that direction .
Chairman Jacks stated that what Mr . Allred is challenging here is the long
standing principles which have guided the Planning Commission ' s judgments of
these things to do with commercial nodes at one mile intervals in lieu of strip
commercial property . He added that he sees this as challenging that principle
and the most zoning change that he would vote for would be to change part of that
property on the east side to R- 0 and no zoning at all on the west piece . He
added that he doesn ' t believe that they can break out of the pattern they have
set there which has pretty well established the principle with C- 1 properties
to the west with appropriate intervals . He noted that Mr . Raby has pointed out
to them that this area is a very important part coming into town and they will
be beseeched with pressures for commercialization out this direction .
Commissioner Hanna stated that- He heard exactly the same comments and objections
six or seven years to any rezonings on Highway 62 ( Sixth Street ) between Razorback
Road and the Bypass . Now it is developed with several fast food places and other
businesses and it looks a lot better than it did seven years ago . He advised
that he envisions the same thing for Highway 16 West so that people would not
have to drive five miles to get to North College or 6th Street to a fast food
restaurant . He added that as development comes out that way , these ideas will
change and it will be rezoned for business sooner or later . This strip isn ' t
that far from the intersection itself .
Commissioner Springborn stated that with due regard to the good principles that
should be governing the Planning Commission , he thinks that there would be little
lost by a C - 2 rezoning on the east half of it and leaving the west half for
Planning Commission Meeting
July 12, 1999
RZ 99- 16. 10 Mid-Southern Enterprises
Page 4.9