HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4272 FILED FOR RECORD
' 00 OCT 13 PM 3 08
WASHINGTON CO AR
HARNESS
ORDINANCE NO. 4272
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZOO-21 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11 .50 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 16 AND HAPPY
HOLLOW ROAD, AS REQUESTED BY READ HUDSON ON
BEHALF OF TYSON FOODS, INC.
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 C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and C-1 , Neighborhood Commercial
to I-2, General Industrial 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 19th day of September , 2000.
APPROVED-
By: r
f Fred Hanna, Mayor
By:
Heather Woodruff, Citylfferk
2000086 ! 31
,
• ord 4272
EXHIBIT A �
EXHIBIT A
City of Fayetteville, RZOO-21
A part of the Northeast Quarter (NEI/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW'/e) of Section
Twenty Three (23), Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty (30) West of the 5'"
P.M., Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follow, To-Wit:
Beginning at a point on the East right-of-way of Highway 16 Bypass, which is 10.00
feet East and N00°25'00"E 200.00 feet from the Southwest corner of said 40 acre
tract, thence N00'25'00"E along said right-of-way 738.0 feet to the South right-of-
way of Huntsville Street, thence with said right-of-way N69°30'00"E 114.0 feet,
S67054'59"E 87.83 feet, S70°00'00"E 233.00 feet, S75031 '47"E 244.56 feet to the
West right-of-way of Ray Street, thence with said West right-of-way SOI °42'54"W
294.69 feet, SOl °00' 10"E 330.27 feet, thence leaving said right-of-way West 150.0
feet, thence South 179.30 feet to the South line of said 40 acre tract, thence West
257.70 feet, thence N00°25'00"E 200 feet, thence West 240.0 feet to the point of
beginning. Containing 11 .49 acres, more or less.
M
X
2000086732
I. KafMsen Haln Clmult Clerk and Ex-ofgcio
Recorder for Washington County, Arkansas, do hereby
certUy that this instrument was filstl for re00rd In my
office as Indicated hereon and the same le now duty
recorded with the acknowledgement and cardficato
thereon In Record gook and Page as Indicat#d theredn
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto so
hind and affbW tha seat of said Court an
L.:'sd hereon. the dat1l
nrC.� "� Vsx
co, 44 f kn n 4PV Exgfrdp Reca der
NAME OF FILE: O/Gir/ 1(,12
CROSS REFERENCE:
Date Contents of File Initials
9,747 `' s.
' -�Jr - � � � //C�UJ • �ceo
A/
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZ00-21 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11 .50 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 16 AND HAPPY
HOLLOW ROAD AS REQUESTED BY READ HUDSON ON BEHALF OF
TYSON.
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 C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial to I-2,
General Industrial 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 day of , 2000.
APPROVED:
By
Fred Hanna, Mayor
ATTEST:
By
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
City of Fayetteville, RZOO-21
A part of the Northeast Quarter (NEI/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW'/<) of Section Twenty
Three (23), Township Sixteen ( 16) North, Range Thirty (30) West of the 51h p.M., Washington
County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follow, To-Wit:
Beginning at a point on the East right-of-way of Highway 16 Bypass, which is 10.00 feet East
and N00°25'00"E 200.00 feet from the Southwest corner of said 40 acre tract, thence
N00°25'00"E along said right-of-way 738.0 feet to the South right-of-way of Huntsville Street,
thence with said right-of-way N69°30'00"E 114.0 feet, S67054'59"E 87.83 feet, S70000'00"E
233 .00 feet, S75031 '47"E 244.56 feet to the West right-of-way of Ray Street, thence with said
West right-of-way SOI °42'54"W 294.69 feet, SOI °00' 10"E 330.27 feet, thence leaving said right-
of-way West 150.0 feet, thence South 179.30 feet to the South line of said 40 acre tract, thence
West 257.70 feet, thence N00°25'00"E 200 feet, thence West 240.0 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 11 .49 acres, more or less.
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 5
RZ 00-21 .00: Rezoning (Tyson, pp 565) was submitted by Read Hudson on behalf of Tyson
for property located at the southeast corner of Hwy 16 and Happy Hollow Road. The property is
'71tZ,Ut
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 11 .50 acres. The request is to
rezone to I-2, General Industrial.
Odom: Item number three on tonight's agenda is a rezoning request RZ 00-21 .00
submitted by Read Hudson on behalf of Tyson for property located at the
southeast comer of Hwy 16 and Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 11 .50 acres. The request
is to rezone to I-2, General Industrial. Staff's recommendation is for approval of
the request for rezoning based upon the findings as included as a part of this
report. Staff do we have anything that you want to talk about with regard to
background of this?
Conklin: With regard to this rezoning, this is a Mexican Original Tyson facility located at
Happy Hollow and Huntsville Road. I did hand out a memo from the City of
Fayetteville which was a memo to the file regarding how this Mexican Original
operation was classified. Back in 1980 they classified it under Use Unit 15 which
was a Bakery. They had a similar request with regard to Shipley' s Bakery down
on Dickson Street and actually had an appeal to the Planning Commission on an
interpretation issue in 1976. They classified that under Use Unit 13 . Today we
have a facility that has requested a building permit through the Planning Division
office. Tyson was aware that any expansion of this facility under C-2, would be
non-conforming and that rezoning would need to be applied for. They have
applied for the rezoning. It's classified under Use Unit 23 which is Heavy
Industrial, Food and Allied Products. I just want to give you a little history on
why we are rezoning this today. It's to make sure that we do have a Food and
Allied Manufacturing use in the right Zoning District and Use Unit. The City has
issued building permits over the years. The City Council actually passed an
ordinance issuing act nine revenue industrial bonds on this facility. The City
Planning Commission through Large Scale Developments, building permits and
City Council action the City was aware what Mexican Original was doing at this
location. Today I do believe that they do need to be under Use Unit 23.
Odom: Thank you staff. I would ask Mr. Hudson to please come forward at this time.
Hudson: My name is Read Hudson and I'm with Tyson Foods. I have with me today
Darrell Proud. He is the Plant Manager of the facility we have been talking about.
I think our application pretty well speaks for itself. We are here to answer any
questions you may have with respect to the facility. What we do. What we are
planning on doing and so forth.
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 6
Odom: Go ahead Commissioner Ward
Ward: This is more for Tim. Have we had any complaints about noise or smell and that
kind of stuff from this particular facility?
Conklin: I haven't directly received any complaints with regard to noise or odor. Going
through the files for the last twenty-five years, I am aware of a complaint with
regard to odor and a complaint about noise. Just two. That's all I could find.
Ward: Okay. Thank you.
Hoffman: I have a question for Tim. Did we get a report from Mickey Jackson about the
setback on the proposed flour silos?
Conklin: With regard to Mickey Jackson, he is at a conference. I was not able to get with
him. I did speak with Dennis Ledbetter, the Fire Marshal for the City of
Fayetteville. He gave me a copy of the State Fire Code which I have delivered to
Tyson Foods with regard to minimum State standards, controlling dust in a
facility that's working with flour. I believe Tyson has worked with Mickey
Jackson in the past and they may have more information with regard to that
facility.
Hoffman: My main concern, just to relay to you the applicant, is that you have enough
setback from the silos to any residential property. I 'm not sure what it is but that
you would have enough room. On fifteen acres surely that would not be an issue.
Hudson: Right now we have four silos located on the west end of the property. The new
silos that are going to go up to accommodate the tenant that's going to lease part
of our property are basically going to go right next to those. I know that doesn't
really answer your question.
Hof&nan: But you are aware of the fire code and will follow it?
Hudson: Yes. Without a doubt. I knew you would raise the issue and I brought it up with
Darrell and he informed me that they have worked extensively with Mickey on a
variety of things. It's a partnering type thing that they worked together on hazmat
training. I think we have a good enough relationship and a pretty good idea as to
what we are supposed to be doing.
Hoffman: Thank you very much.
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 7
Bunch: Question for staff. Are the complaints that were filed previously there was one
for noise and one for odor. When were those filed and what action, if any, was
taken?
Conklin: Let me try to find that information. With regard to the noise, I just heard about
that, talking with Tyson, that they have received one on noise. With regard to
odor it was fifteen to twenty years ago. I don't have an exact page marked on
that. It was back during the time they were discussing the large scale
development. I believe it was probably around early 1980's, 1982 or 1983 .
PUBLIC COMMENT
Odom: I sort of jumped off my normal track. Let me ask if there is any member of the
audience that could address us on this issue?
Erf: Hi. My name is Jeff Erf, 2711 Woodcliff Road. Some questions. I seem to recall
a newspaper article about the odors emanating from this plant a few years ago. I
know I regularly drop my child off and pick him up at Happy Hollow School. I
often smell something I describe as tortillas or something corn, some sort of corn
flour. I don't know if there are any residents from that area here tonight but as I
recall the article included some interviews with some of those people and they
were quite upset about the odor situation out there. I haven't smelled any this
year, since Happy Hollow started but I don't know if they have done something to
mitigate the odor problem. I don't know if they want to admit there is an odor
problem. As far as making complaints about odor and noise, is it normal
procedure to go through the Planning office or is it possible they could have
complained to the Mayor's office and Tim you wouldn't know about it?
Conklin: With regard to noise, typically that goes to the Police Department.
Erf: Okay. So what about odor?
Conklin: It vanes. Sometimes people choose to call the Mayor, City Attorney, City
Prosecutor...
Erf. It is entirely possible that people have complained about it other than previously,
you just don't have anything on record in your office?
Conklin: Yes. When they asked if I had any complaints to my office, I answered that I only
found one in writing back in 1983.
