Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4258 FILED FOR RECORD POO PUG 3 Pfd 2 47 ORDINANCE NO. 4258 , WASHINGTON CO AR, KK 11 � Rn��nEESS AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESLRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZ00-17 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1 .47 ACRES LOCATED AT 2323 DEANE STREET REQUESTED BY NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF EMAD DAMEN. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 . That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R- 1 , Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District for the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof with a Bill of Assurance limiting the number of units permitted on this 1 .47 acre tract to a total of 14 units also attached hereto and made a part hereof. Scetion 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. F rhbF kND APPROVED this 1816 day of Jules , 2000. • i V`` !r APPROVE V :. �+��• �'4C to By: red Hanna, Mayor ATTEST: / By: A Heather Woodruff, City Clefg 2000004424 • ord . 4258 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RZ 00- 17 " �E&A bE5C Lots numbered five (5) and six (6) of there-plat of lots 11 - 16 inclusive, in University Acres Subdivision to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per plat on file in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex-Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. M X W 2000054425 I, Kathleen Hameso, Cirault Clark and Ex-officio Recorder for Washington County, Atkanoas, do hereby certify that this instrument was filed for record In my office as Indicated heroon and tho Gama Is now duly recorded with the acknowledgement and certificate thereon In Record Book and Pogo as Indicated thereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 havo horounto flet my hand and affixod the seal of said Court on the dale Indi- celad hereon. Ir ,it`jleor, Heme NAME OF FILE: ej�P CROSS REFERENCE: Date Contents of File Initials n n ^ L -00 /9 DOALWIq ' ti ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZ 00- 17 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1 .47 ACRES LOCATED AT 2323 DEANE STREET REQUESTED BY NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF EMAD DAMEN. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 . That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R- 1 , Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District for the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof with a Bill of Assurance limiting the number of units permitted on this 1 .47 acre tract to a total of 14 units also 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. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 2000. APPROVED: By: Fred Hanna, Mayor ATTEST: By: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RZ 00- 17 Lots numbered five (5) and six (6) of the re-plat of lots 11 -16 inclusive, in University Acres Subdivision to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per plat on file in the office of the circuit clerk and ex-officio recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. BILL OF ASSURANCE This declaration of a Bill of Assurance is made this M day of 2000, by Emad Damen, owner of real property located at 2323 Dean Street, Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: A� LOTS NUMBERED 5 AND 6 OF THE RE-PLAT OF LOTS 11 - 16 INCLUSIVE, IN UNIVERSITY ACRES SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS PER PLAT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK, AND EX-OFFICIO RECORDER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS . WHEREAS, Emad Damen applied to the City of Fayetteville for a rezoning of the above described real property from R- 1 to R-2 on or about May 19, 2000; and WHEREAS, said rezoning was approved by the City Council by Ordinance ; and WHEREAS, Emad Damen desires to restrict the use of the property described hereinabove to no more than fourteen residential units, to be comprised of a combination of duplex units and/or single family residences as otherwise allowable in an R-2 zoning. NOW, THEREFORE, Emad Damen, present owner, hereby declares that the real property described herein shall be held, developed, transferred, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to the restriction that if it is zoned R-2 by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville the use thereof shall be restricted as set forth above. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit Emad Damen, or any successor in interest, from petitioning the City of Fayetteville for the removal of this Bill of Assurance or seeking a different zoning classification. Executed this / °/ day of Tu-Lt c 12000. Ema Damen STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day came before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly qualified, commissioned and acting within and for the aforesaid State and County, Emad Damen, and states that he had executed the same . o WITNESS my hand and seal as such Notary Public this day of , 2000. Nota ubli My Commission Expires: / A - at - A0O9 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. . . Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (501 ) 575-8264 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Associate Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner 0(AU DATE: June 12, 2000 eon RZ 00-17.00: Rezoning (Damen, pp 364) was submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2323 Deane Street. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1 .47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. Note: Consideration of a rezoning request does not constitute review or approval of development proposals. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied t Date: June 12, 2000 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES .7:77�7 O Approved O Denied Date: July 18, 2000 N:1 USERSICOMMOMDd WN71REPOR7S1PC16-12-OOldamen.ippd LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to R-2, Medium Density Residential, is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF I_ : . :A determination of the.degree to. which the propos yoning.is consistent with land use . planning objectives, principles, and policies and with Iand use and zoning plans. Finding: The Land Use Plan (General Plan 2020) shows this area as residential. The proposed zoning of R-2 (Medium Family Residential) is 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 R-2 is justified and needed at this time. 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 in this area. This property is situated very close to I-540 and is located on streets which are called out on the Master Street Plan to carry large volumes of traffic (Deane - minor arterial, Porter minor arteriaUcollector). 4' 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density IV and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: The proposed zoning would not alter the population density in a manner which would undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. On-site and off-site improvements including sewer will be required at the time of Large Scale Development and/or Preliminary Plat approval. 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; H:I USERSICOMMOMDA IV.Y7IREPOR7SIpC16-71-OOLdamen. wpd Comments: BACKGROUND; ' This-ProPcrty.44ocated on Deane&reet just south.of the Univejsity•ExperimenWFarm_ It is just east of the intersection of Deane and Porter Road. The applicant is requesting to rezone this 1 .47 acre tract to R-2, Medium Density Residential in order to develop six duplexes in addition to the two existing single family homes for a total of 14 units. The property to the west and to the south is zoned R-2 and is developed into multi-family units. The University of Arkansas experimental faun property is north of this tract and the adjacent land to the east, zoned R- 1 , is developed with one single family home. This area is called out on the General Plan 2020 as residential . Any further development of this property would constitute an infill project which would better utilize existing infrastructure and City facilities. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: University experimental farm, not zoned South: Multi-family dwellings (duplexes), R-2 East: Single family dwellings, R- 1 West: Multi-family dwellings, R-2 INFRASTRUCTURE: Access to this property is provided from Deane Street which runs along the northern property i boundary. This part of Deane Street is classified as a minor arterial on the City's Master Street Plan. A minor arterial street is designed to accommodate 12,200 - 14,800 vehicles per day with a total right of way of 90'. At the .time of development, this access will be evaluated with regard to the proposed project and the amount of traffic that it is expected to generate. The Planning Commission will then determine any necessary improvements or dedications. Water: 12" line along Deane St. Sewer: 6" line along the south property line which appears to serve Linda Jo Place, this line connects to another 6" line located along Porter Rd. H:I USERSICOMMONIDA WN7IREPORMP06-11-001damen. npd • 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:-,w N/A ;. §161.06 DISTRICT R-2 MEDIUM C. Density. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Families Per Acre 4 to 24 A. Purpose. The High Density Residential District is designed to permit D. Bulk and Area Regulations. and encourage the developing of a variety of dwelling types in suitable environments in a 1 . Lot Width Minimum. variety of densities. Mobile Home Park 100 Feet Lot within a 50 Feet B. Uses. Mobile Home Park 1 . Uses Permitted. One Family 60 Feet Unit I City-Wide Uses by Right Two Family 60 Feet Unit 8 Single-Family Dwellings Three or More 90 Feet Unit 9 Multifamily Dwellings - Medium Density Professional 100 Feet Offices 2. Uses Permissible on 2. Lot Area Minimum. Appeal to the Planning Commission. MHouse: ome Park 3 Acres Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional in a 4,200 Sq. Ft. Use Permit ome Park Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility use:Facilities lopment 10,000 Sq. Ft.Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational dual Lot 2,500 Sq. Ft.Facilities amily 6,000 Sq. Ft.Unit 11 Mobile Home Park ily 7,000 Sq. Ft.Unit 25 Professional Offices More 9,000 Sq. Ft. t HAUSERSICOMMOMDA MV7IREPOR7SIP06-12-00Women. ivpd Fraternity or 2 Acres Sorority Professional I Acre Offices 3. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. Mobile Home 3,000 Sq. Ft. Apartments: Two or More 2,000 Sq. Ft. Bedrooms One Bedroom 1,700 Sq. Ft. No Bedroom 1,700 Sq. Ft. Fraternity or 1,000 Sq. Ft. per Sorority Resident E. Yard Requirements (feetl FRONT SIDE REAR YARD YARD YARD 25 8 25 Cross Reference: Variances Chapter 156. F. Height Regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. (Code 1991, § 160.033; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(III); Ord. No. 2320, 4-5-77; Ord. No. 2700, 2-2-81) H:I USERSICOMMOMDA{VN7IREPOR7SIPC16-12-001damen. ivpd Mobile Home Park 3 Acres May 19, 2000 Planning Department City of Fayetteville Re: Request for rezone lots 5 & 6 of University Acres Subdivision Dear Sir/Madam: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with additional information as required by the rezoning application: 1. Attached with the rezoning application a checque for the amount of $ 325.00 for the application fee. 2. Attached is a copy of the latest mortgage survey prepared by Northstar Engineering Consultants. 3. Enclosed are two sets of typed mailing labels listing the names and addresses of each adjacent property owner. The list of names and addresses were obtained from the Assessors office records at. Washington County Court House. 4. The attached copy of the latest mortgage survey shows the adjacent property owners and parcel number for every adjacent property. 5. Discussed below are specific information concerning the property owner: a. Lots 5 & 6 of University Acres Subdivision on Dean Street are owned by Emad Damen. There is no pending sale of this property. b. The rezoning of the property will enable me to construct six duplex units. c. The property will be developed as one lot including a private street. Therefore, no individual duplex units can be sold and I will maintain sole architectural control since I plan to construct all the units. A strict covenant will be in place to maintain a high quality community theme. I plan to construct a fence along the east, west and south boundary of the property. The fence will provide screening and additional landscaping for my property and at the same time maintain compatibility with surrounding properties particularly to the south and east. The duplex units will be served by a dead end private street which connects to Deane Street, therefore, no through traffic will be allowed through adjacent properties. I believe my proposed duplex development will be compatible with existing developments surrounding my property to the east and south. A landscaped entrance including the development name will be constructed off of Deane Street. Planning Department • , City of Fayetteville 5/19/2000 Page 2 of 2 d. Northstar Engineering met with the City engineer on 5/18/2000 and were informed that potable water and sanitary sewer service is available and adequate to serve my development. appreciate your assistance in my effort to rezone this property. Please call me at (501) 527-6626 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Eniad Damen Attachments: As stated. • RZ00-17.00 - Damen - Close Up 1 0 � 1 1 r A-1 I University of Arkansas 01 0 • I I � DEANE R-2 1 !' q L'I i R-2 n _ - L I I �� L R-1 ❑ R-1 i u R -2-I RI R-1 R 1 R-1 L R-1 SYCAMORE ci ' w R-1 _ i I . I R1j R-2 0 R-1 — a R-1� R1 -{ R1 r" - R -1 O I HOUSTON HOUSTON c 1 Z R-1 R-1 I R 1 L I �J R1 ❑I R1 I - I -IR1 �_i I I R-1 I R1 R_1 i J R 2 �_� I R-1 I I R 1 I R-1 I Y NJ N 200 0 200 Feet E 1\1 LtI N I Residential I W E Commity Comnercal ',' Sbbbb� Historic Commercial S ® Historic Districts -cc University Industrial Office Mxed Use Open / Space Recreational Neighborhood Corrrnercial J 1 Regional Corrmerical UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 205 ADMINISTRATION BLDG FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 0000-00000 ZONING EXEMPT OUT LOT CL DEANE STREET uo7egA,A3D 12V-f12V _00„E — Ia.., cS VV I • DRIVE I 13T 56.39i'ISTCRY ?u LST0RY a1 N FRAME RESIDENCE I N ERANE RESIDENCE N I • 44.46' • 39' 1 9.94' Co tail N ml I wry It” • M Eu OW ISOSOWSKI, ARTHUR L. 9S2, •to LAZENBY, WILLIAM A. 15692 COOSE HOLLOW CT N p 1031 COLLEGE ROGERS, AR 72756 00�I o FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 98-04329�0 . o • m o 98-110378 ZONING LOT 7( (0 1 I I z ZONING R-1 LOT 4 LOT 6 LOT 5 I I • I "ON PIN \ar CAPPED \N�9°59'0 \ N89°59'06W N89°55'50"E j N89"55'50"E 99.68' \ \ 62S �3.fC � 6SS 6SS YO - 6[yy _ 6SS - \%1 C 6SS-6SS-6SS 1 \ & LPROPERTIES, LLC T • \ LOT 8 1412 S CRUTCHER 15' • LOT 7 \ I 99-26958 ALE, AR�4 ) 76UTILITY EASEMENT ZONING I I \ `. LOT 10 EST ZONING: \ LOT 9 /• / IN ( HOUSTON MEADOWS SUBDIVISION I2' — TY IS LOCATED WITHIN ANY -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT LATE MAP FOR FAYETTEVILLE, SAS, MAP NUMBERS 05143C0085 C 18, 1991. THIS DAY(03106100) COMPLETED :IBED PROPERTY, ALL MENTS REVEALED BY THE \T OF SURVEY. BASIS OF BEARING: PER A PLAT OF UNIVERSITY ACRES SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN EX -OFFICIO RECORDER AND CIRCUIT CLERKS OFFICE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, PLAT RECORD BOOK 1, PAGE 278. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS NUMBERED FIVE(5) AND SIX(6) OF THE RE -PLAT OF LOTS 11-16 INCLUSIVE, IN UNIVERSITY ACRES SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS PER PLAT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK AND EX -OFFICIO RECORDER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 19 RZ 00-17.00: Rezoning (Damen, pp 364) was submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2323 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-17 submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2323 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report. Staff, any further conditions? Conklin: There are no further conditions. Odom: I would ask the applicant to come forward at this time. Scott: My name is John Scott. I'm the applicant's attorney actually. He was trying to make his way back from Neosho, Missouri and it appears he has not gotten here yet. We have a representative from Northstar who actually submitted the application so whoever you would prefer to hear from. Odom: Whoever wishes to give a presentation should you wish to do so. Scott: We really don't at this point unless there are any questions that we can address. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience like to address us on this rezoning request? Please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Maynard: Hi, My name is Richard Maynard and I live at 1717 Sang Avenue which is near but not adjacent to Mr. Damen's property. I also own the property where I reside. I want to start out by saying I'm not here just as a private citizen this time as I was a year ago when I came before this Commission about another rezoning issue but as President and spokesperson for the Asbell Neighborhood Association which extends from Deane Street to Wedington on the north and south with Lewis on the east and right beyond Porter almost to the bypass on the west. I mentioned this because these are not just arbitrary boarders that we decided to set up but because our membership, now 65 members and growing each week, live in all four comers of that area and we came together last fall to object to another rezoning proposition; in fact the same one. Although not the same property, the same It Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 20 request of R-1 to R-2, that we felt then and feel now would change the character of our neighborhood into something we could not live with. Out of that we formed this association because we felt we needed to have a more active voice in development zoning decisions that affect our lives and our neighborhood. I did not ask for a lot of people to come tonight, just our officers because I didn't want to waste their time. I want to say right up here, we are not here to necessarily oppose this request only that we are very concerned about it. We ask you to please, please to listen to these concerns. Whatever decision you make about any rezoning petition, no mater how small, affects those of us who live in the neighborhood in visible and, sometimes, not so visible ways. Our first concern is density. Now on the surface this petition, and the one I mentioned from last fall, would seem to be completely different, 11.5 acres as opposed to 1.5 acres, apartment complexes as opposed to a few duplexes. If that were all there was to it I would have to say this is probably a no brainer and you should approve it. Two thin lots sitting next to R-2 duplexes to the west and sitting right on top of a large development of duplexes to the south, Linda Jo Place, who could possibly object to that? But here is the problem. Once the zoning changes it changes for good and there is nothing in this petition that binds the developer or owner to do what he says he intends to do. Under R-2 zoning he can develop this property with far greater density. Far greater than would be possible than would be possible with these duplexes. In other words, he could change his mind or sell it to somebody else and they would have zoning with a lot of freedom to do what they like. Now by saying that, I am not by any means, and I want to make this clear, suggesting that there is any deception going on at all. I have no reason to believe that they are not going to do what they say they are going to do. We usually don't do things on a handshake. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that either. Our point is that certainly, anyone can do what they want with their property. In other words, as long as I meet building codes, I could paint my house pink and black if I wanted to and it would really be nobody else's business. The property is mine but the zoning is not. That is our point. It belongs to all of us and in this case I would argue it belongs primarily to those of us who live in the area. If we are asked to bend on our zoning then we would like to have some assurance that our property and our neighborhood, our homes, our quality of life, whatever, are protected. I think you get my point. This is primarily an R- I neighborhood. And I'm going to say that because last fall that was really the basis of the argument