Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4264 ORDINANCE NO. 4264 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZ00-20.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES LOCATED AT 2416 EAST JOYCE STREET, AS REQUESTED BY BEN ISREAL OF DIXIE DEVELOPMENT. 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 A- 1 , Agricultural District, to R-O, Residential Office District, 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. PASSED AND APPROVED this 1st day of August , 2000. APPROVED: By: 14J�W4 i red Hanna, Mayor By. Heather Woodruff, City Clerh ord . 4264 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT `A' EXH Legal Description for RZ00-20.00 � E�A �esc� Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five (25) in Township Seventeen (17) North of Range Thirty (30) West, being more Particularly described as beginning at the South West corner of said Forty acre tract and running, thence North four hundred sixty seven (467) feet; thence East four hundred sixty seven (467) feet; thence South four hundred sixty-seven (467) feet; thence west four hundred sixty seven (467) feet of the place of beginning, containing five (5) acres, more or less, subject to a right of way for a road running along the South side of said tract. M X NAME OF FILE: ///%i'�/ A0 CROSS REFERENCE: Date Contents of File Initials 7 ��- - - 06 C, C . '�/i %irb RECEIVED JI1L 2 5 2000 FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIV, THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Tim Conklin, City Planner FROM: Kim J. Hesse, Landscape Administrator DATE: July 24, 2000 SUBJECT: RZ 00-20.00 On July 2e, I met with Ben Israel and Greg Galbraith concerning the rezoning of property located at 2116 Joyce. Based on the conversation at the site, a neighbor to the north, Dr. Loyde Hudson, who has dedicated a portion of his property as a conservation easement to the Ozark Regional Land Trust, is concerned about the impact this rezone may have on wetlands protected on his land. Greg Galbraith, representing the ORLT, is supporting the rezone however is asking for assurance that a buffer of existing trees will be left upon development of the site. This buffer would provide a visual screen as well as clean storm water that drains from this site to Dr. Hudsons. Mr. Ben Israel was concerned that tree preservation and other city requirements may further restrict portions of the property from the planned office park use and is reluctant to give up any portion of the site prior to city review. I recommend that the 20 percent tree preservation, required for Residential Office zoning, should be located along the northern boundary of this property. Several large trees are dispersed among the existing wooded portion of this site. Only one rare tree was located on the southern half of this site. As Landscape Administrator, I try to compare the value of a stand of trees versus the value of individual rare trees. Often I find that the stand of trees provide more environmental and social value to the community as well as the fact that a stand of trees has a better survival rate than individual trees. This stand of trees along the north boundary will provide wildlife habitat, buffer the adjacent residence, and clarify storm water. Although the width of this northern tree preservation area was not discussed, a fifty foot buffer currently exists. 1 would like to specify that this tree preservation area is to be left undisturbed and that utility or drainage easements shall be dedicated between the preserved trees and the improvements to the site. No easements shall be allowed within this preservation area. If you have questions or comments, please give me a call at 575-8308. Thank you. £0204d 067£ 777 LOS ' NG 133diS - AUJ d0 AM ZT : ST 0002-7Z-inf t PUEEVEWM ENI' REAL ESTATE •COMMERCIAL PROPERTY* CORPORATE OFFICE SPACE s. 4700 S. Thompson, Suite B- 101 *? Springdale, AR 72764 " k An�. July 11 , 2000 Sr ; Heather WoodruffZ,4 µ City Of Fayetteville ks } 0Zr � w Transmitted via fax: 57 « � ' ri ti° d M,. r' a'44Gty�karr'yya —w� 01,4 p44f rv. ..'rw t `Sri On July 10, the Planning Commission turned down a reQutsti,.for te3onuigofa pgtc�l'o�'�plld.on J�ce St. (RZ 00-20.00) even though the Planning Cornmiss `�[affha[LendOtseddkte ear, -w , •--r: ::s :;+rr. a'' f - w Agriculture to R-O. There was little opposition to�thp Yggve4sted khageTpewas some contienl �laQut,. . a the part of the property that drains into a wetland�ereAor}hf6�}Jriipert�G ;��+g4 ii *•.k:Fta- i. a p,q k"'t+ �dry y. ria The long range planning for this property is c V . Pbdn t whpdes6 esra t dicu}{f ` - facility to be constructed on the site. The othdf str�chEres tab9°developed on theteuwi71 he prp(eysto7�a1 r „ office buildings. A couple who has lived there over thirty years owttt�tFe proper[ys sale of thiprnperty ;ih� zs retirement plan. To sell it for it's highest and best use is in then beiLimteresl ]t's highest and;be§rJ1se is y { , R-O. The City Planners have agreed that this is the best lonk,Armn ttl'i mg To'deizty the re xanlnR, tffi3ov '`, , 4r 'e- delay their ability to enjoy the fruits of what they have in ",m To ask them to"sell tt as 'A l'is"so the price from $95,000 per acre to $10,000 or less perr ac.