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 8
Erf. Okay. My concern here is that we have a situation that could be Bakery Feeds all
over again. I have looked at the Tyson close-up here on the back of the packet
you received and I see R- 1 and C- 1 , C-2 surrounding this and what will eventually
become, if you approve it and City Council approves it, I-2. It' s going to be an
island out there. You have to understand a lot of that residential development is
down wind from that site. I don't live in that area but I drive through that area
and I can smell Hanna's Potpourri from there and I can sometimes smell Mexican
Original. I just caution you to go slow on this and get all the facts. One thing that
I am curious about I-2 designation, what would be some examples of things that
potentially could go in there. Could they put in another, for example, Bakery
Feeds?
Conklin: That would be an odor emitting business that would require a Conditional Use.
Erf: So, it's been concluded then that was an odor emitting business. Could you put in
a Hanna's Potpourri there?
Odom: Jeff, what I recommend...
ErF I am just trying to understand what I-2 designation is.
Odom: Let's not make this personal. It's already been established that if the business is
an odor emitting business, it has to come in under a Conditional Use. There are
some other things that can come in by right and Tim, what I would direct you to
do in answering this question is to give him the types of industries that can come
in by right without a Conditional Use under I-2.
Conklin: I can tell you as Planning Director for the City of Fayetteville on an Industrial
Use, I investigate, go out, do site visits, try to get a good understanding to figure
out where they fall under our zoning ordinance. If it's a facility that is not
producing an odor and it's heavy industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, those
type of uses are use by right in I-2. I can tell you it's on a case-by-case basis. I
interview people. I call other cities. I try to define exactly what's happening.
With regard to the additional four silos on this site, I did contact Tyson. I did ask
if they needed an Air Permit. The response was "No." They responded that it
didn't produce an odor. They are storing flour in four silos. With regard to what
happened over the past twenty years, they relied on City building permits, large
scale development approvals and act nine industrial bonds. Which during those
meetings and in those minutes they talked about manufacturing at this facility. I
really don't believe they are changing what they are doing at this site however,
this year and I'm the Planning Director, I believe that it's under Use Unit 23 that
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 9
requires I-2, it requires Heavy Industrial zoning for this use.
Erf: My concern is that being rezoned to I-2 opens it up for new manufacturing
expansion and by right they are allowed to do certain things that they are not
allowed to do. Again, it's surrounded by C-2 and R- 1 and I'll leave it at that. If I
can address the Chair. I 'm not sure what you meant by making this personal. I
mentioned Bakery Feeds, I mentioned Hanna's Potpourri. I didn't say anyone by
name. I'm not sure what you meant. Could you clarify that?
Odom: You mentioned Hanna's Potpourri by name and asked specifically if Hanna' s
Potpourri is an odor emitting business and that's not really what's before us
tonight. That' s what I meant by getting personal.
Erf: I was looking for examples of types of manufacturing that could go on.
Odom: I thought your question was a good and valid question because you asked what
were the uses permitted but asking to give specific examples of specific types of
industries that you name, I don't think is appropriate. There is a list of the uses
permitted under I-2 and if you would like I could read those. Do you have a copy
of that?
Erf: Yes. I have a copy of that. But I wasn't sure, for example, what it means by
manufacturing. That's kind of open.
Conklin: Jeff, I look at those Use Units and once again, I go out there and I interview the
people, I do tours of the facility. I have to classify them under a Use Unit. I
classify them under Use Unit 23 .
Erf: Tim, I'm not saying you are not doing your job. I 'm just looking at. ..
Conklin: I'm explaining how. You are saying manufacturing. I 'm trying to explain exactly
what I do on a daily basis at the Planning Division. That's the method I use.
Erf: But you understand when I ask specifically of a manufacturing plant that I'm
familiar with Hanna Potpourri, the Chair tells me that I'm being personal, I can't
bring it up. I'm not opposing this. I'm not supporting it. I'm just saying go with
caution. I 'll leave it up to your judgment to decide whether or not this is good for
Fayetteville. Thank you.
Odom: Would any other member of the audience like to address us?
w w
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 10
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Odom: Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the
applicant and Planning Commission.
Hoover: I have a question for staff and I think it's because that I haven't done many of
these I-2's since I have been here. This qualifies under I-2 but then if it emits an
odor it has to have a separate Conditional Use. Is that correct?
Conklin: That's correct. If it is classified as an odor emitting business they all require a
Conditional Use in Use Unit 31 .
Hoover: How is one classified as an odor emitting business?
Conklin: There is a list. I can go over that list of uses that the City Council passed a few
years ago. Let me just find that really quick. Manufacturing uses: chemical and
allied products, food and kindred products, animal fats and oils rendering,
beverages distilling, meat slaughtering and packaging, paper and allied products,
rubber and plastic products, processing and sales: explosives, wholesale and
warehousing: livestock, stockyards, explosive materials, apparel products: leather
tanning, chemical and allied products: any process likely to emit odor or have the
potential for explosion, paper and allied products: building paper and board paper,
petroleum and related industries: bulk station and terminal, rubber and
miscellaneous plastic products: inner tubes and tires. I can read Unit 23 since the
question has come up. Manufacturing uses: fabricated metal products, primary
metal industries, textile mill products, processing and sales: auto salvage, junk
yards, scrap metal, refuse, repair service: tire recapping, wrecking and demolition
services, apparel products: industrial leather belting, clay products, food and allied
products, which is what I am classifying this under, furniture and allied products,
glass products, lumber and wood products: millware, plywood, prefabricated
structure wood, veneer, wooden container, paper and allied products: paperboard
containers, petroleum and related industries: coal yard, lubricating oils and
greases, primary metal industry: foundry, stone products, and housing for
caretakers. Those are the uses under Use Unit 23 .
Hoover: Okay. Tim, now I'm really confused. We are in Use Unit 23 because we are
Heavy Industrial but you are saying that this is an odor emitting business or it is
not?
Conklin: I am classifying this business as a food and allied product. The business that they
are applying for the building permit is for flour silos. I will read you what they
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 11
submitted.
Hoover: Wait one second. I thought this was a rezoning for the entire piece of property.
Conklin: It is for the entire
piece
of property which was
established in 1983. With regard
to does it emit an
odor?
I'm not sure if it does
or doesn't I would want to do some
more research on
that.
Hoover: If I drive by and I smell an odor, does that count as emitting an odor? Or, does it
have to go through some process?
Conklin: Unit 31, facilities which are heavy industrial in nature but which have a potential
to have adverse effects such as odor or the potential for explosions. That's what I
have to determine.
Odom: Let me ask, are they going to have to come back through this process? When they
put their permit in to build, is that the time that you make the determination as to
whether it's an odor emitting business or do you do that during the rezoning of it?
Conklin: I really didn't consider this blending flour and packaging it into fifty pound bags
as an odor emitting business which is what they applied for.
Odom: You know what, first of all, I would like to apologize to Commissioner Hoover. I
sort of jumped in there. Did you have any further questions?
Hoover: No. That's helping to clarify. I'm just trying to understand how this process is
working.
Conklin: What I try to do is I talk to the industry, I talk to Arkansas Department of
Environment Quality and I try to determine if it is. I physically go out there and I
try to see what I can smell. I did that with regard to the last Tyson facility. I try
my best to classify it. This is what they will be doing with regard to this building
permit. "Silos will be loaded with white/wheat flour only. The process consists
of white/wheat flour blended in a ribbon blender with some minor ingredients.
No water is added to this blend. The blend is mixed for two to four minutes and is
then bagged in fifty pound paper bags. The final product is palletized and loaded
onto trailers to delivery to the customer. There are no odors emitted. This plant
does not require an air permit." Kelly Pogue was called and sheds sending a
memo indicating this. I did get an email from Kelly Pogue stating that the
Mexican Original East does not require a permit.
C
U
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 12
Hoffman: I just had a couple of brief questions for staff. We have an existing use in place
already and that has an existing legal use. That's really a separate issue than our
rezoning which is only being brought about because we have an additional
building permit needed for some silos. Is that correct?
Conklin: Yes. Once again, there was an interpretation made back in 1980. When we talk
about "What use unit does it fall?" I can tell you City staff, we try our best to
make sure we are classifying these in the right use unit. At that time they
classified it under Use Unit 15, a Bakery. It's been operating under Use Unit 15
as a Bakery all these years. I would not classify the Use today as a Bakery. I
would classify it as a Food and Allied Product under Use Unit 23. That is why I
requested and asked and required Tyson to come before the Commission and City
Council. The decision is, based on my interpretation, there can be no more
expansions at a facility that the City approved, in the past, building permits and
large scale development plans and then an ordinance approving industrial revenue
bonds. They relied on that information. I do believe that it should be zoned I-2
based on past City actions and their future building permit and plans at this
facility.
Hoffman: Okay. With that in mind then, when they do apply for another building permit, is
it a Large Scale Development?
Conklin: No. Large Scale Development is only required when you have an addition of
10,000 square feet or more, over twenty-five parking spaces being added or a new
curb cut. It will just be a building permit.
Odom: Commissioner Allen?
Allen: I'm still having trouble understanding the odor issue. I don't know whether that is
something that has already been determined and if so, who determined it? Can
you explain that to me?
Conklin: Have I determined that this is an odor emitting facility that produces adverse
effects? No. I have not determined that. I looked at what they proposed to add to
the facility and what they apparently do out there. I classified it under Use Unit
23.
Allen: How do we get that resolved? How do we determine?
Conklin: I'll have to make a
decision. It's not
going to
be tonight.
They need I-2 zoning
even if they need a
Conditional Use.
You can't
apply
for
an odor
emitting
0
n
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 13
business outside of I-2 so the rezoning is required.
Mexican Original produces odors that are adverse,
and see what I can smell and talk to the Tyson offs
again. I'm the Planning Director. It's my job. I'll
white. Is it producing adverse odors out there?