before the City Council and the City Council agreed with us that the neighborhood was much larger than what the petitioners at that time wanted everyone to believe. That was really the basis of their decision not to grant that rezoning because it would adversely affect too many of the residents and owners. People who have lived in the neighborhood for years, sometimes 30 or 40 years and have an investment in their properties and in their homes. I don't want to • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 21 have to revisit that argument again. I hope we can accept the Council's decision that this is primarily R-1 and what happens in one section of that neighborhood does effect the entire neighborhood. Everything is connected which brings us to our second concern. Where does this stop. Now I think you know what I'm getting at. What we are afraid of is losing the very thing that we fought for and organized ourselves to protect ourselves from incrementally as lot by lot comes up for rezoning each pointing to a prior decision by this Board or by the City Council as the basis of approving their requests. The density getting a little greater each time until we are getting very close to R-3, which we also have in our neighborhood. Each time we as neighbors or as an association bend and try to be reasonable and not be perceived as `aginners, we make it harder for ourselves to defend our neighborhood and it slowly becomes what other people who don't live there want it to become. As sure as I am about death and taxes, I'm equally sure that the 11.5 acre question mark right in the middle of our neighborhood is going to come up for rezoning again after November 16, after one year has elapsed. I'll talk to you privately about how I know that. I don't think it would be appropriate forme to say that now. But when that happens you can bet that they will point to your decision tonight and any other zoning decision you make in the interim concerning our neighborhood, as a precedent because they will not recognize the difference between R-2 duplexes or R-2 College Park because they don't have to. It's all the same. That is why we are hesitant to give up a little of our zoning even for something that would seem to be as harmless or even compatible with the immediate area as a few duplexes. Now we do want to be reasonable. We just want some assurance that one, any development is compatible in density with the existing neighborhood and two, this does not start a trend where we see increasing density under R-2 or under R-3 zoning. I don't think what we are asking is unreasonable. What we ask you to do is look at the big picture and all the factors including the rights and welfare of those of us who chose to live and buy the property in the Low Density family oriented R-1 neighborhood. Zoning is one of the few safeguards we have to protect our property and our quality of life. We count too and we depend on you to look out for us. Thank you. Odom: Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to address us on that issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant and to the staff. I think that Mr. Maynard has given a very eloquent presentation and has raised some concerns with regard to the density. Staff, do you want to just tell us real quickly what the difference in the density is between R-1 and R-2 so we are all clear. 0 I I Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 22 Conklin: Sure. Under R -I zoning the density allows 4 units per acre. Under R-2 zoning, Medium Density Residential it's 24 units per acre. Odom: That is a pretty significant spread. It is my understanding that the person who is doing this property has some conceptional ideas with regard to what they are going to do with it, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. They did talk about that in their application to us. They would like to construct six additional duplex units. So twelve additional units plus the two existing houses which would be 14. I have informed the applicant of some of the concerns and questions that were asked at agenda session and did explain to them how bills of assurances do work. However, as staff, we never ask them to offer those as a condition of rezoning. Bunch: Has R- 1.5 been investigated as far as how it is applicable to the conceptional design for this project? Conklin: One of the things that R-1.5 zoning requires are individual lots that meet the frontage and area requirements similar to the situation that we saw with the Planned Unit Development on Sycamore Street for Atlas Construction. It is going to limit the density and flexibility and design if you go with R-1.5. R-2 with multifamily, if you meet the lot frontage requirement, 90 feet or more, you can go with apartments without going and creating individual lots. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff that I forgot to ask at agenda session. Would it be possible to approach this as a conditional use in the existing zoning? Conklin: No. Under R -I you are required to have 80 feet of frontage and 12,000 square feet for each duplex so it would not meet the requirements. Hoffman: That would not be something we could specify as a condition because it's seemingly in conditional use permits those run with the land. Conklin: It's called out under our zoning ordinance and R-1 with the lot width is and what the lot area is. You would not be able to vary from that. Hoffman: Thanks. Estes: Mr. Chairman, Tim, I understand that staff does not routinely or ever recommend a bill of assurance as a condition for rezoning. With that said, would it be acceptable for the Commission to request of the applicant a bill of assurance as a I ' I • Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 23 condition of approval? Conklin: No. We are not supposed to ask the applicants to do things in order to obtain rezoning. Hoover: Mr. Chair, a question for staff. Going back to the conditional use question which was also my question, I don't know the dimensions on these lots. Would you be able to get, if you are saying 80 foot frontage and they are going to have a private street here, so I'm assuming the frontage is not fronting on Deane, could that be considered fronting on the private street then? Conklin: No. It has to be on a public street. Really, their project that they have drawn on a conceptional format, it does meet the R-2 zoning in my opinion, for them to develop in that manner. Putting those units that close together and using a private drive to access those units meets R-2 zoning. Estes: Mr. Chairman, I have no disagreement with the applicants proposal that is presented to us for a total of 14 units. I am concerned about the permitted density and that would be my concern and would be a reason that I would at this point and time vote against the rezoning request. Scott: In what way was the density a problem? Are you saying as far as the proposed plan and how it fits within an R-2? Estes: The proposed density is 14 units. I have no problem with that but the permitted density is 24 units and that does concern me. Scott: Sure and I think I can represent on behalf of my client whatever it's going to take to get that across, that it is not the intention to go above 8 units which would be comprised of duplex and single family housing. I think under any scenario we would not be going above 14 on 1.5 acres. Odom: Mr. Scott, do you understand that as a Planning Commission and a staff we can not recommend that you, on behalf of your client, offer us a bill of assurance for that? That that actually has to come from you the applicant. Scott: I can tell you my client is willing to execute a bill of assurance and the question I have to some degree is what exactly the contents and who is proposing what the bill of assurance would contain. That is what I'm not exactly certain of. Odom: Typically, an applicant, you see we can't recommend this because that would be Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 24 an abuse of our power to try to limit your use to that right, but an applicant could offer a bill of assurance not to build more than "blank" units, I guess 14 units in this instance, should the rezoning be allowed. Scott: I'm going to let the engineer speak as he seems to have something to say. Al-Madhoun: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My name is Shawki Al-Madhoun. The geometrical property really dictates no more than eight units. When I looked at the property I thought about apartments. Being so small it just wouldn't work. The client did not really wish to have apartments. He wanted duplexes to be in line with what he has on the south side of this property. That is why we went to a private road, simply because, if it was to be dedicated as a public street, the property is only 200 foot wide. So if you have a 50 foot right-of-way then there is nothing left. It won't fit. He instructed me as late as last night, he said Shawki, this is what I want. These units that you have in there, the six, and the two existing houses. That is all we want to do. So what ever it takes to assure them we will do it. That is what I'm here on his behalf for, to assure you of that. Odom: I hear you saying eight units. Al-Madhoun: That would be the six duplexes and the two existing homes. Odom: So we are actually talking about, Tim correct me if I'm wrong, 14 units? Conklin: Fourteen units, yes. You do need to make that clear. It's 14 units on 1.47 acres which I calculate about 10 or 9.5 units per acre. I think for the record, if he is offering a bill of assurance, it's 14 units on 1.47 acres. Odom: Okay. Al-Madhoun: That will only fit reasonably on the property. It won't work any other way. Odom: Okay. So is it my understanding then that the applicant is offering a bill of assurance for 14 units on 1.47 acres? Scott: Yes sir. •Hoffman: Mr. Chair, the mechanics of the bill of assurance, I would just like to make sure that we understand on both sides what that means. Does this actually get recorded on the county plat in some manner? Tied to the lot so that 50 years from now when everybody is gone away and someone else has purchased this property and Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Page 25 it has this R-2 zoning in 50 years, they will understand when they buy land, the title company will have a way to find