HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4667 ORDINANCE NO, 4 6 6 '
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 04- 1331 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3513, 3515 AND 3517 WEST 6T" STREET CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 0.80 ACRES FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL
TO C- 1 , NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS :
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as
follows:
From R-A, Residential Agricultural and C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial to C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial as shown 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 I above.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4"' day of January, 2005 .
APP VED :
By:
D GOODY, Mayor
ATTEST: % �RVCITRSry,,�
hv' G�SY OF•Gp �i
:U •
By: A a4me ; FAYETTEVILLE •
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk �.
o& y'4? SPS Jam=
9 o
�N�;OtA
Doc ID : 008123840002 Type : REL
Recorded : 02/01/2005 at 02 : 14 : 02 PM
Fee Amt : 811 . 00 Pace 1 of 2
Waehlnoton county . AR
Bette stamos circuit clerk
F11e200540004794
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 04-1331
PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 871 .65
FEET EAST AND 143 .22 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, SAID POINT BEING ON
THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY 62 AND RUNNING THENCE
SOUTH 74 DEGREES 9 MINUTES WEST 177.34 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY;
THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 196.2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74
DEGREES 9 MINUTES EAST 177.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74 THENCE NORTH 21
DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 196.5 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.80 ACRES MORE OR LESS, INCLUDING MINERAL RIGHTS.
Washington County, AR ,
I certify this Instrument was filed on
02/d1 /2005 02: 14:02 PM
and irecorded in Real Estate
File iNumber 2005-00004794
Bette Sta - Circuit Clerk
by
zoic v
•
1/y14.5
City Council Mee* of January 04, 2005 1146G7
Agenda Item Number. ��N 41 -1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO.
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Interim Zoning and Development Administrator
Date: December 15, 2004
Subject: Rezoning for Bale (RZN 04- 1331 )
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of an ordinance rezoning
approximately 0. 80 acres of property from R-A, Residential Agricultural and C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial to C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial. Staff recommended denial
of the original request to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
BACKGROUND
Property description: The subject property consists of 0.80 acres with three (3) large
vacant warehouse/commercial structures fronting onto Hwy 62 (6'" Street), west of
Dinsmore Trail in west Fayetteville. The structures are nonconforming, both in location
and intended use. The structures have been vacant for more than six months, and thus
only uses permitted within the existing zoning district (R-A) are allowed. The entirety of
the property is located within the 100-year floodplain, approximately 0. 15 miles west of
the Lowe' s C-PZD on 6 s Street (Hwy 62). Properties in this area have experienced
flooding in the past due in part to the existing development located in the floodplain and
floodway constructed prior to current floodplain and drainage regulations. As noted on
the zoning maps attached, a portion of this property is zoned C-2 and a portion is zoned
R-A, Residential Agricultural; the majority is R-A property, and has been zoned as such
since 1970. The subject parcel excludes a small portion of existing R-A to the west along
Hwy 62, as well. The property is bordered to the south and west by an expansive
automobile salvage yard (an existing nonconforming use in a C-2 district). To the north
the subject property is bound by Hwy 62 and a Tire & Auto shop, along with other
commercial developments, all of which have existed since before 1970. To the east is a
property with a single family house, recently rezoned from R-A to C- 1 .
Proposal: The applicant proposes a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate
commercial uses in the existing nonconforming structures.
Request: The request is to rezone the subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural
and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
City Council Meog of January 04; 2005
Agenda Item Number .
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission on December 13, 2004. No
public comments were received. The Planning Commission voted 5-3'-0 to recommend to
the City Council approval of rezoning request to C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial, as
opposed to the requested C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Additional information that
was not previously provided to staff has been included in the attached report.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04- 1331 FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3513, 3515 AND 3517 WEST 6TH STREET
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.80 ACRES FROM R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL TO C- 1 , NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERGIAL.
y
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COU, NCIL F THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: t/ \
\Section 1 : That the zone classification of the f\ollowing described
property is hereby changed.as\flows: \\
From R-A, Residential Agricultural and C7�2„T\o ighfare Commerrccial to C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A” attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
Section 2. That itie official zoningmap�of the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in
Section 1 above.
r~
1
PASSED ANDA PROVED this day, of , 2004.