If I determine that Tyson
what I'll do is I'll go out there
ftials and talk to A.D.E.Q.
do it. It's not just black and
Odom: I think Jeff makes a valid point that how do we stop the Bakery Feeds from
happening again? This is something that's already there and something that I
would like to know is if, let's just say this plant didn't exist and they are wanting
to build this plant, is it when they come in when they ask for the rezoning? We
don't ask at the rezoning "Is it an odor emitting business?" We ask at the Large
Scale Development "Is it an odor emitting business?"
Conklin: This business with regard to mixing up flour and putting it into fifty pound bags is
not Tyson. It's a separate company. That's what I'm looking at. We issue
something called a Certificate of Zoning Compliance through our office. I'm
looking at a Building Permit, the piece of ground that they are placing this Use in,
where do you classify that? Where do you classify mixing of flour? To be honest
with you, I didn't look at what Tyson Mexican Original has been doing the past
twenty years or so. I'm looking at this Building Permit like I do on every
Building Permit and does taking flour, putting minor ingredients in it, mixing it
and putting it into paper sacks going to produce an odor? That's why I asked that
question. I have the email here where I asked it and the answer was "No." I'm
reasonably sure that flour mixing and putting it into a paper bag is not going to
produce an odor. I'm just sharing this with you to show you what road I went
down to come to the point where I did with regard to "How do I issue a building
permit and where does that Use fall within our code?"
Odom: Tim, correct me if I'm wrong but we don't ask whether or not it's an odor
emitting business when someone is coming forward with a rezoning request. We
ask that at either the next stage which is the Large Scale Development stage or the
Building Permit stage.
Conklin: I ask twenty to fifty questions every
day when I have an
Industrial Use
and yes
one of my questions is "I want to know
up front, does it
produce an odor?" I did
ask them if mixing flour and putting
it into fifty pound sacks produces
an odor.
Odom: What I'm asking you is that's a separate request? What we are to be considering
right now deals really with the rezoning itself.
Conklin: That's correct. If it doesn't get rezoned then if I had a Building Permit for a Use
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 14
that produced an odor they couldn't be located in that area.
Odom: Right. But it would be a Conditional Use request and they would have to come
forward?
Conklin: Yes.
Odom: Okay.
Conklin: I do, when I take those Building Permits, look at where the Use is occurring and
whether or not it's producing an odor.
Odom: But that's at the Building Permit?
Conklin: Yes. Mr. Hudson, we had conversations on the phone with regard to what they
intended to lease part of this property and what kind of use it was and that's where
these questions came from and this information.
Estes: Tim, if I understand correctly, what we have before us is a rezoning request only.
That is to rezone from a non -conforming Use to a conforming Use. Is that
correct?
Conklin: That's correct.
Estes: It was in your investigation that you made the determination that what was
appropriate for this property was Use Unit 23 which is Food and Allied Products.
Is that correct?
Conklin: That's correct.
Estes: The applicant brings this rezoning request to us at your request. Is that what I
understand?
Conklin: That's correct.
MOTION
Estes: Mr. Chairman, with that said, I would move that we approve RZ00-21.00.
Hoffman: I will second that.
Planning Commission
August 28, 2000
Page 15
Odom: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval to rezoning RZ00-21.00.
I will remind members of the audience that our decision is for recommendation
only, that this goes on to the City Council. Any further discussion?
Hoffman: Mr. Chair?
Odom: Yes.
Hoffman: I just have a further comment to make on my reason for second. Not only is this
just a rezoning to bring the property into conformity, there are some surrounding
industrial zonings, but it's my belief that if there were valid odor complaints and
had been a history of problems over the last twenty-five years, a. we would know
about it by now, b. if the new silos in some way generate or start that kind of odor
problem, this does not prevent the City in any way from taking further action to
mitigate any adverse odors. I see no problem with going ahead with the rezoning.
Odom: Any further discussion?
Hoover: Mr. Chair? I have one other question for Tim. I want to make sure I understand
this correctly. We do the rezoning and then you will go out and determine if it's
an odor producing business?
Conklin: The business that's being applied for with this Building Permit, I don't believe is
an odor emitting business. We have other businesses in town that were in
existence, like this one, that may produce an odor. I don't have a list of those
businesses. I believe I know one, Bakery Feeds, which is now gone. With regard
to the other ones, I have not gone back and done an analysis of who is in existence
with an odor emitting business. What I do is I get Building Permits and I sign off
on all commercial, industrial zoning compliance to make sure they are in the right
Use Unit. That's what I am looking at today. I'm not sure if we can go back
twenty years and make someone get a Conditional Use on something that was
permitted through the City of Fayetteville and is in existence. It concerns me
greatly that they relied on our Building Permits and our Large Scale Development
approvals and that they have been in operation many many years prior to that
ordinance that was passed regulating odor producing businesses. I would be more
than happy to have the City Attorney come to the next meeting and explain any
legal problems requiring someone to come back through. That question does
come up once in a while. It's difficult for me to make a business come back
before this body when it was approved by this body years ago and now we have a
different ordinance. It's very difficult for me to do that. I don't do that.
110
RZOO�2'f- Tvson
O
Lc
LO
R-1 I G1
I
R-2
R-2 /1±
�aD D D
a
/\/ Structures (1998)
Streets
Class_
TOR
/A' FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY
MINORARTERIAL
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
Nwne.shp
dose Up
h JtIc±ff$71#/
LL
'1 re ,R - �❑
- Y { _J
' . ' p N p
d
�" � ad ao
YN ❑ o o [�
���� c2 '' R-1 -
[L'
` 0
C 2 P ° o
RZ00�21� ty son -One R/lile Radius
uuu
�� �r-�'C( S • • R
R1
w;
_�'❑I W a
0 R-1
❑ l/ O z /
AN
R-1 P-1 o
R-2
R- Subject
C-1 ;p
1 I-2 a 1-2
A-1
1-2
0 RegZone 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet N
Streets
aass
/\ / COLLECTOR w E
„,Y FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY
. •„• MINOR ARTERIAL
N PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL s
-r r
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone:
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 501-575-8264
TO: File
FROM: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: August 29, 2000
SUBJECT: ADEQ Clarification of Air Permit Requirements
In order to properly place an industrial use in the proper Use Unit, one of the questions that is
asked of the applicant by staff and on the Certificate of Zoning Compliance is whether the use
requires an Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Air Permit. The purpose of this
question is to help determine if the industry is going to have any air emissions that would classify
it as an odor emitting business under Use Unit 31. This is only one of the "tests" the city uses to
classify new uses.
Mr. Jay Ellis, ADEQ Air Division Inspector and Mr. Paul Osmon, Engineer were contacted to
clarify whether or not the Tyson Mexican Original Plant at 1851 East Huntsville Road required
an ADEQ Air Permit. Based on E -mails that were sent to me from Tyson, no air permit was
required from ADEQ. Mr. Paul Osmon stated he thought that there was no air permit for the
Huntsville Road Mexican Original facility and that the building permit for the proposed four
flour silos would not need an air permit as long as any particulate matter that escaped into the
atmosphere was below the maximum limits. With regard to complaints at this facility, Mr. Ellis
stated he had one complaint a long time ago and has not had any recent complaints.
The ADEQ Air Permit that was obtained for the Mexican Original Plant on School Street last
February does list the 1851 East Huntsville address; however, Mr. Osmon did confirm that the
location for the permit is the South School facility.
There are currently four silos on the west side of the plant. During the site inspection no odor
was detected coming from the silos. It my opinion that a flour blending facility at this location
will not produce odors and that a building permit for additional silos can be issued under Use
Unit 23.
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
F. o. DRAWER F 72101 16011 621-7100
December 15, 1980
REFERENCE MEXICAN ORIGINAL, 1851 East Huntsville Road
Zoned: C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District
I have delayed approving the applications submitted November 13, 1980,
by Mexican Original because I felt that perhaps the existing use there
has grown beyond what the Planning Office originally approved. _Also,
because I felt that perhaps the existing use was too heavy for a commercial
district and should be in an industrial district.
Previous approvals for this company at this site were for a "bakery facility"
and "food service". As I understand the operation it includes the actual
baking and frying of tortillas, taco shells, and chips, a wholesale -type
operation, a retail outlet, and offices. Danny Couch, Plant Manager,
advised me 12-12=80 that they receive their corn already cleaned, but in
kernels. They soak it, then grind it before cooking the shells and chips.
He said their waste is picked up by pig farmers and taken outside the City
on a regular basis.
The request for permits for the storage bins for the corn is what really
raised the question of use with me. Since that time I have compared their
operation to others in the City and researched Planning Commission minutes
and the Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING ORDINANCE: Use Unit 15 lists "bakery" under retail food.
Use Unit 23 lists "food and allied products".
There is no food related listing between these two, with the exception of
wholesalers. There can be no question that a place such as Campbell Soup
which has slaughtering and packing as part of its operation belongs in the
Unit 23 (1-2 Zoning) category.
PLANNING Commission Minutes: June 28, 1976. After the Planning Office had
advised Shipley Baking Company that theycould not expand their plant on
Dickson Street because the use was heavier than the "bakery" listed in
Use Unit 15, they appealed to the Planning Commission for an interpretation.
The Planning Commission ruled that their operation on Dickson Street be
considered as a bakery under Use Unit 15.
CONCLUSION: The only major difference I can find in the operation of Shipley's
and Mexican Original's is that Shipley's has their grain (flour) stored inside
the building. The Zoning Ordinance does not really deal with how well the
appearance of a particular use is, so I don't see any basis for saying they
cannot install their grain tanks outdoors. Personally I still feel that both
Shipley's and Mexican Original should probably be in an industrial zone; however,
I cannot reverse the action of the Planning Commission on Shipley's and can see
no consistency in allowing them to expand in the C-3 Zone and forcing Mexican
Original to go to an industrial zone.
