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