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Sondra Smith, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 04-1331
PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 871 .65
FEET EAST AND 143 .22 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, SAID POINT BEING ON
THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF U. S. HIGHWAY 62 AND RUNNING THENCE
SOUTH 74 DEGREES 9 MINUTES WEST 177.34 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY;
THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 196.2 FEET,; THENCE NORTH 74
DEGREES 9 MINUTES EAST 177.34 FEET; THENCE,NORTH 74 THENCE NORTH 21
DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 196.5 FEET,/TO-THE POINT OF'�BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.80 ACRES MORE OR LESS INCLUDING MINERAL`RIGHTS.
aye eV11 PPC Meeting of December 13 , 2004
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE . ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Senior Planner
Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P., Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: December 08, 2004
RZN 04-1331 : (BALE, 596): Submitted by LISLE LAW FIRM for property located at 3513 ,
35157 AND 3517 W. 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and
C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request
is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Property Owner: PATRICIA BALE
Submitted on behalf of: LESTER W. BALE SALES CO.
Planner: JEREMY _PATE
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial,
based on the findings included as part of this report. The Planning Commission voted 5-3-
0 to recommend to City Council a rezoning of the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood
Commerical.
PLPIA1NNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
5-b-0 a,tcmN+�dv{toa .�'xG - L • '
Date: Mccember 131 .2004 O Approved O Denied
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
0Approved 0Denied
Date: .4anuary ' 4, 2004 (Is' readine;if.recommendedl
Comments:
K:IReporul2004PCReportsil2-13-04W7rVO4-1331 (MLE).doc
BACKGROUND:
Property description: The property under review consists of 0.80 acres with three (3) large
vacant warehouse/commercial structures fronting onto Hwy 62 (61h Street), west of Dinsmore
Trail in wes: Fayetteville. The structures are nonconforming, both in location and intended use.
The structures have been vacant for more than six months, and thus only uses permitted within
the existing zoning district (R-A) are allowed. The entirety of the property is located within the
100-year floodplain, approximately 0. 15 miles west of the Lowe's C-PZD on 61Street (Hwy 62).
Properties in this area have experienced flooding in the past due in part to the existing
development located in the floodplain and floodway constructed prior to current floodplain and
drainage regulations. As noted on the zoning maps attached, a portion of this property is zoned
C-2 and a portion is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural; the majority is R-A property, and has
been zoned as such since before 1970. The subject parcel excludes a small portion of existing R-
A to the west along Hwy 62, as well. The property is bordered to the south and west by an
expansive automobile salvage yard (an existing nonconforming use in a C-2 district). To the
north the subject property is bound by Hwy 62 and a Tire & Auto shop, along with other
commercial developments, all of which have existed as C-2 since before 1970. To the east is a
property currently before the City Council for a rezoning request, and consists of a single family
house.
The applicant directly to the east (Medley) recently requested a change in zoning from R-A to C-
2, just as the current applicant is requesting. Staff recommended denial of this request based on
its incompatibility with the Land Use Plan and policies, among other findings therein (see
attached). The Planning Commission voted 7- 1 -0 to forward the request to the City Council with
a recommendation for C- 1 , as opposed to the requested C-2. On December 07, 2004, the City
Council voted to approve an ordinance rezoning this adjacent property to C- 1 , Neighborhood
Commercial.
Proposal: The applicant proposes a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate a new use within
the existing structures on the property, based on conversations with the applicant.
Request: The request is to rezone the subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Hwy 62, H&R Tire & Auto C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
South Auto salvage yard C-21 R-A
East Sin le FamilyHome R-A
West Auto salvage yard R-A, C-2
INFRASTRUCTURE:
K.,Mepora12004PC Repone111-13-04V?ZN 04-1331 (WE).doc
Streets: Currently the site has access to 6"' Street. At the time of development,:this street .
will need to be brought up to current standards along the property frontage. These
improvements may include right-of-way dedication, pavement, curb and gutter,
storm drainage and sidewalks.
Water: The site currently does have access to public water. The nearest water main is a
12" main to the north along Highway 62 (6'" Street). Water service will need to
be extended within the property at the time of development.
Sewer: The site currently does not have access to sanitary sewer. An off-site sewer main
extension will be required to serve this development. The nearest sewer main is a
6" main to the west along Highway 62 (6'h Street). A capacity analysis of the 6"
sewer downstream of the site shall be conducted prior to development.