Planning Commission
June 28, 1976
-6-
\�
I.
I•
I.
5) A street light is needed at the North end of each cul sac;
A street light is also needed at the South end of ch cul de sac.
Mr. Bisho said that:
1) He wa illing to dedicate the right -of -w rather than give an
easement at thi ime;
2) He was willi to participate in the onstruction of Hacienda from the
Southeast corner of Bi op Addition, Unit to as far West as Villa's develop-
ment, but did not wish t articipate ac ss the South end of Bishop Addition,
Unit 1, and did not see an eqson to ticipate all the way to his West prop-
erty line;
3) Requested a variance on
he was willing to put them in
waiver on. sidewalks because he
sac; he thought they would cu
collector street across the ou
City without any impro me
responsibility to improv it.
willing to construct ap oximat
men
walks all the way around the cul de sacs---
ha ay around the cul de sac. He requested the
id n think people would walk around a cul de
through he middle. He felt the portion of the
uth side Unit 1 had already been accepted by
therefo , he should no longer have any
He and Chai n Power calculated that he was
ely 260 feet Hacienda Street.
Wade Bishop said the is no development planne o the West of Mr. Ogden's
property line.
Attorney Marshall arlisle asked that Mr. Bishop be reated like his clients,
Holley -Ogden. said they are being required to b d 1,320 ft. of street
plus the exten on out to Highway 71.
Wade Bishop s d he has had problems on other access st t (Appleby Road); it
is expensive o maintain. He has been trying to work out plan to get Appleby
Road impro d.
David McW by suggested a meeting between City Attorney Jim ord, City Manager
Grimes, anning Commission representatives, Mr. Wade Bishop, effected parties,
with s eone there to take notes before the Commission acts on t 's.
Mr. B' hop requested the Commission allow him time to consult wit omeone by
pho
Th Commission agreed to close discussion of this matter at this poin nd proceed
the next item on the agenda, and resume discussion with Mr. Bishop following
Chairman Power opened discussion on the last CURTIS SHIPLEY
item, which was listed on the agenda Consideration for a Conforming Use
under "Other Business", Curtis Shipley,
Shipley Baking Company, requested consideration of a use unit change that would make
the Shipley Baking Company a conforming use in its present location (Zoned C-3,
Central Commercial District).
Mr. Curtis Shipley was present to request a conforming use.
Larry Wood said that if it is classified "wholesale" and the property were
rezoned C-2, the Planning Commission could grant a conditional use. A Retail
"Bakery" is under Use Unit 15, which is C-1, C-2, C-3.
Mr. Shipley stated that they came to Fayetteville in 1926 and located on the
Square for 4 years. In 1936 they built their principal building on Dickson and
have been there for 40 years. Their situation is that they have reached a
point where the plant is somewhat insufficient. They need to be in a position
Planning Commission• -7- •
June 28, 1976
to be able to add an addition in the future if necessary.
Peg Anderson said that if you simply call it a "bakery" it would be all taken
care of. She said to just call it "Holsum Bakery".
Peg Anderson moved that Shipley Baking Company, located at 313 West:Dickson,
be considered a "bakery'" and -interpret this to be in Use Unit 15.
Rita Davis seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 7-0.
Chairman Power resumed iscussion on Wade Bishop, WADE BISHOP
Bishop ition, Uni --Proposed final plat. Bishop Addition #2
Proposed Final Plat
Wade Bishop req that this be tabled until July
Bill Kisor move that tabled.
Jack Ray seco ed the motion to which w approved unanimously by a vote
of 7-0.
Chairman ower recommended that Ernest cks and Keit ouse attend the meeting
of t/ecollector
ty Officers, Mr. Wade Bisho and effected parties; to recommend to
the ssion to what extent Mr. hop should participate in th rovement
of street.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 P. M.
[1
1�
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Associate Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: August 28, 2000
RZ 00-21.00: Rezoning (Tyson, pp 565) was submitted by R. Read Hudson on behalf of Tyson,
Inc. for property located at the southeast corner of Hwy 16 and Happy Hollow Road. The
property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 11.50 acres.. The
request is to rezone to I-2, General Industrial.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as
part of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: August 28.2000
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required Yes
O Approved O Denied
;auin LQIC:ilC I' VW UVii ^7c-LVVV
Comments:
H: I USERSI COMMONDA WN71 REPOR7SI PCI8-28-001 tyson. wpd
El
BACKGROUND:
According to information provided by the applicant, the Tyson Mexican Original East plant has
been operating at this site since 1983. At this time, they wish to expand the facility to include
silos for storage of materials used in the food processing operation conducted on -site. The silos
will contain flour to be blended with other ingredients which will be used for production at other
locations. (See attached letter from R. Reed Hudson, Tyson Secretary & Corporate Counsel)
The existing plant is operating in a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district as an existing
non -conforming use governed by the following section of the zoning code:
§164.07 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES.
A. 4. A nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land, or a nonconforming use
of a structure and land in combination shall not be extended or enlarged after passage of this
chapter by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the
district involved.
In order for the applicant to extend or enlarge the existing non -conforming use, the use must be
made conforming. In this situation, the applicant has chosen to request a rezoning which would
make the current operation and, therefore, an expansion of the current facility or use, permitted
by right.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North: Kathryn's Closet retail, C-1
Ridgeview Baptist Church, C -I / R-1
South: Abilities Unlimited, C-2
East: Washington County Head Start, C-1
Single family homes, R-1
West: Beard's Funeral Home, C-1
Single & multi family residential, R-2
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: This site is served by Huntsville Rd. (Hwy 16E) on the north. This street is
classified as a principal arterial on the City's Master Street Plan in this location
which is projected to have a total right of way width of 110and carry between
17,600 and 20,600 vehicles per day. Happy Hollow Road is located on the west
boundary of the site and is also called out on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Ray Street adjoins the site to the east but it is not accessed by this
development, this is a dead-end residential street which mainly serves a residential
H:I USERSICOMMONIDA WN1IREPOR7SIPCI8-28-001ryson. wpd
0 0
subdivision to the east.
Water: 8" line along Huntsville Rd.
6" line along Happy Hollow Rd.
2%4" extension onto site from 2" and 6" lines along Ray Ave.
Sewer: 6" extension onto site from 12" line along Happy Hollow Rd.
8" line along Huntsville Rd.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Industrial. Rezoning this property to
1-2, General Industrial is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land
uses in the area.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
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 proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives,
principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in that it is consistent with the City's
General Plan 2020. The proposed zoning is needed in order for the applicant
to add equipment for the food processing operation which has existed in this
location since 1983.
A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: No increase in employees has been contemplated by the applicant as a result
of this request. The plant is currently operating, no existing traffic
conditions would be modified as a result of an approved rezoning in this
location. 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.
H:1 USERSICOMMONIDA WNr1REPOR7SIPC18-28-00lryson. wpd
El
Finding: The proposed zoning will not alter the population density thereby
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
H: I USERSICOMMONIDA WNr1REPORTSIPCI8-28-00lryson. ivpd
C
11
§161.18 DISTRICT 1-2 GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL.
A. Purpose. The General Industrial
District is designed to provide areas for
manufacturing and industrial activities
which may give rise to substantial
environmental nuisances, which are
objectionable to residential and business use.
B. Uses.
1. Uses Permitted.
Unit
I
City -Wide Uses by Right
Unit 3
Public Protection and
Utility Facilities
Unit
6
Agriculture
Unit
7
Animal Husbandry
Unit
12
Offices, Studios and
Related Services
Unit
18
Gas Service Stations and
Drive -In Restaurants
Unit
20
Commercial Recreation,
Large Sites
Unit
21
Warehousing and
Wholesale
Unit
22
Manufacturing
Unit
23
Heavy Industrial
Unit
28
Center for Collecting
Recyclable Materials
H:I USERSICOMMOMDA WN7IREPOR7SIPCI8-28-001 tyson. wpd
2. Uses Permissible on
Appeal to the Planning Commission.
Unit 2
City -Wide Uses by
Conditional Use Permit
Unit 31
Facilities Emitting Odors
and Facilities Handling
Explosives
C. Bulk and Area
Regulations/Setbacks. Setback lines shall
meet the following minimum requirements:
From Street R -O -W (when
100 ft.
adjoining A or R districts)
From Street R -O -W (when
50 ft.
adjoining C, I or P districts)
Side (when adjoining A or R
50 ft.
districts)
Side (when adjoining C, I or
25 ft.
P districts)
Rear (all districts)
25 ft.
D. Height Regulations. There shall
be no maximum height limits in I-2
Districts, provided, however, that any
building which exceeds the height of 25 feet
shall be set back from any boundary line of
any Resident I District a distance of one
foot for each foot of height in excess of 25
feet.
(Code 1991, § 160.040; Code 1965, App. A,
Art. 5(IX); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-89; Ord.
No. 2351, 6-21-77; Ord. No. 2516, 4-3-79;
Ord. No. 3971, §2, 5-21-96)
0 •
§164.07 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES.
A. Intent.
1. Within the districts established by this chapter or amendments that may later
be adopted, if there exist lots, structure, uses of land and structures, and characteristics of use
which are lawful before this chapter was passed or amended, but which would be prohibited,
regulated, or restricted under the terms of this chapter or future amendment, it is the intent of this
chapter to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage
their survival. It is further the intent of this chapter that nonconformities shall not be enlarged
upon, expanded, or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses
prohibited elsewhere in the same district.
2. It is not the intent of this section to prohibit the improvement of
nonconforming residences by adding bath facilities or connecting to utilities as long as the bulk
and area requirements of the R-3 District are met.