out that no more units are permitted. Conklin: Yes. Once it goes to City Council and they pass the ordinance that gets attached to the ordinance and recorded at the county. We also in our office, make a note on our plat pages of these actions and what bills of assurances we do have and in the future we will be able to manage that better with our computer systems. Odom: And staff, they run with the land, not the applicant. Conklin: They run with the land. That is correct. Hoffman: Okay. That is a major concern. I know I'm not asking for the public comment to reoccur, I think we have closed the floor to public comment, right? Odom: We have closed public comment. Hoffman: It appeared to me that the gentleman speaking for the neighborhood organization had heard of the proposed number of units and had no problem with that so... Odom: Well, so we are clear, this is nothing more than a recommendation to the City Council and therefore, the public will be entitled to give their comment with regard to weather or not they feel that it's acceptable or not at the City Council Meeting. MOTION: Hoffman: That being said then, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve this RZ 00-17 subject to receipt of a bill of assurance limiting development to no more than 14 units total on the two lots and that it be duly recorded. And that all other staff comments would apply. Ward: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve RZ 00-17 subject to a bill of assurance and all staff comments. Is there any further comments? Would you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 9-0-0. STAFF REVIEW FORM X AGENDA REQUEST CONTRACT REVIEW GRANT REVIEW For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of July 3, 2000 FROM: Tim Conklin Planning Public Works Name Division Department ACTION REQUIRED: To approve an ordinance for RZ 00-17, submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2323 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. COST TO CITY: $ Cost of this Request Account Number Category/Project Budget Funds Used To Date Category/Project Name Program Name Project Number Remaining Balance Fund BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item _ Budget Adjustment Attached Budget Manager Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: Accou ng nag Date `j • 4o -od City Attorney Date Purchasing Officer Date Internal Auditor Date ADA Coordinator Date STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on June 12, 2000, Planning Commission unanimously voted 9-0-0 to recommend approval and forward the rezoning request with a Bill of Assurance, offered by the applicant's representatives for a total of 14 units on this property, to the City Council. Date Cross Reference New Item: Yes Date Prev Ord/Res #: Orig Contract Date: Date Orig Contract Number: FAYETTEV1tLE� THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Tim Conklin, Planning Director From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: July 19, 2000 Attached is a copy of the ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 00-17. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. cc: Tony Webb, Planning Ed Connell, Engineering Clyde Randall, Engineering Scott Caldwell, Information Tech. John Goddard, Information Tech. raj RUG -02-2000 15:40 IUATIMES STATE OF ARKANSAS County of Washington J ss. ORDINANCE NO. 4258 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRI- BED IN REZONING PETITION RZ000.17 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATE. LV 1.47 ACRES LOCATED,AT 2323 DEANE STREET RE- QUESTED BY NORTHETAR ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF EMAD DAMEN, BE IT ORDAINED eVTHE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS $g4110n-1. That the zdne class- ficiation of the foltawing descn- bad pmpeny is hereby Changed as fadows: From R -I. Lew Density Resi- dential Distinct to R-2, Medium Density Residential Oislnct for Me real property described in Exhibit Aattached hereto and made a part hereof with a em II of Assurance limning the number of units permitted on this 1.47 ace tract to a total of 14 units also atrw lied hereto and made apart net. Seclle^, 2, That the of(Klal zm- Ing map Ot the City of Fayette- ville, Arkansas. is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of July, 2000. APPROVED. BY: Fred Hanna, Mayor ATTEST: Sy: Heather Woodruff. City S EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RZOo-17 Lets numbered five (S1 and six (8) of the re-plst of lots. 11-16 inclusive, in University Acres Subdivision to pre City of Fayet- teville. Arkansas as per plat on fits in the office of the Circuit Clark and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County. Arkan- sas day of 20 day of 20 Pst� 3eneral Manager day of P.02/16 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 furtherrtlty 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 day of 20 the second insertion on the the third insertion on the the fourth insertion on the Sworn to and subscribed before me on this My Commission Expires: Costof Proof.............................................................S Total................................................. �0