Fire: The subject property is located 1 .4 miles from Fire Station #6. Fire response time
is approximately 2-3 minutes.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not
substantially alter the population density nor will it create an undesirable increase
on police services. Access to this property is a concern because of the road
system on West Sixth Street. The speed and road type are of concern to the
Fayetteville Police Department due to the potential for accidents but we do not
believe this should prohibit the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN: The Future Land Use Plan designates this site for Mixed Use. Rezoning this
property to C-2 is not consistent with the land use plan.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
1 . A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed rezoning is not consistent with future land use planning
objectives, principles, and policies for Mixed Use Areas. The Future Land
Use plan identifies this area to "allow mixing of uses and integration of
design through the planning process." Additionally, Ch. 9.14 states: "in the
past, strip development in the areas along heavily traveled (generally state)
highways has been the common pattern. If Fayetteville is to retain its identity
as a unique place, strip development should be discouraged. . .," The existing
zoning and land use decisions for nearby properties were made under at least
three different General Plans, and reflect a wide variety of General Plan
policy in the City. Several surrounding properties have for the most part
K:VZeporv120041PC ReporzU2-13-04PZN 04-1331 (MLE).doc
0
existed in situ for over 30 years, and consist of.many nonconforming uses
that were established prior to the adoption of more current zoning
regulations in 1970. Property removed to the east is the most recently zoned
in the immediate vicinity (1987), under a different General Plan. And yet
another policy decisicn to rezone the Lowe's site to C-PZD (2002) further :a
the east combined land use and development plans together, allowing for a
large Tree Preservation area and other improvements to be added. Staff
finds continuing a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district along the
frontage of Hwy 62 in this location does not comport to the Future Land Use
plan guiding policies and strategies for implementation established today.
Rezoning of the property should not solely be based on existing,
nonconforming uses that do not reflect the city's guiding policies and Land
Use Plan, which is evident both on and around this parcel.
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 not justified or needed. The applicant's stated intent
is to rezone the property to allow for a new use in the existing nonconforming
buildings. Rezoning the property will not create a conforming structure;
rather, it will change the uses, setbacks and bulk and area requirements
allowed on the subject property. The property is located entirely within the
100-year floodplain as regulated by FEMA; future new development of any
kind will have certain restrictions imposed upon it both by the city and
FEMA based on its location in the floodplain.
3 . A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The size of the subject property will limit a great increase in traffic danger
and congestion, due to the size of development generated by 0.80 acres.
However, traffic volumes in this area are high, and increasing. Planning of
any future development on this site must address safe access and cross access
concerns. Hwy 62, a Principal Arterial, exists directly to the north. At the
time of development, improvement to this street will be required.
Police — Access to this property is a concern because of the road system on West Sixth
Street. The speed and road type are of concern to the Fayetteville Police
Department due to the potential for accidents but we do not believe this
should prohibit the rezoning request.
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.
K. IReporul2004WCReporail2-13-04VZZN04-1331 (MLE).doc
Finding: The proposed zoning would not substantially alter the population density in
the area, based on the C-2 zoning requested. Public service providers have
responded accordingly:
Police — It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not
substantially alter the population density nor will it create an undesirable increase
on police services.
Fire — Response time to the subject property (actual drive time) is approximately 2-3
minutes (approx. 1 .4 miles) from station #6.
Engineering - Currently the site has access to 6`h Street. At the time of development, this street
will need to be brought up to current standards along the property frontage. These
improvements will include right-of-way dedication, pavement, curb and gutter,
storm drainage and sidewalks.
The site currently does have access to public water. The nearest water main is a
12" main to the north along Highway 62 (6w Street). Water service will need to
be extended within the property at the time of development.
The site currently does not have access to sanitary sewer. An off-site sewer main
extension will be required to serve this development. The nearest sewer main is a
6" main to the west along Highway 62 (6c' Street). A capacity analysis of the 6"
sewer downstream of the site shall be conducted prior to development.
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: Staff is recommending denial of the subject request, and finds there are no
peculiar or extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning.
KARepor[s120041RC ReporaI12-13-04WZY 04-1331 (MLE).doc
0
•
161.03 District R -A, Residential -Agricultural
(A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural
district are designed to protect agricultural land
until an orderly transition to urban development
has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering
of development in rural areas; obtain economy of
public funds in the providing of public
improvements and services of orderly growth;
conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for
affordable housing, increase scenic attractiveness;
and conserve open space.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 6
Agriculture
Unit 7
Animal husbandry
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 37
Manufactured homes
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Ii Units per acre I One-half II
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Lot width minimum
200 ft.