-uT,�.,�+"� fid s«�.�t aaA 1 believe it should not be within the prerogative ofthegvepiment to decide whe gp propert} %reNa}1y to tii sold for it's highest and best use when that use falls withJi thrloDg range plans o£utat govemm�ttiF so might be construed to be showing favoritism to that p ' ' ott4. who alEadyhag•ieEerved re �gtldi$"m same area or to someone who might be acquiring the pro'Ferty m the near future 1 ' ;` Sc s y . 1 i ) .ate- I.k I would like to appeal the decision to the City Counsel 144a ",,,_"�'"a'x:°r+''� � � Sincerely, 'fI�1x)xT" a , t-vwr`3 -W' %' t ; .• > -x �. "• M�yk'4�}y AEn`�e"•- 1•ja W r 'i 14 'G IuY ,�+ , Y ,,ri�Sa.r.+ ,cc�ia w.fi ,4l,,Xw^�,'e Sw ry t d�x{ r7 "7 NAL Ben Israel '4. ,'ri Sr.< sa' 01Ary Wiz,-. *'E a ! eY.�F -" a r-fr ,r SRSRI1, �� � � ''-ry, E s; r ' , 'i-r.u� i: ,.,g 7 „nfy Y ..} 'x t'.X: "•FF' Y ' I q „'r �y �M, \ �4t,. ��i 1P� .ti�A��„Fra-re,f4�`r�� 'µ`.it •rY �ioSy „�' •w�{gj-..Sidf'w'`Tr¢a-`' x`sa<X.- i 7'EtrT4 `-fir' M1, ,r f ,•.ir-.., r". 7-r,. 'S, ,a I�_}4N�` nv''i:Y ,.. Cd�; S.; ^"y. �' ,'�r y- "' • & L T + .Fyn"�4. 1•,tift,. t S�iq�, � Lv1yt". rva ,,n4s' V . . `R, {�' 'q-7 a`'�' - S sT. �k'- •arec'",.� u a '�2d^' �.� �`` �°n'.,•n � ' e ..r S?•a� �-�ar• "atr,r��"`�?t2'' �., �"CS'c+'s.> ^y�.�T�, �"� ymya „ .+,�.2✓'�,m�+'-f�g. ti rf+n-•a��yl�""v�i..'�-Tt�.a ,T�..�rf.El Phone 501.872.0707 Toll Free 877.872.0707 � � S ' ' It so Fi ^ + 11"K1' �&u°" vr�n PFrt s3 °kP'ti+' � ¢9.9fEal1 ,r3�L kw� .d`3 € .a 1yP ' ! J'.'� Fax 501 .872 .0714h� d ' d 41L0 - 2LB ( i0S1 Juawdolana0 atxTO ebS : 01 00 11 lnC Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 12 RZ 00-20.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp176) was submitted by Gary Carnahan of the Benham Group on behalf Ben Israel of Dixie Development, Inc. for property located at 2416 E. Joyce Street. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural and contains approximately 5 acres. The PICA request is to rezone to R-O, Residential Office. C627 7� Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-20.00 submitted by Gary Carnahan of the Benham Group on behalf Ben Israel of Dixie Development, Inc. for property located at 2416 E. Joyce Street. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural and contains approximately 5 acres. The request is to rezone to R-O, Residential Office. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of the report. Staff is there any further information? Conklin: There is no additional information. Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Commissioner Ward? Ward: It will be necessary for me to recuse from this rezoning. Odom: Noted as abstained. Anyone else? Go ahead. Basham: I 'm Jerry Basham with Dixie Development. Ben, at the last moment, had to be out of town this evening. I'm not sure exactly what you need to know. You have the plans, I believe before you. Odom: If you are here only to answer questions and so forth, we will reserve that for the second portion. Basham: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: What we will do now is ask if there are members of the audience that would like to address us on this issue. Please come forward at this time. Hudson: My name is Lloyd Hudson. I own the property north of this property concerned here tonight. On the surface I have no objection to rezoning this property as such. My concern deals with the environmental issues that are inherent here. North of this property that we are talking about is a wetland that has been designated as an official wetland by the US Army Corps of Engineers. There is a 17 acre property Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 13 there designated as a nature study area that will be maintained in perpetuity as a nature study area. Now the problem here is not a great one but enough of a concern that you ought to consider it before doing anything or developing it. There is probably less than an acre of this five acre lot that drains into this wetland. You know the potential problem here. I think before any effort is made for development or anything for that matter that the principals concerned should sit down and discuss this with the property owners and the trust property which is represented here tonight also