3. Nonconforming uses are declared by this chapter to be incompatible with
permitted uses in the districts involved.
4. A nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land, or a
nonconforming use of a structure and land in combination shall not be extended or enlarged after
passage of this chapter by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited
generally in the district involved.
(Code 1991, §160.135; Code 1965, App. A, Art 4(1); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 1918, 5-
15-83; Ord. No. 2126, 7-14-75)
B. Nonconforming Lots of Record.
1. In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family
dwellings and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record at the
effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter, notwithstanding limitations imposed by
other provisions of this chapter. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous
frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot
fails to meet the requirements for area or width, or both, that are generally applicable in the
district, provided that yard dimensions and requirements other than these applying to area or
width, of both, of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is
located. In a previously developed subdivision, platted prior to June 29, 1970, and with the
approval of the subdivision committee, a new single-family dwelling or an addition or repair to
an existing single-family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zones in keeping with the
existing standard in the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback is no less than five feet.
Variance of yard requirements shall be obtained only through action of the board of adjustment.
H:1 USERSICOMMONIDA WN7IREPOR7SIPC18-28-001tyson. wpd
2. If two or more or combination of lots and portion of lots with continuous
frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of passage or amendment of this chapter,
and if all parts of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and area, the
lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for parcel the purposes of this
chapter, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes
compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this chapter, nor shall any
division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements
stated in this chapter. The prohibition prescribed hereby shall not apply to a nonconforming lot
on which a principal structure existed on the effective date of adoption of this chapter and which
adjoins a nonconforming lot on which a principal structure existed on the effective date of the
adoption of this chapter.
(Code
1991, §160.136;
Code 1965,
App.
A, Art.
4(2); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 2505, 2-
20-79;
Ord. No. 3114,
9-3-85; Ord.
No.
3124, 9-17-85)
C. Nonconforming Uses of Land (or Land with Minor Structures Only). Where at
the time of passage of this chapter lawful use of land exists which would not be permitted by the
regulations imposed by this chapter, and where such use involves no individual structure with a
replacement cost exceeding $1,000, the use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise
lawful, provided:
1. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to
occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment
of this chapter.
2. No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion
of the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or
amendment of this chapter.
3. If any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of
more than 120 days, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations in which
such land is located; and
4. No additional structure not conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall
be erected in connection with such nonconforming use of land.
(Code 1991, §160.137; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 4(4); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70)
D. Nonconforming structures. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of
adoption or amendment of this chapter that could not be built under the terns of this chapter by
reason of restriction on areas, lot coverage, height, yards, its location in the lot, or other
requirements concerning the structure, such structure may be continued so long as it remains
otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
H:1 USERSICOMMOMDA WNTREIOR7SIPCI8-28-001tyson. wpd
1. No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which
increases its nonconformity but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its
nonconformity, provided, the following structures may be enlarged or altered as hereinafter
provided:
a. Nonconforming residential structures may be enlarged or altered by
increasing the height of said structures.
b. Carports in residential zones may extend into the required yard
setbacks if: the carport is set back at least ten feet from the street right-of-way; the carport is set
back at least five feet from any interior side property line; the carport is set back at least ten feet
from the rear property line; the area below the roof is open on the sides; and the carport does not
materially obstruct vision.
c. In residential zones, detachable awnings which are not structurally a
part of the building may be erected in any required front yard or rear yard if the awning does not
project more than six feet. Detachable awnings which are not structurally a part of the building
and which project no more than four feet may be erected in any required interior side yard.
d. In residential zones, porch roofs and open porches may extend into
required yards by one foot on each side of the entry door to a maximum depth of six feet in
required front yards and rear yards and to a maximum depth of four feet in required interior side
yards.
2. Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of structure be
destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost at time of
destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
3. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, it
shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved.
(Code 1991, §160.138; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 4(4); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 3130,
10-1-85)
E. Nonconforming Uses of Structures or of Structures and Premises in
Combination. If lawful use involving individual structures with a replacement cost of $1,000 or
more, or of structure and premises in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or
amendment of this chapter, that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this
chapter the lawful use may be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the
following provisions:
1. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this chapter in the
district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or
structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in
which it is located or as required by other ordinances;
H: I USERSICOMMONIDA WNJUtEPORTSIPC18-28-001ryson. wpd
0 i
2. Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of building
which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment
of this chapter, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building.
3. If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming use of a structure, or
structure and premises, may as a conditional use be changed to another nonconforming use
provided that the Planning Commission, either by general rule or by making findings in the
specific case, shall find that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the
district that the existing nonconforming use. In permitting such change, the Planning
Commission may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in accord with the provisions of
this chapter.
4. Any structure, or structure and land in combination, in or on which a
nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, shall thereafter conform to the regulations
for the district, and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed;
5. When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in
combination, is discontinued or abandoned for six consecutive months or for 18 months during
any three-year period (except where government action impedes access to the premises), the
structure or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in
conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located;
6. Where nonconforming use status applies to a structure and premises in
combination, removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of
the land. Destruction for the purpose of this division is defined as damage to an extent of more
than 50% (or other figure) of the replacement cost of time of destruction;
7. All outdoor advertising signs (billboards) not conforming with the provisions
of this chapter shall be removed within the period prescribed by § 174.06.
(Code 1991, § 160.139; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 4(5); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 1806, 7-
19-71; Ord. No. 2126, 7-15-75)
F. Repairs and Maintenance.
1. On any nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a
nonconforming use, work may be done in any period of 12 consecutive months on ordinary
repairs, or on repair or replacement of non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring, or plumbing, to an
extent not exceeding 10% of the current replacement cost of the nonconforming structure or
nonconforming portion of the structure as the case may be, provided that the cubic content
existing when it became nonconforming shall not be increased.
2. If a nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a nonconforming use
H:1 USERSICOMMONIDA WN1IREPORTSIPCI8-28-001tyson. ivpd
0 !
becomes physically unsafe, or unlawful due to lack or repairs and maintenance, and is declared
by any duly authorized official to be unsafe or unlawful by reason of physical condition, it shall
not thereafter be restored, repaired, or rebuilt, except in conformity with the regulations of the
district in which it is located or as required by other ordinances.
(Code 1991, §160.140; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 4(6); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70)
G. Conditional Use Provisions Not Nonconforming Uses. Any use which is permitted
as a conditional use in a district under the terms of this chapter (other than a change through
Planning Commission action from a nonconforming use to another use not generally permitted in
the district) shall not be deemed a nonconforming use in such district, but shall be without further
action considered a conforming use.
(Code 1991, §160.141; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 4(7); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70)
H. Owner -occupied Nonconforming Residences. Notwithstanding any other
provision in this subchapter, any owner -occupied nonconforming residence may be enlarged,
extended, constructed, reconstructed, or structurally altered to permit expansion up to 25% of the
square footage of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming, and customary
accessory structures may be located on property where an owner -occupied nonconforming
residence
is located subject to the following conditions: An owner -occupied nonconforming residence so
expanded or any accessory structure so located may be enlarged, extended, constructed,
reconstructed, structurally altered, or located in conformity with the bulk and area regulations,
yard requirements, and building area requirements in the R-1, low density residential district.
(Code 1991, §160.42; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(8); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 1891, 12-
5-72)
H.9 USERS\COMMON\DA WN71 REPORTS\PC18-28-001 ryson. wpd
It's what your fam2)/ deserves" RECEEvr.,,
Rilr, 0 o 2Cfln
August 7, 2000
Mr. Tim Conklin, City Planner
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING
Re: Rezoning of Property located in Section 23, Township 16, North, Range 30.
Dear Mr. Conklin:
We respectfully submit this request for the rezoning of the above referenced property owned
by Tyson Foods, Inc. ("Tyson") located at 1851 E. Huntsville Road in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
It has been brought to our attention by the City of Fayetteville that the property should be
rezoned from C-2 to I-2.
This property is located in a commercial and industrial area and is surrounded by Abilities
Unlimited ofNorthwest Arkansas on the south side, Highway 16 along with Beard's Funeral Chapel,
residential property, apartment buildings and just down the road White River Woodworks on the west
side, Washington County Head Start and a residential subdivision on the east, and Highway 16 along
with Kathryn's Closet Resale Shop and the Ridgeview Baptist Church on the north side of the
property.
This is not a new facility and Tyson has had a food processing operation at this location since
approximately 1983 and a predecessor company purchased by Tyson was conducting similar
operations at the location prior to that time. The rezoning of this property should not affect the
surrounding properties in relation to appearance, use, signage or traffic. This property is well
landscaped and maintained, something that Tyson takes great pride in. This facility currently employs
156 employees.
Therefore, we ask that you consider our request for the rezoning of this property from C-2
to I-2.
Sincerely,
R. Read Hudson
Secretary and Corporate Counsel
RRHIjk
L V &'jIlAO.firna.m.wpd
Tyson Foods, Inc. Legal Department 2210 West Oakiawn Drive Springdale, AR 72762-6999
501-290-4000 Fax: 501-290-7967 www.tyson.com
L1
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, February 2, 1982,
at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Directors Lancaster, Todd, Osborne, Sharp, Noland, Bumpass, and
Henry; City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, Assistant City Manager
McWethy, and City Clerk Rowe; members of the press and audience.
ABSENT: None
CALL TO ORDER
386.1
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of
respectful silence.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
386.2
Mayor Noland introduced the three Employees of the Month for January
1982. He presented Stephen Haile, Kathy Morgan, and Freeman Wood with a
certificate and a check and noted the comments their supervisors had made.
(Additional information on this item may be found on page "B" of the
agenda of this meeting attached to these minutes.)