Lot Area Minimum:
Residential:
2 acres
Nonresidential:
2 acres
Lot area per dwelling unit
2 acres
exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from
any boundary line of any residential district a
distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in
excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured
from the required setback lines.
(G) Building area. None
161.17 District C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial
District is designed especially to encourage the
functional grouping of these commercial
enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers.
(B) Uses.
(I) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping oods
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 17
Trades and services
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 33
Adult live entertainment club or bar
Unit 34
Liquor store
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public prntection and utility facilities
Unit 21
Warehousing and wholesale
Unit 28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 32
Sexually oriented business
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density. None.
(E) Setback requirements. (D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
Front
Side
Rear
(E)
Setback regulations.
35 ft.
20 ft.
35 ft.
(F) Height requirements. There shall be no
maximum height limits in the A -I District,
provided, however, that any building which
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a residential district
15 ft.
Rear
20 ft.
K:IReportsU0041PC ReporlU2-13-04WZN 04-1331 (fit LEJ.doc
(F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any
building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall
be set back from any boundary line of any
residential district a distance of one foot for each
foot of height in excess of 20 feet. No building
shall exceed six stories or 75 feet in height.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total
area of such lot.
161.16 District C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial
District is designed primarily to provide
convenience goods and personal services for
persons living in the surrounding residential areas.
(B) Uses.
(I) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 12
Offices, studios and
related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping
Unit 18
Gasoline service
restaurants
stations and drive-in
Unit 25
Professional offices
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 34
Liquor stores
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to a residential
district
loft.
Rear
20 ft.
K:IReporul2004PCReporus112-13-04WZN04-1331 (&1LE).doc
(F) Height. regulations.. There shall; 6e no
maximum height limits in C -I District,provided,
however, that any building which exceeds the
height of 10 feet shall be setback from any
boundary line of any residential district a distance
o: one foot for each foot of height in excess of 10
feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total
area of such lot.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
November 4, 2004
Mrs. Pat Bale
3513 W. 6ei Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Zoning Compliance at 3513 W. 6`s Street
Dear Mrs. Bale:
Planning staff has researched the property at 35 13 W. 6's Street after receiving a verbal request from
a gentleman interested in leasing the property for commercial use. The subject property is zoned R-
A, Residential Agricultural. In 2002 a Certificate of Zoning Compliance was issued for a furniture
store to be located on this site. At that time, staff researched the water records, which showed
continual service, and as such, the non -conforming use was permitted and issued a Certificate of
Zoning Compliance. However, the city's water records indicate that more than 120 days has passed
since the business, Furniture Connection, discontinued service to the subject property in July, 2003.
At that time, to continue the non -conforming use, the new business that moved into this location
would have been required by City Code § 161.02 to request a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The
change of use to a roofing company was not a change that the city could allow without processing a
Conditional Use Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission within 120 days from the date
that Furniture Connection vacated the property.
I have attached the portion of the code which pertains to nonconforming uses along with this letter.
§ 164.12(A)(1) states "... it is the intent of this chapter to permit these nonconformities to continue
until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival." § 164.12(C)(3) states "Cease of Use. 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;"
Therefore, no new business may be located on this property unless it complies with the R -A zoning
district. Attached is the portion of the code which describes the purpose and uses allowed within the
R -A, Residential Agricultural zoning district.
Recently, a request for rezoning the property adjoining your property, located at 3507 W. 6th Street,
to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial was before the Planning Commission. Staff recommended denial
of that request. The Future Land Use Plan designates that site, along with your site, for Mixed Use.
Rezoning this property to C-2 is not consistent with the future land use plan. In addition, your entire
parcel lies within the 100 -year floodplain. Any new development within the 100 -year floodplain
K.: I Dawn12004 Correspondencel3513 6th street, bales. doc
I
would be required to get a floodplain development permit, which, at minimum, requires structures to
be elevated a minimum of two (2) feet above the base flood elevation.
If you have questions or need clarification on any of the items stated above please feel free to contact
the Planning Division at 575-8267.
Sincerely,
Dawn T. Warrick, AICP
Zoning & Development Administrator
/rt
Enclosures
cc: Tim Conklin, Director, Community Planning & Engineering Svcs.
K: IDawn12004 Correspondence13513 61h street.bales.doc
12-16-04; 3:58PM;LIsIO LOW Firm• PA
I.