and see if we can work out this thing amicably to everybody concerned. My concern is to protect the wetland. Their concern, of course, is to develop it. So, we should be able to come to some agreement but we should approach this problem before we go any further. As you know, these environmental problems are sticky and they should be taken care of before we proceed further. Odom: Thank you. Galbraith: Good evening Commissioners. I'm Greg Galbraith with Ozark Regional Land Trust. We are a nonprofit conservation organization that operates throughout Northwest Arkansas and Missouri throughout the Ozarks. We've been very active in Fayetteville. I've been before the Planning Commission and the Council before and worked out very good deals where development and environmental concerns were compatible. Several years ago there was a proposed development next to Dr. Hudson's property. Dr. Hudson, who just addressed you, has made a significant commitment to leaving his property in a conservation, nature education center that would benefit Fayetteville. He's working with our organization, Ozark Regional Land Trust. The last time a development was proposed just to the east of his property there was going to be a significant impact because there is some major drainage into that property and it was settled quite well. We actually bought 4 acres of that property. So the land trust itself is a property owner involved here. We purchased that at a fair market value so we have a significant investment in the future of this property plus the money we have spent on the restoration of that four acres. At that time the city also recommended, before this was all played out, that the developer leave .5 acre of the main drainage site to the city because they didn't want to see this nature center plan disrupted. In the end we ended up buying that ''/z acre plus 3.5 additional acres. Currently the property that is in question is just south of Dr. Hudson's property. Being on Joyce Boulevard we don't deny that there will probably be development of that property eventually but our concern is how that development is going to impact that property that we are investing considerable time and money into protecting. Like Dr. Hudson mentioned it is immediately adjacent to the drainage and wetland that is integral to this area. We haven't had any discussions with the developer to see how this Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 14 would impact and maybe some ways we could put a conservation casement on the upper strip or to minimize the impact. We would be in favor of some sort of low density, low impact development that would also address our concerns for protecting the property. I would have to come out in opposition to the rezoning from A- 1 to R-O because most of the properties around Dr. Hudson are A- 1 and as such we feel comfortable with what's happening. Zoned R-O we have no idea what type of impact the development will have on our plans. Although I 'm not absolutely opposed to a rezoning, it seems premature to us for that to happen without taking into account both the environmental considerations of the wetland and also the plans that we have been working on for several years. That' s my comment on it. Odom: Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this request? Smith: My name is Harvey Smith and I have a home that is adjacent to Dr. Hudson's property that is east and north of the property that is being requested to be rezoned. I just wanted to state that my feelings are that R-O is the best and least obtrusive thing that this could be. I would rather it be that than homes. I think that Dr. Hudson would agree with that if his issues were addressed and his concerns addressed. If those things can be taken care of I certainly would rather it be R-O. Odom: Thank you Dr. Smith. Any other member of the audience? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Then I will bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments. Marr: Mr. Chair I guess my thoughts on this are when I look at number 2 of the findings, determination of whether the zoning is justified or needed I have a real question of whether we need it in this area. There seem to be several vacant parcels undeveloped at this point that are already zoned R-O and a couple of new one that are going in that are just now beginning development. So, from my perspective I have a difficult time finding that there is a justified need. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I share the concern of Commissioner Marr and have in past votings on R-O property in this area because by my account there are almost 10 that are not developed within a very close short distance of this request. I do have a question for the applicant. When we went on tour it appeared to me that about 2/3 of this site is pasture land and then there is the house. Behind that there is a grove of trees or forest area. Could you describe that to me and what the plan might be? Is Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 15 there a concept that might help? Basham: I have not seen the concept. From what Ben Israel said I think the property that he is wanting to develop or put the clinic on is out toward the street and not toward the back. Hoffman: Right. Is there a slope up that goes up the hill? Basham: Is there now? Yes. Hoffman: Yes. It goes uphill from the house I believe or am I completely backwards on that? Basham: I think that's right. Hoffman: So the drainage from this property would not be back onto the preserve behind. It would be towards the street. Basham: I have not walked over the property so I don't know. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you very much. Estes: Mr. Chairman, I had a question similar to the one just asked. How does the adjacent watershed drain into the designated wetland if you know? Basham: I do not know. Estes: I understand that is not determinative in the rezoning issue but I do concur with Commissioner Marr and Commissioner Hoffman's other comments. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I have an idea that I would like to throw out. In a PUD where the zoning would be accomplished at the same time that the project is brought forward, it' s more possible for us to answer these types of questions and I might move that to the applicant as a suggestion should this not pass either the Planning Commission's recommendations or the City Council. As I understand it our vote would only be as a recommendation to City Council of whether or not to rezone the property but that a PUD is brought forward at the same time as the rezoning or not. That's how I always think of it. Conklin: We have not done that in Fayetteville. There are other communities that do have combined site plan review and zoning. I've seen some applicants bring in Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 16 development proposals along with their rezonings and offer a bill of assurance to build it according to their plan but we have not typically done that. Hoffman: We've done it more in residential. I don't mean to interrupt. On a residential type plan, we've done that for some townhouses recently, I believe, where the buildings are grouped according to where the best location is to preserve environmental features and so forth. Conklin: Yes. That' s allowed under our zoning for residential uses. The non residential uses typically require the rezoning. Allen: Mr. Chair, other than a yes or no vote then is there anything that we can do as the Commission that helps to waylay Dr. Hudson's concerns about the wetlands? Odom: Not necessarily at this point. Staff do you want to comment any further on that? It's really more of a development issue than a rezoning issue. Conklin: The issue of the.wetlands and drainage will be addressed during the development. Odom: And they-will-be addressed?— " Conklin: Yes. Either at the Subdivision or at large scale development. Hoover: Mr. Chair, I especially like Commissioner Hoffman's suggestion of having the site plan come in at the same time. I know other cities are doing this. This is an issue where I'm not necessarily against R-O right here but I am against giving up any leverage we have of not knowing what's going to happen to it. I want more control. I know we can't do zoning with conditions but I would appreciate if the city would look into how other cities are doing this because they are doing this and they are saying, this could be rezoned if you do this particular development and we know you are going to do it this way and there is a bill of assurance. I think here is a perfect example of when we need that. Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I do have one thing that might help compromise. On another property we have voted not to rezone the entire property but we voted to rezone only portions of the property. In this case I would think that the front portion because it is relatively flat and does not obviously drain towards the wetlands, it faces a major collector street, or whatever Joyce is termed, that the front, say 50 percent of the property could be rezoned R-O with no problem and not impact the trees, wetlands or anything. If anybody on the Commission would be interested in going forward with that I can try to craft a motion to do that and then leave the Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 17 back part of the property A- 1 . But I'm not sure that will fly. I can run it up the