Loading...
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 r Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 13 further consideration at some future date. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is concerned that if they grant a rezoning of this size, it will be sectioned off a portion at a time to whichever fast food restaurant wants a sliver for there particular establishment which would cause it to be all chopped up. He noted that he would like to see some planning done on the front end of trying to establish some small residential shopping areas with maybe one or two entrances rather than the maximum. As far as the concept of having C-2 there, he noted that it doesn't bother him because it is close enough to the interchange. Commissioner Ozment stated that he doesn't know how they would define or put into perspective the size of a "node". The node concept is o.k., but 1100' from the intersection is kind of short for a node. A natural shopping mall node could probably be three times that wide. He commented that it would be nice if they could plan a frontage road off the highway to control access up and down through the shopping districts and not interrupt the traffic along the main highway. He advised that he has no problems with this on a big scale, but he would like to see the development come in a large fashion too and not be chopped up into 100' businesses. Commissioner Hanna noted that they would have to come back before the Planning Commission for any lot splits and large scale developments. Commissioner Cleghorn noted that it seems to him that they are voting on something that shouldn't be voted on yet. Most everyone is in agreement that sooner or later there will be some kind of commercial out that way. All they are doing is predicting what the growth patterns will be. It has been established on paper but the people haven't established it. It is like they are voting too soon on something that might be too critical. Chairman Jacks noted that the only question before him as he sees it is the size of the node and they have a pretty big node going there now. Commissioner Springborn observed that they are placing an awful lot of weight on the new Land Use Plan and until it is adopted, they have to exercise the best judgment they can with respect to the present one. The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning petition as requested tied 4- 4-0 with Ozment, Self f, Hanna & Allred voting "yes" and Springborn, Jacks, Cleghorn & Klingaman voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised that it does not pass because it takes five positive votes to approve a rezoning petition. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of a rezoning of the eastern Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.10 ( Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 14 section of the property (to the east of the road dividing it) to C-2 and leave the western portion as it is presently zoned, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 5-3-0 with Ozment, Springborn, Sei£f, Hanna & Allred voting "yes" and Rlingaman, Jacks & Cleghorn voting "no". CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION (REAL ESTATE OFFICE) IN AN R-1 ZONE DON WARD - 2015 HUNTSVILT.R ROAD The fifth item was a conditional use for a home occupation (real estate office) in an R-1 zone submitted by Don Ward for property located at 2015 Huntsville Road. Chairman Jacks advised that they had a rezoning petition at this location previously which was denied. He asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this request. Mr. Ward was present, but had no comments. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the conditional use as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 8-0-0. Chairman Jacks apologizes to Mr. Merrell for not asking him for him report on this item. Mr. Merrell stated that he just had a brief report and he did recommend approval of this request. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES BOB BRACY - 1901 COMMERCE DRIVE The sixth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for an expansion to Superior Industries submitted by Albert Skiles, Architect, on behalf of Bob Bracy. Property is located at 1901 Commerce Drive and zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Don Bunn noted that this is for a 10,000 square foot addition to an existing industry in the industrial park. There weren't any problems with the utilities and the only questions that were raised at the Plat Review Committee meeting were concerning fire protection. He added that they do have sprinkler lines going into the building and there was some question about what sort of fire wall needed to be between this office space and the rest of the building and it was resolved. He stated that the staff recommends that the large scale development be approved. Commissioner Springborn advised that the Subdivision Committee did not meet this week so they have no report on it. Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item. Cal Canfield who is in association with Albert Skiles representing Superior Industries stated that he is present to answer any questions. There being no Planning Commission Meeting July /2, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.11 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held November 24, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, and Bob Reynolds. Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. RZ 97-21.00: Rezoning (Mid -Southern Enterprises) 2. RZA 97-17.00: Annexation ( Gary Atha) 3. RZ 97-20.00: Rezoning (Gary Atha) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. ACTION TAKEN Denied Approved Approved RZ 97-21.00: (MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC.) MID -SOUTHERN- N. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF SALEM RD. The rezoning was submitted by Marshall Carlisle of Murphy & Carlisle on behalf of Mid - Southern Enterprises, Inc. For property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 9.966 acres. The original request was to change the zoning from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The applicant's new proposal is to rezone 5.45 acres to C-2 (RZ 97-21.10) and 3.34 acres to R -O (RZ 97-21.20). Recommendation: the staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning as being inconsistent with General Plan 2020 and was not justified or needed at this time. Planning Commission considered this tract for C-2 zoning in 1989 deciding to recommend only the east side of Salem Road (6.47 acres) and that tract remains undeveloped. Additional commercial zoning may be appropriate at a future time when improvements to accommodate additional traffic on 16W are made. If the Planning Commission recommends C-2 zoning in this area, staff recommends that access to the entire tract be limited to one curb cut on Wedington Drive and Salem Road for the proposed loop street. The applicant has presented a schematic subdivision plan. Staff comments on the plan follow: Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.12 Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 2 1. Access to each lot should be provided by either cross access and/or public streets within the project. 2. The proposal (which is recognized as being very preliminary) appears to separate the tract into 20 independent lots. A common design theme for the development should be required. 3. The schematic subdivision proposes the bulk of the property to be C-2 with a small amount of R -O. Staff feels these proportions are inappropriate. 4. For general consideration, staff has made notes on the plat. Mr. Marshall Carlisle, representative, noted there was existing C-2 land along Hwy 16, however, this tract was ready for development by the owner of the property, Mr. Rogers. If the rezoning were accomplished Mr. Rogers would develop a bank building. The purpose of the request was to be able to develop the land in the manner which would be compatible with what the city's ideas for this part of the community. The portion of the plat designated as R -O had alternatives. The north side could continue to be R-2, however, the property on the west side would be best zoned R -O. There was no public comment. Mr. Forney asked if R -O zoning would allow for a bank development. Ms. Little replied R -O zoning would allow a bank. Mr. Carlisle replied the owner had offers for the remaining C-2 property, which was contingent upon the rezoning. The possible businesses would required C-2 zoning or a conditional use. He was aware that a bank could be developed within an R -O or a C-1 zoning, however, there were other considerations involved. Mr. Forney asked how the R -O and the C-2 uses compared. Ms. Little replied restaurants were allowed in R -O with a conditional use. Mr. Forney added many of the uses suggested by the applicant could be allowed under a lesser zoning than C-2. He added he would not support any portion of the property being rezoned to C- 2. MOTION. Mr. Forney moved to deny C-2 zoning for RZ 97-21.10. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.13 Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 3 The motion carried by a vote of 6-1-0. Mr. Ward voting nay. Mr. Watkins moved to deny the RZ 97-21.20 request for remaining portion of the tract, in order to consider another possible rezoning for the entire tract. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Odom asked the staff if the motion carried to deny the R -O zoning would the applicant be prevented from asking for the entire tract to be rezoned to R -O. Ms. Little replied the applicant could change the change the configuration of the R -O rezoning request, and reapply this year. Mr. Carlisle asked if the applicant could request another rezoning for the entire tract. Ms. Little replied the applicant could request rezoning for the entire tract or smaller tracts. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting July /2. 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.14 Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1998 Page 7 RZ9S 2.00 REZONING REQUEST - SAM ROGERS N OF WEDINGTON. W OF SALEM ROAD The next item was a rezoning request submitted by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Sam Rogers for property located north of Wedington, west of Salem Road. The property contains 5.20 acres and the request is to rezone the property from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning subject to access to the entire tract being limited to one curb cut on Highway 16/Wedington Road and one curb cut on Salem Road. Mr. Jones stated the Highway 16 section was a very long strip of land to be limited to one curb cut (almost 700 feet of frontage). He advised there were specific plans for the comer -- construction of a bank. He pointed out the sale of the comer to the bank would require a lot split and he requested they discuss the curb cut issue at the time the lot split was considered. Ms. Little explained the concern was the stacking from the stop light at Salem and Wedington. She advised any curb cut on Wedington would need to be clear of that stacking area. Mr. Jones stated he was not sure where the tract would be split since there were no final designs and again requested the curb cut issue not be decided until the large scale development or lot split stage. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission could delay the decision if they so wished. Ms. Johnson asked if there was any configuration under which the property could develop which would cause staff to change their recommendation to more than one curb cut. Ms. Little stated that, without seeing every possible configuration, she could not answer the question. She went on to say, however, that the recommendation was a very solid recommendation, noting they needed to protect the traffic flow on Wedington. She advised the chances of changing the staff recommendation were not great. Ms. Johnson stated that, due to the heavy traffic on Wedington, the fact that the roadway would soon be 4 -lane, the proximity to Rupple Road, the difficulties with the by-pass lights, etc., she did not believe they could ever agree to more than one curb cut. Ms. Little agreed and stated it would be very difficult to envision a scenario where more than one curb cut could be judged as safe. Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.15 Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1993 Page 8 In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little advised she had recently talked with Eric Phillips, State Highway Department, to coordinate the curb cut policy. She stated she had been assured that, while the Highway Department had standards, the city could have more stringent standards than the Highway Department which would be enforced by the Highway Department. Public Comment: There was no public comment. Mr. Odom advised he would be very reluctant to approve the rezoning without the staff recommendations. He added he would listen to a request for a waiver at a later date should they have a configuration that would appear to be safe. Mr. Ward pointed out the Overlay District ordinance allowed a curb cut every 250 feet. Mr. Tucker asked if the applicant contemplated any residential uses on the tract. Mr. Jones stated the area immediately to the north (zoned R-2) would be developed residentially but he did not anticipate any residential development in the R -O area. Mr. Watkins asked how many acres of the 5.2 would be necessary for the bank. Mr. Jones stated he believed it would be 1'/z to 2 acres. He explained that, once the design began on the bank, he would have a better idea of how much land would be required and they would apply for a lot split. Ms. Little asked if the bank location had been determined. Mr. Jones stated the bank was interested in the southeast corner of the property. Ms. Little stated she believed the decision regarding curb cuts could be better made when they reviewed the lot split request. She suggested waiting until the lot split request was reviewed to make the access decisions. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little advised the Planning Commission could limit curb cuts at both lot split review and large scale development review. Mr. Forney stated he supported the staff's recommendation. He advised the applicant he would be willing to listen to a future proposal to amend the recommendation but he believed this was the time to place the limitation on the number of curb cuts. He further stated he did not believe the R -O zoning classification was inconsistent with the land use plan. He noted they might want Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.16 Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1998 Page 9 to review the R -O zoning classification since he did hot believe there were any residential developments zoned R -O. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve RZ93-2.00 subject to staff recommendations. Ms Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Forney, Odom, Hoffman, Ward, Reynolds and Johnson voting "yes" and Commissioners Watkins and Tucker voting "no". Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.17 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held March 23, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Lee Ward. Gary Tucker, Bob Estes, Robert Reynolds. John Forney, Conrad Odom, John Watkins STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Alert Little, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Debra Humphrey ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN LS 98-9.00: Lot Split (Sam Rogers) AD 98-6.00: Parking Waiver (Joe Fennel) AD 98-8.00: Administrative Item (Amendment to Parking Lot Ordinance) CU 98-6.00: Conditional Use (Audra Lee) RZ 98-6.00: Rezoning (The Dinerstein Companies) AD 98-5:00: Administrative Item (Advanced Towing Barbed Wire Fence) AD 98-9.00 Administrative Item (Christian Life Church Access Road) AD 98-I 1.00 Administrative Item (Stonebridge Meadows Sign) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. NOMINATION COMMITTEE: Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Denied No action Mr. Odom appointed the following Nominating Committee: Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, and Lorel Hoffman. LS98-9 00• LOT SPLIT (SAM ROGER ') NORTH OF WEDINGTON DRIVE AND WEST OF SALEM ROAD Submitted by Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Sam Rogers for property located north of Wedingm Drive and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 9.97 acres. Request is to create two lots (8.36 acres and 1.61 acres). This is the first lot split request. Staff Recommendation: Approval.subject to conditions of approval as noted. Kurt Jones, of Northwest Engineers, appeared before the commission on behalf of the applicant. He was in agreement with all the conditions of approval except for Items (D and F). According to Mr. Jones the applicant would be required to pay for the road twice. Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.18 Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 2 Ms. Little stated that Item D could be omitted and the applicant and commission would only deal with Item F. Mr. Jones inquired about the City and State paying 50% of the costs of the road and the developer would have to pay the other half. Mr. Jones further stated the owner would be willing to pay his fair share, but they have not had the opportunity to review the figures staff had provided, and therefore, could not state they were in agreement on Item F. There were no public comments. O Mr. Odom read Option #3 (Delay the assessment until development plans are filed for Tracts A and B and collect the proportionate share at that time). Mr. Odom inquired if this option was more agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Jones stated this was more agreeable which allowed them additional time to review the figures identified in Item F. ❑ Ms. Little noted to the commission another project submitted by a bank would be coming before them in a couple of weeks. The question before the commission would be whether the bank, as the developer, would be charged with the assessment fee of paying for the road, or Mr. Rogers, as the owner. The bank would be leasing the property from Mr. Rogers. ❑ Ms. Little addressed Mr. Forney's concerns regarding the right-of-way, and noted item No. II requiring dedication of the ROW. She also stated all parties are aware the property would have one single owner who preferred to maintain control of the location of the curb cut on Tract A rather than Tract B. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired if the dedication of the ROW is to go across the entire length of the entire property. ❑ Ms. Little stated the 40 foot right-of-way right angles to Salem Road goes the entire length of the north boundary of Tract B. It is located wholly on the part of the tract which was zoned R-2 and would be located directly north of proposed Tract B. There was further discussion concerning the right-of-way and the location of the streets. Ms. Little referred to Plat No. 16, which addressed some of the commission's concerns and questions regarding the location of the right-of- way and right-of-way. ❑ Mr. Forney noted one of the conditions of approval is maintenance of the east/west connection at the west property line of the parent tract. He further noted the right-of-way from Tract B to the west edge of Tract A, but fixing there will be a connection to the west edge. ❑ Ms. Little confirmed this was correct, and noted at the Subdivision Committee there was some discussion about connecting the ROW to the west. However, she noted we would not want to fix the location of the ROW further west than the western boundary of Tract B the location. Ms. Little also stated the condition of approval that relates to this concern was I I A which deals with the construction of internal streets. ❑ Mr. Forney emphasized this project was previously submitted to Subdivision Committee and stated this was a very complex project. He further commented when approving lot splits we need they are truly lot splits and not subdivisions to alleviate future problems. Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.19 t i Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve LS 98-9 subject to all conditions of approval in the report, eliminating Item lID, and include an amendment to Item l IA to use Option 3, but to also include this subdivision would acquire connection to the west edge of Tract A upon development of the tract in the future from Salem Road, and those conditions of approval with the asterisk which constitute a part of this motion. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion. Mr. Forney stated Option #2 was to be included in said motion Mr. Tucker inquired about the applicant's concern on Item II F, and whether the $11,850 was the cost for the complete building, city's but the state's portion. Mr. Jones stated he had several concerns regarding proportioning of the costs, city vs. the state, and felt the numbers were excessive and requested additional time to review the numbers. He further noted if this fee was assessed to the owner, what kind of payment procedures would city require. 0 Mr. Beavers responded to Mr. Tucker's concern about the calculation identified and stated it was not related to the highway widening. It was the traditional assessment of a developer '/2 of a standard city street. It had no basis on the highway department plans. 0 Mr. Odom inquired if the motion was approved as it stood, would the developer be able to come back later and say this is not a fair number or do we close the door on their option. ❑ Ms. Little stated the developer would still have the option to come back and say it was not a fair number. However, she noted it would be unusual because the recommended option is just for Tract B. She further responded to the concern about payment options and indicated it could be paid into an escrow fund, and if there are any overages, it would be refunded with interest. Mr. Jones stated his concern was when you look at the traffic this property would be generating compared to the traffic on Wedington, you would find the increase in traffic volume would be insignificant, and the cost therefore, would be very minor. He also stated this property would already limited to one curb cut, and would not get the benefit of the entire length of the highway. Therefore, he would like to request some additional time to review the number calculations and defer the assessment of this until the other developer came through. o Ms. Johnson stated there would be no reason to delay due to the benefit the developer would be getting. Therefore, she stated that the commission vote on the motion as presented. The motion carried with a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Watkins voted nay. Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.20 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 14 RZ99-16: REZONING MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC., PP401 (Also see RZ99-17: Mid -Southern Enterprises, Inc., pp401) This item was submitted by Marshall Carlisle on behalf of Mid -Southern for property located at the northwest comer 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-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Marshall Carlisle, Kurt Jones, and Sam Rogers were present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning from R -O to C-2. Commission Discussion Johnson: RZ99-16 and RZ99-17 are companion items. I would like to discuss these 2 items together but they will require separate motions and votes. Our vote on rezonings are merely recommendations to the City Council. The staff has different recommendations on both rezonings. This is at the intersection of the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and Salem Road. There is already a bank in place at the intersection. Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: This is the "L" shaped property just behind the bank. Conklin: The property the banks sits on also is being petitioned to be rezoned to C-2 and that include Arkansas National Bank. If you'll refer to page 6.25, the C-2 zoning request fronts Wedington Drive and Salem. Arkansas National Bank is currently on that comer. They are requesting that rezoning from R -O to C-2. The 4.77 acres in RZ99-17 is R-2 and they are requesting R -O. Staff is recommending approval of the change from the R-2 to Residential Office. Staff is recommending denial of the R -O to the C-2 zoning which is RZ99-16. Staff recommends denial because it is inconsistent with out future land use plan. It shows this area as residential. Immediately to the east there is property zoned C-2. In 1989, they discussed whether or not to rezone both sides of Salem Road to C-2. At that time, it was determined to only rezone the east side of Salem Road to C-2. The C-2 request was brought before us in November of 1997. At that time, the Planning Commission denied the rezoning request to C-2. They did approve the R -O rezoning and in January, 1998, the City Council did rezone it to R -O. Since then, Arkansas National Bank has been built on that comer. Johnson: Mr. Carlisle, I see that you are hear for the applicant. Do you have additional information for us? Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.21 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 15 Carlisle: I would like to make a couple of comments. Sam Rogers is here and he is the developer. Kurt Jones, the engineer, is also here. Let's hit things directly instead of juggling around. I went back and read the minutes of the '89 Commission meeting. In those minutes, I found that a Commissioner named Hanna, who said that we either need rezone it commercial now or we'll do it later. I think that is exactly where we are. If you drive down Highway 16, go over the overpass of the bypass and look to your right and your left, there is no way in this world that you can see residential development along this strip of a 5 lane highway. We either do it now or do it later. It appears to me that Highway 16 is exactly the same thing that happened to Highway 62 and it couldn't be better. One of the problems is the jam up of traffic at the intersection of Salem Road. Everybody is trying to get out of there and drive a 1,000 miles to get whatever it is they are looking for because it has not been developed commercially. Soon or later Highway 16 is going to be developed commercially. The other side is zoned C-2 and nobody has done anything with it. Let me tell you something, if Sam Rogers is granted the C-2 rezoning, you can bet your bottom dollar, you're going to see it developed and it won't be very long. He has done this all his life. He has developed residential and commercial properties for over 40 years. I don't understand why the staff approved the R -O to the back of the property and denied the C-2 to the highway front. It appears to me and Mr. Jones, that is the way this property ought to be developed. If you have any questions, we'll try to answer them. Public Comment None Further Discussion Johnson: Looking at the General Plan 2020, I see that the dividing line for the proposed connection is north of Wedington and east of Salem and then there is no commercial no that plan which of course is a general plan. Exactly why that is that way, I don't know. This is residential and office type uses; single family and two family dwellings, office, studios; professional offices. Then by conditional use appeal to us, multi -family dwellings, eating places under the R -O designation. C-2 is one of the highest level of commercial although it is not as high as perhaps the downtown area. Hoffman: Did you all discuss the C -I designation for this site instead of C-2? Conklin: I have not had any discussion with the applicant for C -I designation. Hoffman: And is the primary difference between C-1 and C-2 is what? Conklin: Mobile homes sales, hotels, motels, liquor store, auto sales, pool hall, go cart track, adult entertainment and conditional use for sexually oriented businesses. Planning Commission Meeting July 12, /999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.22 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 16 Hoffman: C-1 would cover all the other general commercial -- grocery store, convenience store -- Conklin: Gasoline station. Johnson: The applicant, of course, is aware of the zoning regulations and I presume doesn't have an interest in C-1 or would have expressed that. Hoffman: C-2 does carry some connotations this neighborhood may not be ready for or are even needed. C-1 would get us to the type of neighborhood commercial enterprises that the applicant was speaking of. With that in mind, I would lean more toward C-1 than C-2. Johnson: What we have before us is the request for C-2. Unless we hear different from the applicant then that is what we must limit ourselves to. Jones: The list that Tim read was actually items that are allowed in C-2 but not allowed in C-1. Conklin: That's correct. Johnson: Let me read to you the items allowed in C-1: city wide uses by right; offices, studios, and related services; eating places; neighborhood shopping; gasoline service stations; and drive in restaurants; and professional offices. Carlisle: And that's C-1. Jones: I think the main reason that we are asking for C-2 on this property is not that Mr. Rogers is interested in any of those items that are allowable in C-2 but not allowable in C -I but the density of the development. What is allowable in C-2 -- setbacks and areas on the site -- versus the C-1 development. That is why we are asking for C-2 instead of the C-i at this point. Obviously we would prefer C-1 over R -O because of the type development that Mr. Rogers is looking at for this property but we feel like C-2 is what is needed based on the size and configuration of this property and some of the other restrictions that have already been proposed on this property due to previous lot splits and rezonings. We don't feel like it can be developed to it's full potential as a C-1 property versus a C-2. Johnson: The building area on a C-2 lot shall not exceed 60% of the total area of the lot and C- i lot shall not exceed 40%. Conklin: That is correct. Jones: There are also some setback, I believe -- in C-2 there is no side setback for Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.23 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 17 building requirements and in C-1 there are some side setbacks. Conklin: They're actually the same. The difference is under C-1 from side property line when contiguous to a residential district it is 10 feet and in C-1 it's 15 feet. So you have a 5 foot additional setback in C-2. Jones: If it's adjacent to R -zones. Conklin: You have more setback in C-2. Hoffman: My thoughts on it -- I don't know if I can suggest an alternate zoning -- it is true that we have a lot of C-2 zoning that is still vacant in the city and in this area. C- 1 does meet the neighborhood's needs than a highly dense kind of regional, if you will, zoning. There was also in these minutes of the '89 meeting, Alderman Hanna, or whatever he was called back then also mentioned that there might be a mall coming in your area. Obviously that hasn't happened. It's gone more toward subdivision use and we will need the supporting commercial development but not the intensive regional commercial development. I don't see that happening on that road. I will not support C-2 zoning. I would support C-1 and I'm not sure about the mechanics of bring forward an alternate motion like that. That is not up to us. Johnson: I don't believe it would be appropriate. That is my opinion and others may disagree. I think is like somebody petitioning for a divorce and being told they could have an adoption. MOTION Mr. Marr made a motion to deny RZ99-16. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Further Discussion Shackelford: If we decline this request, what is their limitation as far as coming back with the request if they want to pursue the C-1 zoning. Johnson: How do our actions affect the applicant as he goes forward to the Council. Do they limit him in going forward to the Council. Conklin: They would have to appeal the Planning Commission's decision if you deny this rezoning request. Johnson: And as a practical matter, how is that different from the fact that they have to go Planning Commission Meeting July /2, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.24 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 18 forward even if we recommend approval. Conklin: They have to provide a letter in writing stating why they feel the Planning Commission is in error to the City Clerk and it's within a certain number of days and then that gets placed on the Council agenda. Johnson: It's my opinion that if we deny the C-2 and if the applicant wished to come back with C-1, he could do it immediately. Conklin: That is correct. Shackelford: Would they come to this board or would that be part of their appeal to City Council? Could they change that between here and City Council? Conklin: No. If they want to ask for a different type of zone on this piece of property, we would have them come back to Planning Commission. If they appeal your decision, then the City Council would make the decision on what zone is proper for this tract of land. Hoffman: They could go forward with C-1, if they wished? Conklin: If the Council wanted to pass an ordinance, they could do that without coming back to the Planning Commission. Mart: I would be in support of C- 1 zoning. I feel that meets the needs of the neighborhood and I think it was a good argument you brought up about the need for commercial businesses there that might cut down on some traffic elsewhere. I don't think that C-2 is necessary to accomplish that. Carlisle: It's a little difficult to make any kind of a major decision over here sitting in the pews. I have been asked by Mr. Rogers to ask you if we could table our application at this time so that we would have the opportunity to discuss and maybe come back to you with a C-1 application. Johnson: We have a motion on the floor. It seems to me for purposes of economy of time of the Commission and perhaps the applicant that it might be just as well to allow that unless there objection from any Commissioners. Is there objection to allowing the applicant to withdraw his request at this time even though we have a motion. In other words, I think we could move ahead and vote on the motion but my sentiment is to allow it to be withdraw for them to go back and consider the C-1 option. Seeing no objection, that will be allowed. What about your next rezoning that you have before us, 99-17. Would you hold that aside, too, or do you want us to go forward with that? Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.25 JUN 29 '99 14:01 MURPHY AND CARLISLE -. P.2 DESCRIBE PROPOSED PROJECT IN DETAIL This property consists of 5.2 acres on Highway 16 West (Wedington Drive) with approximately 700 feet frontage. A part of this tract was involved in a lot split approved in March, 1998. A tract consisting of 1.61 acres is now occupied under a ground lease by a bank building owned by Arkansas National Bank. C-1 zoning will give to the owner/developer the flexibility of development which will best take advantage of the widened highway and the access provided by the improved traffic flow. Development of use providing conveniences for neighborhood shopping and personal services for residents in the surrounding area will be the key. The petitioner is an experienced developer, having been in the business in Northwest Arkansas for many, many years. Planning Commission Meeting July 12. 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.27 8Z'6 a8od sasudia[u3 uiarlmoS-P?W 01'91-66 ZX 6661 'Z! (/nf 8unaaly uoissjwwoj 8ujuuvld o• a 0. 1a1 m(•V_YI _.p ,r w'C l • •f� qP .. t. r• y jRr Ijjall� 1 •; 'j.1 II[ - t O __ ° i[I"t 'i'J1` 1-I - j il . -Iii'' jl!I jj[�!.� ]tII it ••'I1ij lad' , [r-� 1[I ; Y • 's{ {;Litt ,I,IiF:-�( • t t j m r iG;bt - e. •- I w •• 4izsE t4; e e Y F�m m 'EsiS`- > —4C-)• 0 CD V 1 - •t In RI 200 0 200 Feet IV Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.29 RZ99-16.1 - Mid Southern Enterprises, Inc - One Mile Diameter 1 i ii i H O rM-E—AD-OW� 11 - i 1 1 1 MOUNTC 3 __ 11� 1 I 1 c Co 1f WILDWOOD 1 ft O N' o RO .1' I y E' Essex = 1 C BUCKEYE 0L Uie �� tTRIC1) YALE H STO I PRIN +� L CORN ARTHUR HAR VASSAR U MEGAN OS aW w C, • �� ,s a• ��Jf ...... ...... • • ..... ...... Mc- ..... ..... �O ..... I. City Limits• W 1- .. 6 N 1400 0 1400 Feet C2 Zone Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 RZ 99-16.10 Mid -Southern Enterprises Page 4.30 Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 9 RZ99-16.1: REZONING MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC., PP401 This item 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- 0, Residential Office, and contains approximately 5.2 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Marshall Carlisle was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning. Commission Discussion Johnson: This property was before us a few weeks ago. At that time, a rezoning request to change this to C-2 was before us but after discussion with the Commission, the applicant withdrew that and now has come back with a request to rezone to C-1. The staff has recommended denial based on the finding included as a part of this report which I think primarily zeros in on the fact that on the 2020 Plan, this particular plot does not show commercial but is shown as residential properties. Tim, did you have additional information or explanation that you want to make from the -- I would call to your attention, Commissioners, in our packet on 4.3, staff has done a good job there of showing us the differences between what's allowed in C-2 and C-1, so you can take a look and see what this applicant would be allowed to do. Conklin: Staff does recommend denial for the C-1 zoning as inconsistent with the Land Use Plan that was adopted in 1995. We did support residential office zoning and that zoning was approved in January of '98. Since then, Arkansas National Bank has been developed on the northwest corner of Salem and Wedington Road. There is additional land that is vacant that could be developed under R -O zoning and staff feels that R -O zoning would be the most appropriate zoning at this time. Johnson: If you would tell us who you are and tell us what you have to say, Mr. Carlisle. Carlisle: I am Marshall Lynn Carlisle, attorney at law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. I represent the applicant who actually is Mr. Sam Rogers, who is present. The engineering is being done by Kurt Jones and Kurt, unfortunately, is out of town but Chris Parton is here on behalf of Crafton and Tull and hopefully, he'll be able to answer any questions you all might have. I think everyone was here a couple of weeks ago except Mr. Estes when this matter was brought before you and there was some discussion about the various differences for development. I think I tried to point out, in our view and I think the view of any person who is reasonably intelligent, who drives out this highway and looks around and sees that this tract of land will never be developed residentially. It is going to be put to some commercial use and Mr. Rogers stands ready now to Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 10 do that, if we can get the cooperation of the City of Fayetteville. I agree with Madam Chairman that the comparison that the staff has done on the packet that has been distributed clearly points out the differences from what we originally asked for and what we now ask for and I can say unequivocally that those things that are not permitted under C-1 and would be permitted under C-2 do not give us any problem. Mr. Rogers is ready to develop the property under the permitted uses as shown under C -I zoning. I don't think it is necessary for me to repeat my comments that I made at the last meeting concerning the widening of the highway. That's one thing that you all are much more informed about than I am but if we can help with your deliberation by answering questions, I'm here, Mr. Rogers is here, and Mr. Parton is here. With that, I will stop my comments. Johnson: Thanks. Looking at the R -O permitted uses, the uses that I see that are allowed in the C-1 wouldn't be allowed in R -O -- Tim, look over my shoulder on this -- I believe that C-1 would allow additionally, eating places, neighborhood shopping, service stations, drive in restaurants. Conklin: That is correct. Restaurants are allowed as a conditional use in R -O. So, there is a possibility that under the current zoning, they could bring forward a conditional use for a restaurant on this property at this time. Johnson: So instead of an eating place that would be allowed under R -O, you would have to come before us for a restaurant under a conditional use. That leaves neighborhood shopping to go in under C-1 and service stations and drive in restaurants, neither of which is allowable under R -O. Conklin: That is correct Johnson: Other questions of staff or the applicant? Hoover: In C -I, you cannot exceed 40% of building area on the lot. In R -O, what is the maximum? Conklin: 60%. Johnson: So this would be less dense in terms of building on the site. Carlisle: Substantially, that is the difference. Johnson: The footprint. Conklin: That is correct. Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page!! Carlisle: And also the C-2 as I understand. Public Comment None MOTION Marr: I would like to make a motion that we approve RZ99-16.1. Estes: Madam Chair, I second that. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Mar, seconded by Commissioner Estes that we approve the rezoning 99-16.1. Of course, our action is a recommendation, if it passes, to go forward to the City Council who has final authority in this matter. Is there discussion of the motion to approve the requested rezoning? Further Discussion Estes: Just briefly, having seconded the motion, I will, of course, vote for the motion. The reason is that it is true that our General Plan 2020 provides that this area is residential but as we all know a plan is just that. It is a projection and is not something that is set in stone. As a person drives through this area and looks at how it is developed to the south, common sense would tell us that this is not going to be a residential area. This is going to be commercial area and with the permitted uses under C-1, I believe, are very compatible with the area that is developing. Bunch: I have a question for staff. Are there any other commercial developments to the east that are in process? I know there is considerable amount of land to the east that is zoned commercial. Conklin: That is correct. Directly across the streets, we have a large scale development for Mcllroy Plaza that currently is under development. East of that, there is vacant C-2 property and east of that property would be Wedington Place Subdivision which is currently undeveloped but the final plat has been approved. We looked at Bank of Fayetteville on one of those lots and we've had discussions with other developers in the community about developing additional land in that subdivision. East of the bypass, what's known as the Marinoni Farm, there is acreage right up front along Wedington Drive and Shiloh that is currently being considered for a development. Johnson: This rezoning does include the existing bank which is located on 1.61 acres, correct? FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Sharon McCourt, Planning Department From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: September 9, 1999 Attached is a copy of the ordinance approving vacation request RZ 99-16.10 for your records. The original will be recorded with the county, then microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. cc. Ed Connell, Engineering Clyde Randall, Engineering John Goddard, Data Processing Tony Webb, Planning RECEIVED 1"1 �LM STATEOFARKANSAS DEC 28 1999 County of Washington 55. ACCTG. DEPT. ORDINANCE NO. 4179 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRI- BED IN REZONING PETITION RZ99-16.10 FOR A PARCEL LY 5.2 ACRES LVGAI tU t 1 THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEDINGTON DRIVE AND SALEM ROAD, AS REQUEST- ED BY MARSHALL CARLISLE ON BEHALF OF MID -SOUTH- ERN ENTERPRISES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKAN- SAS: Sec on 1. That the zone classi- fication of thefollowing descri- bed property is hereby changed as follows: From R -O, Residential Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commer- cial, for the real property descri- bed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made apart hereof. Section 2. That the official zon- ing map of the City of Fayette- ville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1. above. ' PASSED AND APPROVED this 7th day of September. 1999. APPROVED: By: Fred Hanna, Mayor ATTEST: By: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk I, JEFF JEFFUS, hereby certify that I am the publisher of THE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES, a daily newspaper having a second class mailing privilege, and being not less than four pages of five columns each, published at a fixed place of business and at fixed (daily) intervals continuously in the City of Fayetteville, County of Washington, Arkansas for more than a period of twelve months, circulated and distributed from an established place of business to subscribers and readers generally of all classes in the City and County for a definite price for each copy, or a fixed price per annum, which price was fixed at what is considered the value of the publication, based upon the news value and service value it contains, that at least fifty percent of the subscribers thereto have paid for their subscriptions to the newspaper or its agents or through recognized news dealers over a period of at least six months and that the said newspaper publishes an average of more than forty percent news matter. I further certify that the legal notice attached in the matter of was published in the regular daily issue of said newspaper for / consecutive insertions as follows: The first insertion on the /44 day of 19 /Q the second insertion on the day of 19 — the third insertion on the day of 19 — the fourth insertion on the 9 — Publisher/General Manager Sworn to and subscribed .before meoo�nthis I"? dEpf My Commission Expires: Fees for Printing ............... re v , ;; Notary Public Public. Stale of Arl,ansns Ni ., enm irsibn Expires D,. ,", g4 s �< I rcc. ctccccu<cucc«ca«uucu a'- .................................. $ Costof Proof.............................................................$ r i Total.........................................................................$