•
479+751+6792
# 2/ 2
LISLE
JOI-INLISLE (ofcounse4
GiRlS LISLE
DONNIE RUnEDGE
STEVE LISLE
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Ms. Renee Thomas
Planning Department
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Facsimile: 479-575-8202
.SW FIRiL Pail
1458 Plea Place, Suite 101
Springdale, AR 72764-5273
479-750-4444
Fax 479-7513792
December 16, 2004
Re: Property Located at 3513-3515-3517 West 6th Street
Application for Rezoning
Dear Ms. Thomas:
I • lr
I .•
•
••
I represent Mrs. Pat Bale in her request to rezone the above -referenced property from
Residential/Agriculture to Commercial Zone C-2.
In the Planning Commission meeting held on December 13, 2004, the Commission voted to
recommend the property be rezoned C-1.
In the upcoming city council meeting, we are going to request that the council rezone this
property to C-2 as per our original request.
If you should have any question or comment on the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.
Highest personal regards,
LISLE LAW FIRM, P.A.
Gene A. Franco
Attorney at Law
GAF/mrc
Cc: Hon. Kit Williams, City Attorney
Client
Patricia Bale, the sole owner of the property which is requesting
the rezoning of the property at 3513,3515 & 3517 W. 6th: Street
i;s requesting the zoning change to meetthe City of Fayetteville's
zoning ordinances. A portion of the buildings at 3515 & 3517
are zoned c-2 at the present time. The property has been occupied
since 1979 and the fact that the buildings were partially zoned
as RA was• not known until the first of Novemher2004. Taxes have
been paid on commercial property. The zoning change requested
will not change anything concerning surrounding properties, traffic
or land use. The change will correct the zoning which has been
incorrect for years.
Nov, o a 2004 I I
Al - • •
Z
Q _ WARRANTY DEED Fr , 7 rh,
E5 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: 1
1I
That I, Priscilla Hell, a sinole person, hel•e ltjfttej'ma11ed
Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Onet`"Dollar
($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to me in hand
paid by Lester W. Bale and Patricia F. Bale, husband and wife,
hereinafter called Grantees, do hereby ❑rant, bargain and sell
unto the said Grantees and Grantees' heirs and assigns, the
following described land, situate in Washington County, State of
Arkansas, to -wit:
Part of the Southwest Quarter of the North-
west Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 16
North, Range 30 West and being more particu-
larly described as follows, to -wit: Begin-
ning at a point which is 871.65 feet East and
1.43.22 feet North of the Northwest Corner of
said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, said point being on the South
right-of-way of U. S. Highway 62, and running
thence South 74 degrees 9 minutes West 177.34
feet along said right-of-way; thence South 21
degrees 30 minutes East 196.2 feet; thence
North 74 degrees 9 minutes East 177.34 feet;
thence North 21 degrees 30 minutes West 196.5
feet, to the point of beginning. Containing
0.80 acres more or less, including mineral
rights.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said lands and appurtenances
thete.unt.o—b.elonq.inn_ unto ._th-e_.s-a.id__flran_t.ees._a.nd_.Gran-t-aes! ._heir_s.__—_.
and assigns, forever. And- I, the said Grantor, hereby covenant
that I am lawfully seized of said land and premises, that the
same is unincumbered, and I will forever warrant and defend the
title to the said lands against all legaL,pla �A,1whatever.
WIETfiTm�n hand and sea Pf2 Pf tC//t�ttll��ttii�lT ccJ9rwp ` %4seey,
IP06PERTY TO BE REZONED Y0 BY THE � APFLIC°:"�-
AS SUBMITTED EY THE APPLICANT"`
- (t144PeJ&P gr'
STATEAB��ciVF1'RIr1NSR�8'e )
COUNTY 0FA'ArIf44 7w4.)) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
7glE the day of 1983, bef e me, a
per ovally appeared Priscilla Bell,known to
orily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed
f2MVq in instrument and acknowledged that she had
the s me for the purposes therein set forth.
AYE,7EVILLE «: _: _, __ ,
'LISLE LAW FIRM, EA.!