flagpole though. Odom: Well, you have run it up, let's see if we have anyone that wants to comment on it. Bunch: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hoffman would that be primarily from the break in the property? Having looked at it it appears as though the bulk of the property drains towards the south towards Joyce and just the part from the tree line to the north I believe are the parts that might drain towards the wetland. We may want to ask Dr. Hudson. Hudson: That' s essentially true. It's just a small part, maybe an acre that is of concern. Our only concern is not the rezoning but not draining into the wetlands. That' s our concern. Estes: Mr. Chairman, the applicant brings to us a request to rezone the approximate 5 acres. I do not feel that we as a Commission can sua sponte amend the applicants rezoning request. I will not vote for the rezoning request as it now stands but likewise I 'm very much concerned about this Commission sua sponte on it's own motion amending this applicant's zoning request. I think that is way outside the scope of our authority. Our granted authority from the City Council. Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Just to respond to your concern. I certainly understand. I think that we have dealt with other difficult large tracts in that manner. There was a church on Hwy 265 that retains that zoning. They had asked for a larger portion of the property to be rezoned and the Commission took the initiative to say okay, only the front portion could be rezoned. I think that was upheld by City Council so I'm not sure if it is outside the boundaries of our authority. Estes: My remembrance of that issue is that the applicant acquiesced to that suggestion. Hoffman: Then I would have that same question to this applicant. Basham: What was your question? Hoffman: Would you be interested in acquiescing to an amended type of zoning in order to go forward with this that would leave out a portion of the rear of the property and leave it A- 1 ? Basham: My position is I can refer that to Mr. Israel and go from there. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 18 Odom: Well, let's all keep in mind a couple of things. First this is nothing more than a recommendation to the City Council if we approve it. If we deny it then it's up to the applicant whether or not they wish to appeal the denial and so forth. I would caution those members of the Commission not to find against the development because they would like to see it come thorough all at one time. That is not what we are charged with. I think Commissioner Marr has made a point that it is on point because it addresses a specific finding that we must determine whether or not R-O zoning is appropriate or needed at this time by citing number 2. I would encourage those who are going to support it to stick with those findings. In particular and on that issue, I do not agree with Commissioner Marr' s assessment. It seems to me that that area of Joyce Street, R-O, which not only is designated on the Land Use Plan as office and residential and is compatible with the General Land Use Plan but the R-O zoning on Joyce Street that I'm familiar with is accurate. I know there was a recent sell of an R-O zoning that we recently rezoned on the corner of Joyce just down the street from this. There is construction on other R-O sites as well. This is an area of town that is growing rapidly and in my opinion, needs more R-O zoning. So, I differ in opinion on that finding. So, I would support a motion for approval of this R-O zoning. . . MOTION: — — Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to recommend an R-O zoning from the portion of the rear of the house forward to Joyce Street only. The house is shown on page 5 .7 of our material, and that the remainder of the property north of the house remain A- 1 . And that the applicant would submit a revised survey to the staff should this particular motion be seconded and passed. Odom: Do we have a second to the motion? Going once, going twice, the motion fails for lack of a second. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Conklin: Mr. Chairman, under chapter 154 of our UDO under amendments just to let the Commissioners know what they can and can't do with regard to amendments to our zoning map. The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions. 1 ) Approval. The proposed amendment may be approved as presented. 2) Approval in Modified Form. Approved in a modified form by a majority of the Planning Commission and recommended for adoption by the City Council with the reasons for such recommendations stated in writing. 3) Disapproval. If the Planning Commission disapproves a proposed amendment the reason for such