ACT 9 BONDS/MEXICAN._QJGJNA PROD cI5. iNf."
386.3
Mayor iloiand introduced an ordinance authorizing the issuance of
$2,000,000 in "Act 9" Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Mexican
Original Products, Inc. (Additional information on the bonds may be found
on page "B" of the attached agenda.)
386.4
Mayor Noland declared a public hearing open.
386.5
City Attorney McCord stated that this revenue would allow Mexican
Original to acquire additional equipment, and there will be no plant
expansion. There will be a payment -in -lieu -of -taxes agreement because
the project would be tax exempt. The bonds will be secured by a letter of
credit issued by Worthen Bank to guarantee payment of the bonds, so no
possibility of default. He further stated that representing Mexican Original
in the audience were Terrance Spencer, President; Richard Ardemagni, Treasurer;
and a representative of the Rose Law Firm, Less Balidge, and these people would
answer any questions.
386.6
Mayor Noland stated that this proposed equipment expenditure would
create initially 40 to 50 new jobs for the industrial community in Fayetteville.
386.7
Director Todd asked how the new equipment would lead to the 40 to 50
additional jobs.
386.8
Mr. Spencer stated that the new equipment would allow the plant to
expand their production capabilities. The new equipment would also require
more people to operate than the present equipment. The freezer expansion
would enable the plant to freeze their product on site as opposed to
leasing freezers from Welch's in Springdale and other areas of the United States.
386.9
Mayor Noland stated that he had received a call from a lady that lives
on the south side of Mt. Sequoyah, and he told her that he would mention her
call and request to the Board. Mr. Noland stated that the lady reported
that during the day there is a cloud of smoke that hangs in the valley and
��:
the smell of the cooking products was offensive to her.
• 7
Mr. Spencer stated that there was an odor associated with this type of 387.1
industry, but he had never been informed that it had been offensive. He stated
that if it was offensive, Mexican Original would look into the problem. He
stated that they were an FDA inspected plant and received constant supervision
from the FDA. He stated that they had been approved by several offices of the
federal and state government due to their FmHa loan and the size of their
production.
Director Todd asked if there had been any waste water pollution problems. 387.E
Mr. Spencer stated that he was not aware of any. He further stated that a
study had been conducted by McClelland, and Mexican Original is in the process
of installing a screen that will filter out any whole particles in the water
system.
O There being no further discussion, the public hearing was declared closed. 387.:
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Todd, 387.1
6). seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be
placed on second reading. Upon roll call .the.motion passed unanimously.
—J City Attorhey McCord read the ordinance for the second time.. Director 387.!
Q Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be further suspended and the
Q ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion
passed unanimously, and the ordinance was read for the third time.
Mayor Noland stated that Mexican Original is one of the nation's largest 387.1
producers of flour and corn tortillas, taco shells, and corn chips. In 1981
they were employing in excess of 300 people and purchased over $2,500,000 in
local goods and services. Mexican Original estimated that they contributed
something in the nature of $5 million to the local economy. They have sales
to 39 states and Canada.
There being no further discussion, upon roll call the ordinance passed 387..
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2791 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK
FIRE ORDINANCE/LANDLORD-TENANT
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance imposing fire protection standards 387.7
for the rental of residential property providing sleeping accomodations for
less than 15 persons. (Additional information regarding the ad -hoc committee
members and decisions may be found on page "C" of the attached agenda.)
City Attorney McCord stated that there had been some numerical changes 387.1
regarding section numbers in the proposed ordinance. He also stated that
the wording would be changed from "building" to "dwelling unit" where
discussing the requirements for smoke detectors. Mr. McCord further stated
that there was a question concerning when there was a vacancy, who would be
responsible for insuring that the smoke detector is in operable order when a
new tenant moves in. The owner of the dwelling unit would have that
responsibility.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director 387.
Bumpass, seconded by Osborne; moved that the rules be suspended and the
ordinance be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed
6 to 1, with Director Osborne voting in the minority.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director
Bumpass, seconded by Sharp, moved that the rules be further suspended and the
ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion
passed S to 2, with Directors Osborne and Todd voting in the minority, and the
City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time.
Director Bumpass informed the Board that the committee had met five times 387.
and that the coninittee was made up of landlords, tenants, members of the Fire
I0
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday,
April 12, 1982, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Melanie
Stockdell, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, Newton Hailey.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook.
OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Spencer, Harry Gray, Bryce Davis, Donald Nickell,
John Lisle, Jack Butt, Nelson Driver, Wade Bishop, Bob
Brandon, Jim Powell, David McWethy, Cynthia Stewart,
Bobbie Jones and others.
The minutes of the March 15, 1982 MINUTES
Planning Commission meeting were approved
as mailed.
The next item of business LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
was the approval of the MEXICAN ORIGINALS
Large Scale Development Plan HWY. 16 BYPASS AND HUNTSVILLE RD.
for an addition to the Mexican
Original located at the Southeast
corner of the intersection of
Huntsville Road (Hwy. 16 East) and Happy Hollow Road (Hwy. 16 Bypass); Mexican
Original Products, Inc. Owner and Developer. Property zoned C-1, Thoroughfare
Commercial District.
Harry Gray and Terry Spencer were present to represent.
The Chairman opened discussion on the addition and referred to the Plat
Review Committee minutes of April 1, 1982. He asked the representatives of the
developer if they had any problem with the recommendation by the Fire Inspector
that a fire hydrant be placed on the site.
Harry Gray stated they do not. There has been extensive fencing installed
on the site for security purposes and from a safety standpoint, the hydrant
is necessary.
Jacks stated that Wally Brt has indicated there is a need for another
container with this addition, but there is not room for it at the location of
the existing container. Gray stated there would be no problem, that he would work
with Wally Brt on the location of the second container.
Jacks asked about the comment made by the Ozarks Electric representative
at the Plat Review Committee meeting that there is a transformer and a vault
that need to be relocated. Gray replied the building will be constructed
around the vault; the transformer is outside the proposed addition.
Jacks asked if there was any problem providing the required handicapped
parking spaces. Gray stated they would be furnished.
The Chairman asked if the adjoining property owners had been notified as
required. Gray said they had and that Bobbie Jones had been furnished proof
of notification.
Bobbie Jones stated some easements had been required by the utility companies
0
Planning Commission Meeting
•
April 12, 1982
Page 2
•
•
as well as right-of-way easements for Highway 16. She stated the right-of-way
easements on the North and West sides had been executed.
Jacks asked the representatives if there were any objections to the Plat
Review Committee comments. Harry Gray said no, however, he does have some
problems with Clayton Powell's written comments.
Bobbie Jones stated there was concern about running a hydrant in such a
way that the residential area to the East might have access to the hydrant.
Gray stated he would work with the City. He said he is currently negotiating
with Don Bunn, City Engineer on working out the placement of the hydrant and
installing a loop in the water line to increase water pressure on the site.
Jacks referred to the written recommendations by Clayton Powell, City
Street Superintendent. He stated Powell has recommended that elevated sidewalk
be installed along the North line of the property where it is presently open
into the highway. He suggested that drives be installed at safety zone
intervals.
Terry Spencer addressed the Commission. He stated the developers have
no objection to this recommendation provided that is what the City wants. He
felt a greater traffic problem will be created if the curbs and sidewalks are
installed as suggested by Mr. Powell. He felt a lot of traffic would be
tied up on Highway 16. The open parking area is primarily for Watsons,
Colliers and a few other retail establishments; the amount of traffic involved
is small. The Mexican Original employees will be using the South parking lot
and will not be entering from the North. He felt that traffic would be backed
up waiting to turn into the restricted entrances if they are installed.
Jacks stated that asphalt from 71 used to run into the parking area
at Evelyn Hills. Spencer stated that College Avenue at that point is a
four lane highway with a large amount of traffic.
Don Hunnicutt stated if the Highway Department comes in and improves
Huntsville Road, they will probably tear out these improvements. He said he
would hate to see the money spent and then have the improvements torn up.
Windell Cullers moved the recommended improvements for Huntsville Road be
waived and that the Developer comply on 16 Bypass.
Hunnicutt felt that this should be discussed with Clayton Powell and
Jacks agreed. Windell Cullers withdrew his motion.
Gray stated the Developers realize that sidewalks have to be built, what
they are concerned about is the elevation of the sidewalks and the installation
of the recommended accesses at safety zone intervals.
Jacks referred back to Clayton Powell's comments concerning Ray Avenue.
The letter states that sidewalks are installed on part of Ray Avenue on the
West side. However, Mexican Original has apparently installed.a chain link
fence and placed posts in the sidewalk.
Spencer stated there has been quite a bit of dispute over the boundary
of the property at this point. The line has been surveyed. Before the chain
link fence was constructed, Mexican Original personnel asked the City if a
building permit would be necessary to construct the fence and were told as
long as it is constructed on Mexican Original property there would be no
permit required. Spencer said the developer has no problem with installing sidewalk
along Ray, it may get into their property if it is extended as it is presently
laid out. He said they would have no objection to taking the sidewalk out and
placing it further away from the fence. Spencer said Mexican Original was told
I•
I.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 12, 1982
Page 3
before they could begin construction on the additions, they would have to dedicate
a 10 ft. easement all around the property. They have spent in excess of
$15,000.00 on the fence and it now sits on the City property. He said they
would like to know if they have to move the fence. Bobbie Jones stated this
fence is partially barbed wire, the ordinance states barbed wire fences cannot
be placed adjacent to a sidewalk. She did not feel the Planning Commission
has the power to waive this, the City Board might.
McWethy asked who had surveyed the property line.for Mexican Original.
Gray stated Neal Albright. McWethy stated that. in connection with the
installation of sidewalks with community development funds, there had been a
survey, one of the surveys is wrong.