JOHN LISLE (of couacd)
CHRIS LISLE
DONNIE RIJrLEDGE
STEVE LISLE
Fayetteville Planning Commission
125 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
1458 Plaza Place, Suite 101
Springdale, AR 72764-5273
479-750-4444
Fax 479-751-6792
December 13, 2004
Hand Delivered at Planning Commission Meeting on 12/13/04
Re: Property Located at 3513-3515-3517 West 6th Street
Application for Rezoning
Dear Commissioners:
JAN THORNTON
JIM HATQ-4R
J. TRAIL ROGERS
ROBERT D. BRANDON
DOROTHYANNE BARRY
GENE A. FRANOO
I represent Mrs. Pat Bale in her request to rezone the above -referenced property from
Residential/Agriculture to Commercial Zone C-2. I have provided herewith some information
on paper so that you can be adequately informed as to the issues and matters in resolving this
request for rezoning. Attached you will find numerous documents or other items that I would
like to spend a little time describing for you.
Attached and marked as Exhibit 1 is a zoning map printed out from the City of Fayetteville's
website. Mrs. Bale's land is marked by the boundaries which have been added to this map. As
you will note, this property contains three buildings that face or front West 6`h Street on the south
side of the road. The distance from the western boundary to the western building is 62 feet. The
distance from the eastern boundary to the edge of the eastern building is 24 feet.
The property line is also marked showing the rear boundary of the property 18 feet behind the
buildings. (Please note that the boundaries marked on Exhibit I are not to scale but are only for
reference purposes.) As you view Exhibit 1 you will note that part of buildings 2 and 3 are
already contained within lands that have been re -zoned to C-2.
The next document you have which is labeled as Exhibit 2 is a larger map showing more area
surrounding Mrs. Bale's property. Again I have placed a circle around the areas that we are
seeking to re -zone.
The next item that is labeled as Exhibit 3 is actually a composite of five photographs showing
various views including the subject property.
Fayetteville Planning Commission
Re: Property Re -Zoning Issue
December 13, 2004
Page 2 of 3
a. Photograph No. I is a view of the properties on the land owned by Mrs. Bale and
showing from left to right Building No. 1, Building No. 2, and Building No. 3 as
they have been labeled.
b. Photograph No. 2 shows the view looking north from the front of the subject
property and showing property almost directly across the street and to the
northeast, said property being zoned C-2.
c. Photograph No. 3 shows the property directly north and slightly to the west of the
subject property with said property being zoned C-2.
d. Photograph No. 4 is a photograph taken from a vantage point north and west of
the subject property. The photograph shows on the left the three buildings located
on Mrs. Bale's property as well as the adjoining property to the west, 62 Auto
Sales and Salvage Yard, which is also zoned C-2.
e. Photograph No. 5 is a view of the property from a vantage point north and east of
Mrs. Bale's property showing Mrs. Bales' property in relation to her adjoining
neighbors to the east and west.
Regarding Exhibit 3, Photograph No. 1 we would like to provide the following information for
the Commission. This lot and all three buildings were acquired in 1979. When this land was
purchased, these buildings were already on the property. In looking at Photograph No. 1,
Building No. 1, the following businesses have been located in this building since Mrs. Bale " "
acquired the property: a) Freight Furniture Sales; b) Kawasaki Motorcycle Dealership and
Service; c) Marble Ark (business manufactured marble on site and also conducted retail sales); d)
Superior Vaults (sales of vaults and tombstones); e) Furniture Connection (general sales of home
furnishings); and, most recently, f) Basey's Roofing (satellite office from their Rogers home
office as well as storage for said business.
Regarding Building No. 2, this building has been and is now used as storage for IGA Food
Stores. This building is used to store IGA's fixtures including shelving and the like and has been
used as such since Mrs. Bale acquired the property.
Building No. 3 denoted in Photograph No. l is Mrs. Bale's personal business. This has been
Advanced Floor Company since the property was purchased by the Bales in 1979. It consists of
a showroom and sales for carpeting, and all other manner of residential flooring. It is also used
for storage of carpeting and other flooring.
Building No. 1 is at this time vacant. A Mr. Gene Hudgins is desirous of using said building to
open up a pawn shop. Mrs. Bale stands ready to rent this property to him if the property can be
re -zoned as she has requested. Other than this one issue, Mrs. Bale has no other plans at this
time to change or otherwise modify this property in any way or the way the property is used.
Exhibit 4
attached hereto
is a
letter from Chris
Sargent.
Mr. Sargent is the
owner
of 62 Auto
Salvage.
This is the land
and
business located
directly
to the west of Mrs.
Bale's
property and is
Fayetteville Planning Commission
Re: Property Re -Zoning Issue
December 13, 2004
Page 3 of 3
reflected in Photograph No. 2 of Exhibit 3. This letter purports that they have no objection to the
re -zoning; of the subject property to C-2.