Jacks asked how much of an overlap exists between the sidewalk and the
fence. Gray replied 6 to 8 inches. Spencer stated actually, the posts were
not placed in the sidewalk, there were a couple of notches installed on the edge
of the sidewalk and the posts placed there.
Jacks asked if the Developers had any problem installing sidewalk for the
full length of Happy Hollow Road adjacent to this property. Spencer said no
problem.
Jacks addressed Clayton Powell's comments on drainage. Apparently, the
box culvert in association with 16 Bypass has been reduced on the site and
concerns Mr. Powell, he asked for the engineer's comments. Gray stated he does
not know the size of the mentioned box culvert. He stated he has studied
the site and proposes drainage construction sufficient to handle the site.
David Williams stated it appears the Developers are willing to comply with
the Plat Review Committee comments. The developers are willing to go along with
whatever the City decides on the access on Huntsville Road. Jacks said he
felt Traffic control was needed at Huntsville Road.
Cullers asked if it would be acceptable to the Developers if the Large
Scale Development plan was approved subject to the Plat Review Committee comments
and working with Clayton Powell on his comments, with a final determination
made by the Planning Commission. Gray said that would be acceptable.
Windell Cullers moved the Large Scale Development Plan for Mexican Original
be approved subject to Plat Review Committee comments and that Clayton Powell's
comments be worked out between the Developer and the Street Superintendent.
David Williams seconded. The motion passed (6-0-1) with Don Hunnicutt
abstaining.
Cullers moved that Clayton Powell's commentsbe tabled until the next
meeting to give the developers a chance to get with the Street Superintendent
and work out his recommendations. David Williams seconded. The motion passed
(6-0-1) with Don Hunnicutt abstaining.
The
next item of business
REZONING
PETITION R82-6
was the
Public Hearing on Rezoning
BRYCE
DAVIS
Petition
R82-6. Bryce Davis to rezone
HIGHWAY
16 WEST
property located South of Highway 16 West
and West of the 71 Bypass (3323, 3315, 3307, 3257
Wedington Drive) from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District
fare Commercial District.
Bryce Davis was present to represent.
to C-2, Thorough-
i
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday,
April 26, 1982 in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, David Williams, Newton Hailey,
Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, Barbara Crook, Melanie
Stockdell, Windell Cullers.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Nash.
OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Spencer, Gary Carnahan, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart,
Harry Gray, Clayton Powell, and others.
The minutes of the April 12, MINUTES
1982 Planning Commission meeting were
approved as mailed.
Jacks asked the Planning Commission members to note the material they
had been handed and explained that it results from the first meeting
organized to consider recommended revisions to the General Plan. Some of the
members present at that meeting expressed interest in what the goals and
policies of the Planning Commission are. Also, included in that material
is a memo from Mort Gitelman drafted when he was chairman of the Commission,
in line with that request.
The next item of business MEXICAN ORIGINAL_
was the consideration of Clayton STREET SUPERINTENDENT'
Powell's recommendations for the RECOMMENDATIONS
Large Scale Development plan
for Mexican Original, located
at Hwy. 16 By-pass (Happy Hollow Road) and
Hwy. 16 East (Huntsville Road). Tabled at the April 12, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting.
Terry Spencer and Harry Gray were present to represent.
The Chairman stated contained in the agenda material is the original
letter from Clayton Powell containing his recommendations for improvements
to be performed with this Large Scale Development, a response from Harry Gray,
the engineer for the project and notes from Bobbie Jones. Powell felt that
sidewalks along Happy Hollow Road should be elevated to curb level, incorporating
the required safety zones for drives, the fence on the East property line
should be moved; Mr. Powell feels it is not on the property. line. Sidewalk
should be continued along Ray Avenue. Drainage should be studied, as Mr.
Powell does not feel drainage structures proposed for the site are adequate.
Mr. Gray's letter states he will construct the sidewalk on the North side
of the property adjacent to Huntsville Road. He would construct the sidewalk
as required on the East side but would like to retain the fence along Ray
Avenue. Gray maintains the fence adjacent to Ray Avenue is on the property
line. If the fence is in fact not constructed on the property line, he
proposes to replace the portion of the sidewalk that has been notched out for
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1982
Page 2
the fence posts. Gray states the drainage structures for the site have been
designed to carry run off from a 5 -year storm. Powell wants on -site drainage
to handle a 50 to 100 year run off.
The memo from Bobbie Jones outlines a meeting between Clayton Powell,
Don Grimes, and herself where they discussed Clayton Powell's recommendations
and the proposed improvements by the Developer. Sidewalk will be constructed
on Huntsville Road, Clayton Powell is to contact a surveyor to determine where
the property line is on Ray Avenue, and sidewalk is to be continued on
Ray Avenue. The developer's proposal to construct sidewalk on the West side of
Happy Hollow Road rather than on the East side will be accepted, and Clayton
Powell is to meet with a Highway Department representative from the division
of hydrology to discuss the adequacy of the on -site drainage proposed by the
developer.
Bobbie Jones indicated the City Manager would like the fence relocated
rather than having the sidewalk relocated where it is built on Ray Avenue.
Jacks stated the developer proposes to construct the sidewalk on the
West side of Happy Hollow Road rather than on the East side and the City
Manager felt that was a valid proposal.
Clayton Powell stated the sidewalk on the South side of Huntsville Road
shall be constructed 5.ft. wide and 4" high.
Jacks stated the only things that have not been resolved are:
1. The accuracy of the survey on Ray Avenue.
2. The adequacy of on -site drainage proposed by the developer.
Powell stated he would be meeting with a representative of the Highway
i Department this week on the question ofon-site drainage. He said he has
not pursued the survey of the property line on Ray Avenue. Powell was of the
opinion that if the Developer would relocate the fence off of Ray Avenue
and tilt the barbed wire into the property that the problem would be resolved
in his opinion. Bobbie Jones stated the question of the barbed wire should
be addressed by the Board of Directors.
Spencer stated that if the fence needed to be moved back and the notched
area replaced, he would have no problem with that.
Gray stated he would like to attend the meeting between Clayton Powell
and the Highway Department representative concerning on -site drainage.
Powell stated there has been good cooperation on the developer's part
and perhaps the fence would not have to be relocated if there is adequate
right of way for Ray Avenue.
Jacks did not feel the Commission had any option but to table this
item until the following is resolved:
1. On -site drainage.
2. Ray Avenue right-of-way.
3. The barbed wire on the fence adjacent to Ray Avenue (determination by the
Board of Directors).
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1982
Page 3
Y
David Williams asked if the question of the barbed wire could be placed
on the next Board of Director's agenda. David McWethy stated it could.
Williams moved this item be tabled until the Board has made its determination;
the right-of-way on Ray Avenue is resolved; and the question of on -site drainage
is worked out.
Windell Cullers seconded.
The motion to table passed (7-0-1) with Hunnicutt abstaining.
The next item of business APPLEBY ROAD
was a referral from the,City Board of REFERRAL FROM CITY BOARD
Directors for the Planning Commission QUESTION OF HARMONIZATION
to review proposed street improvement WITH MASTER STREET PLAN
district petition and determine if
proposal will comply with the Master
Street Plan (Tabled at April 12, 1982, Planning Commission Meeting).
The Chairman stated there has been a written request that this item be
tabled. He stated he talked to one of the attorneys involved in this
petition about the tabling.
Cynthia Stewart reported she had received a phone call from the City
Attorney prior to the meeting and he had stated he had received requests from
both sides that the item be tabled and the City Attorney recommends that
it be tabled until the next meeting.
Windell Cullers moved that Item 3 be tabled until the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed
(7-1) with Newton Hailey casting the "Nay" vote.
The next item on the Agenda LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
was the approval of the 2100 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
Large Scale Development Plan for NORTHWEST ARKANSAS GROCERY C
Northwest Arkansas Grocery Company
to be located at 2100 North College
Avenue (between Ken's Pizza and Popeye's
Chicken); Northwest Arkansas Grocery Company, Developer. Property zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial District and R-1, Low Density Residential District.
Gary Carnahan was present to represent.
The Chairman asked for a report from the Chairman of the Subdivision
Committee.
Don Hunnicutt stated the Subdivision Committee recommends the approval
of the Large Scale Development with the following comments:
1. The development will be subject to all Plat Review Committee comments
and requests.
2. Recommend the Planning Commission consider granting a waiver of the
screening requirement as requested by the developer. Screening is
required on 50 ft. of the South property line and on the East property
line where commercial property abuts R-1 zoned property.
FAYETTEVILIjE, ARKANSAS
P. O. DRAWER F n7C7 ism] 621.7100
July 15, 1982
Mr. Terrence Spencer, President
Mexican Original Products, Inc.
1851 E. Huntsville Road
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Mr. Spencer:
The application requesting a building permit for some of the expansion
work at Mexican Original, 1851 E. Huntsville Road, has been received
by the Office of City Planning.
We have approved the issuance of a permit for footings only on enclosing
the two courtyards. An additional permit will be required to complete
that phase of construction. Separate permits will also be required for
(1) construction of the staging area between and south of the two freezer
locations; (2) construction of the unheated mechanical equipment room.
A permit may also be required for the proposed sewage screening and grease
traps; but, more information would be needed on what this consists of to
determine if a permit is required.
Approval by the State Board of Health must be furnished the Inspection -
Planning Office before any of the above -mentioned permits can be issued
and before the work on enclosing the two courtyards can proceed beyond
the footing stage.
Sincerely yours,
(Mrs.) Bobbie Jones A
Planning Administrator
BJ/sd
cc: Harry Gray,
Northwest Engineers
Heckathorn Construction Co.