Exhibit 5 attached hereto is a letter from Mr. Harold Burnett. Mr. Burnett owns the property
across 6`s Street north and east of Mrs. Bale's property. This property is depicted in Photograph
No. 2 of Exhibit 3. This letter also states that there is no objection to the re -zoning of Mrs.
Bale's property to C-2.
We have received no negative feedback from any of the members of the public regarding our
request to re -zone the subject property. We are under the impression that there is no objection
from the public to this re -zoning. Considering the property surrounding Mrs. Bale's property
and the nature of its use at this time as well as how it is zoned, we would submit that allowing
this land to be re -zoned to C-2 will not bring about or cause the general complaint and/or
objections one hears from the public at large in typical re -zoning cases_ Specifically, in
considering the nature of the property and the zoning surrounding the subject property, re -zoning
Mrs. Bale's property to C-2 should not create any future problems with traffic, noise
concentration, or, most certainly, not provide anyone with a basis for claiming their property
values would be decreased. More specifically, this property is obviously used for the type of
zoning requested and we would submit that there are no reasonable or rational bases for denying
the re -zoning.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Highest personal regards,
LISLE LAW FIRM, P.A.
CITh
Gene A. Franco
Attorney at Law
GAF/mrc
/encls
cc w/encls: Client
Loading Data
}
_ '11
rH
{l..
7 #
1
/�
ze
I
' F .
��
Via)
1':
v) � n•
v /
G
i`.j i l-�. �•
+'vjV
!
K
017
'
. S
.
I
M1
,
-&.LII.11
9
0
3
� r
`mss ' Z x
tx'(i
.'Ya ..
.JJi•
n
.,.z
4 .W ..:a
,� -- t..--_'-,
k
0\IY
f �, z3
.sS ti
z�.. •�i).7 11
dr }
iI11111
Lit r Ip�
a�._.
i a" ,4.
If er! 'I � y) � ♦'4
. :r,
, 4j' - ',•
— . `:. _sty k ; � <.,
l
I
(' aq rt[ i..A
1 f L a 4T
4 f .�
•
k
S
62 Auto Salvage
3595 W. 6T" STREET
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704
(479) 443-2101
FAX (479) 443-2078
December 7, 2004
To Whom It May Concern:
My property located at 3595 W. 6`s Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas adjoins
the property of Advanced Floor Co. owned by Pat Bale located at 3517
W. 6`h Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. I have absolutely no opposition to her
rezoning her property to C-2.
President/Owner
Hwy. 62 Auto Salvage & Sales Inc.
• R TIRE & AUTO, INAI
3500 W. 6th • HWY. 62 W.
FAYETTEVILLE, ARK. 72701
Phone (501) 443-4155
Dec. 02,2004
To Whom it May Concern;
The said property at 3517 W. 6th St. In
Fayetteville, AR belonging to Mrs. Pat
Bale.
Which is across the street from H & R
Tire & Auto Co,, Inc. at 3500 W. 6th.St.
We have no objections to the property
being Zoned C-2 Commercial.
We, were under the understanding that
all the property on W. 6th St. was Zoned
C-2 Commercial.
T anks
Harold Burnett
Planning Commission' • •
October 25, 2004
Page 21
RZN 04-1243: Rezoning (MEDLEY, 557/596): Submitted by RONALD DEAN
MEDLEY for property located at 3507 W 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R -A,
RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request
is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ostner: Our next item is a rezoning, RZN 04-1243, rezoning for Medley.