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
P. O. DRAWER F 71701 15011 511.7700
Mr. Terrence Spencer
Mexican Original Products, Inc.
1851 East Huntsville Road
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Mr. Spencer:
August 11, 1982
LTA.
,R ,
:,s
This office has received four building permit applications for construction of:
Staging Area
Completion of warehouse space from former court yards
Sewer pre-treatment facility
and a mechanical room.
Certain improvements required by City Ordinances must be completed prior to
completion of this construction work and prior to the owner occupying all these
new facilities. These improvements or conditions are as follows:
PUBLIC SIDEWALKS: (3 Requirements)
A public sidewalk a minimum of 5 ft. in width shall be erected along Huntsville
Road except for the driveway openings. Before the sidewalk is poured, but
after it is formed up, call the City Street Department to inspectit. If you
have any questions as to location of sidewalk, width of driveways, spacing
between driveways, etc. contact the Street Department. The driveway openings
should conform to the City's regulations for spacing and safety zones. Check
with the Arkansas Highway Department to determine if the sidewalk may be built
on Highway right-of-way. If it must be on private property, a sidewalk easement
is required. A permit is required from the Arkansas Highway Department.
A public sidewalk a minimum of 4 ft. in width shall be erected along the
West side of Happy Hollow Road all the way from your extreme South property
line to the intersection of Happy Hollow Road and Huntsville Road. The same
requirements as to permits, inspections, etc. should be followed for this
sidewalk.
Repair and extend the sidewalk down the West side of Ray Avenue to extend
all the way out to Huntsville Road. A permit for sidewalk construction at
this location must be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Have the
Street Department inspect this after it is formed up and prior to pouring
concrete to avoid having to tear out and replace any substandard sidewalk.
I have been told that Jerry Sweetser Construction Company was awarded a bid
by the City to construct sidewalks on Happy Hollow Road north of Huntsville
Road. They might offer you a better price if your work is contracted to be
done at the same time as the City's. You may, of course, choose any contractor
you wish so long as the work is done to City specifications.
•Mexican Original Products nc.
-August 11, 1982 - Page 2
•
2. PAVED PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAS:
The entire driveway, from the street pavement or roadbed, throughout the
parking area, as well as the parking area, must be paved with an application
of double chip and oil seal, hot mix asphalt or portland cement to provide
a durable and dustless surface.
Driveway permits must be obtained from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Department prior to constructing the driveways.
OFF-STREET PARKING:
The approved plot plan shows 319 total parking spaces on the entire "Eastgate"
site. According to my calculations a minimum of 238 spaces is required. In
addition to the paving, each space must be striped off and curbs, bumper guards
or wheel stops must be installed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the
outer boundaries of the parking lot area. Sizes of spaces and aisle widths
between spaces must be as follows:
(A) A minimum of 7 or 8 spaces must be twelve (12) ft. wide by nineteen (19)
ft. deep with ramps onto sidewalks and into buildings and with above -
grade signs indicating they are reserved for the handicapped.
(B) A maximum of 20% of the total spaces provided may be seven and one-half
(7z) ft. wide by fifteen (15) ft. deep with signs indicating they are
reserved for "compact cars only". You are not required to have any
spaces in this size, it is optional.
(C) The balance of the spaces required must be 9 ft. wide by 19 ft. deep.
(D) Aisle widths between rows of parking must be 24 ft. wide.
3. PERMANENT HOUSE NUMBERS:
Unless they are already erected, permanent house numbers visible from the
street must be installed.
r,1
AS -BUILT PLOT PLAN:
The owner must furnish an "as -built" plot plan showing the location of and distance
from property lines of all improvements on the property including buildings,
signs, parking, driveways, sidewalks, fences, required landscaping, and
location of all utility lines (including service lines to the building). This
must be labeled "As -Built Plot Plan", be dated and signed, and must be
filed with the Office of City Planning upon completion of the development.
Please sign the agreement which follows, keep one copy in your files for future reference,
and return the signed copy to the Office of City Planning. Upon receipt of this signed
agreement the Planning Administrator will be in a position to issue the Certificate
of Zoning Compliance for your project. The applications will then be forwarded to the
City Building Inspection Office for their review and issuance of the requested Building
Permits.
This letter is to put you on notice that no final inspections of this development will
be made by the City Building and Planning Departments and no occupancy of the new
structures will be permitted until the above improvements are completed in a manner
acceptable to the City.
Mexican Original Products c.
August 11, 1982 - Rage 3
•
If for any reason you anticipate that
the structures are completed, please
week prior to the date that you plan
to work out a solution acceptable to
be costly to you.
you cannot meet these requirements by the time
contact the Office of City Planning at least one
to occupy the building. This will give you time
the City which would prevent delays that might
Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Office of City Planning
P. 0. Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
Phone (501) 521-7700 Ext. 356
This is to certify that I am the owner and/or the contractor of the above -mentioned
development and that it is understood that all of the requirements set out in the letter
above must be complied with prior to occupying the structur n question.
SIGNED• � x
Contractor
SIGNED: gyp,
Owner
DATED: S Z
DATED: �ci��
NORTHWEST E4NEERS, INC. •
F. ERVAN WIMBERLY, P.E.
HARRY G. GRAY, P.E.
March 26,1982
Office of City Planning
P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Bobbie:
Enclosed for review, and approval are copies of the Large Scale Development
Plan depicting improvements and expansions which Mexican Original Products,
Inc. proposes to make.at their plant herein Fayetteville.
The proposed expansions are as follows:
New
Freezer Construction
6,000
Sq.
Ft.
New
Mechanical Room
600
Sq.
Ft.
New
Staging Area
4,250
sq.
Ft.
New
Warehouse Area (2 Areas)
12,300
Sq.
Ft.
The parking area will be improved as indicated on the plan.
There are existing utility easements in the new warehouse areas. We propose
to have these easements vacated and maintenance of utilities assumed by Mexican
Original Products, Inc.
Sincerely,
Harry G! Gray, P.E.
HGG/sjh
Encl.
cc: Danny Couch
Mexican Original
/cCA
5O5 WEST ASH ST. P. O. BOX 1173 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 727O1
(501) 443-4535
•
y a Tar
X AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
STAFF REVIEW FORM
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of September 19 2000
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning
Name Public Works
Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: To approve an ordinance for RZ 00-21.00, submitted by Read Hudson on behalf of Tyson
for property located at the southeast corner of Highway 16 and Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 11.50 acres. The request
is to rezone to I-2, General Industrial.
COST TO CITY:
$0.00
Cost of this Request
Account Number
Project Number
BUDGET REVIEW:
Category/Project Budget
Funds Used To Date
Remaining Balance
Budgeted Item
Category/Project Name
Program Name
Fund
Budget Adjustment Atta
Budget Manager Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Accou 'ng Manage Date
City Kttorne Date
Purchasing Officer Date
Internal Auditor
ADA Coordinator
Date
Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on August 28, 2000, Plann
unanimously voted 8-0-0 to recommend approval and to forward the rezoning to the City Council.
cb
Date
Cross Reference
New Item: Yes
Prev Ord/Res #:
Orig Contract Date:
Orig Contract Number:
FAYETTEV&LE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Tim Conklin, Planning Director
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: October 2, 2000
Attached is a copy of the ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 00-21 for your records. The
original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Ed Connell, Engineering
John Goddard,
MITTuC nr1
UFUINANCE NI -
AN ORDINANCE REZONING
THAT PROPERTY DESCRI
BED IN REZONING PETITION
RZ00-21 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATE-
LY 11.50 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST COR-
NER OF HIGHWAY 16 AND
HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD, AS
REQUESTED BY READ HUD-
SON ON BEHALF OF TYSON
FOODS, INC.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1 That the zone classi-
fication of the following descri-
bed property is hereby changed
as follows:
From"C-2, Thoroughfare Com-
mercial and C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial to 1.2, General In-
dustrial described in exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a
part 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 19th day of September,
2000.
APPROVED:
By: Fred Hanna, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: Heather Woodruff
City Clerk '
EXHIBIT A"
City of Fayetteville, RZOO-21
A part of the Northeast Duarte/
(NE1/4) of the Northwest quar-
ter (NW1/4) of Section Twenty
Three (23), Township Sixteen
(16) North, Range Thirty (30)
West of the 5th PM,, Washing-
ton County, Arkansas. more
particularly described as follow,
To -Wit:
Beginning at a point on the
East right-of-way of Highway 16
Bypass, which is 10.00 feet
East and N00°25'00"E 200.00
feet from the Southwest corner
of said 40 acre tract, thence
N00°2500"E along said right-
of-way 738.0 feet to the South
right-of-way of Huntsville
Street, thence with said right-of-
way N69°30'00E 114.0 feet,
$67°54'59"E 87.83 feet.
S70°0000E 233.00 feet,
575°31'4TE 244.56 feet to the
West right-of-way of Ray
' Street, thence with said West
right-of-way S01°42'54'W
294.69 feet, S01°0010"E
330.27 feet, thence leaving said
right-of-way West 150.0 feet,
thence South 179.30 feet to the
South line of said 40 acre tract,
thence West 257.70 feet,
thence N00°25'00'E 200 feet,
thence West 240.0 feet to the
point of beginning, Containing
11.49 acres, moreor less.
STATE RECEIVE[)
OFARKANSAS •
County of Washington } ss. OCT242000
4 2000
ACCTG.DEPT
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 certifythat 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 (29
the second insertion on the
day of 20
the third insertion on the day of 20
the fourth insertion on the 0 —
sher/General Manager
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this AD day of
""v `.r- Note Public
), Notary Public, State of Arkansas , ry
My Commission Expires:'4 Washington County
My Commission xptrus t )
Fees for Printing................
$ 61990
Costof Proof.............................................................$
Total..........................................................................$ qq