Warrick: The subject property is located at 3507 W. 6°Street. It contains
approximately 1.03 acres. The property is currently zoned R -A,
Residential Agricultural. The development on the site currently is a single
family home. Most of the property behind the home consists of a vacant
field. The entirety of the property is located within the 100 year flood
plain. This site is just west of, it's not adjacent to, but it's slightly west of
the property that contains Lowe's, and that was zoned C-PZD for the
Lowe's Development and the associated outbuildings and other lots that
were a part of that Preliminary Plat project. The property is bordered to
the west by vacant as well as occupied commercial structures as well as an
automobile salvage yard. That is an existing non -conforming use within
the C-2 district. A portion of the property is zoned R -A, that's the
adjacent property, with the majority being C-2. Many of the surrounding
properties contain existing nonconformities. Through the years we tried to
do a little bit of history to understand how the various zonings have been
applied to properties surrounding this. 'We believe that many of the
developments or many of the structures preexisted our 1970 zoning
ordinances. There was a large rezoning request. Several different districts
requested for property located adjacent to this in 1987; however, that
property really hasn't developed under the zoning districts that were
applied at that point in time. The applicant does propose to rezone the
subject property to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial in order to facilitate
future sale and Lotential development of the property. The site currently
has access to 6 street. It does have access to public water, however, it
does not have access to sanitary sewer, that would have to be extended to
provide for any future development on the site. Fire response time is
between two and three minutes, and the report from the Police Department
states that the requested rezoning would not substantially alter population
density, therefore would not undesirably increase the load on public
services. The land use plan, or future land use plan, does designate this
site as mixed use. Staff feels that rezoning the property to a C-2
designation would not be consistent with the City's adopted future land
use plan. I think that the finding that staff feels is the most relevant with
regard to our recommendation is the first finding, which you're required to
make, and that is a determination of the degree to which the proposed
zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principals, and
policies and with land use and zoning plans. And within that finding, staff
believes that the, future land use plan identifies this area as mixed use to
allow the mixing of uses and integration of design through the planning
Planning Commission • •
October 25, 2004
Page 22
process. Additionally, that same chapter, 9.14 states, "In the past, strip
development in the areas along heavily traveled, generally state highways,
has been the common pattern. If Fayetteville is to retain its identity as a
unique place, strip development should be discouraged." For that reason
and for the reason of compatibility and being able to ensure that we have
the best understanding of how this property would develop, staff is not in
favor of the requested rezoning to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and
give us your presentation.
Medley: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dean Medley. And I'd like to explain
why I'd like to rezone this property. My mother is in an assisted care
living facility. It costs $350.00 above her medical expenses to take care of
her. Now you're interested in why the. Planning Commission says I can't
rezone this property. I need to get as much out of this property as I can to
take care of her care. That's one of the biggest reasons that I'm rezoning
this property. Now I don't know if that fits in with the Planning
Commission's plans or anything else, but I understand that there are
limitations and you worry about the use of this property. Well when I sell
this property, I talked to a realtor, and he said that I can stipulate what
kind of a person buys that. That the Planning Commission will only
accept this and the Planning Commission will only accept that. I'd like to
know from the Planning Commission, if they're going to turn this down, I
want to know what they will accept in there.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Medley. At this point, I'll open it up to the public for any
comments- concerning this RZN 04-1243. Seeing none, I'll close it to the
public and bring it back to the Commission.
Trumbo: Question for Dawn, what would you be in favor of rezoning this to?
Warrick: I thought you'd ask that question. Obviously we think that the C-2 zoning
is too intense a designation and it is a zoning district that would basically
encourage the type of strip development that the Council and the City, the
citizens have identified as undesirable. We do have an R -O zoning
district, which is Residential Office, it is specifically a mixed use district,
which would allow for professional offices as well as single family or
duplex developments. That would very likely be a more appropriate
designation. In a perfect world, we'd love to look at this piece of property
with the adjacent properties and have some sort of comprehensive
understanding of what collectively we could do on that grouping of
properties. That's not what we're looking at and I know that Mr. Medley
doesn't have the ability to bring forward his property as well as his
neighbors and everything along the lines for us to review. I think the
Residential Office district, if we were going to make a recommendation
Planning Commission • •
October 25, 2004
Page 23
for the City Council, would be an appropriate starting point. They
certainly are going to be the ones making the policy decision to determine
if it fits with their vision of this part of the City. C-2 would be as I
mentioned, a very intense district, and it's not something that is easy to
deal with when you're looking at a property that's wholly within the 100 -
year flood plain. A development of professional offices or residences
would likely be easier to regulate in an R -O district with the situation of
flood plain on the site. I guess what I'm saying in a very long winded way
is R -O would probably be an appropriate district.
Trumbo: Thank you.
Medley: You know the R -O might be acceptable with me. I'm not trying to create
problems for the City at all. No problems at all. If they'll just hear me
out. If we're talking about an R -O, I'd like to have a variance where if
someone like, would the Planning Commission be opposed to something
like McDonald's or would they opposed to something like Wendy's or
maybe, I have a friend that's got a restaurant, would you be opposed to
something like that? If they're talking R -O, could you have R -O with a
variance? Thank you.
Warrick: The Residential Office district would allow for a sit down restaurant, not a
drive -through, only by Conditional Use approval by the Planning
Commission. The R -O district does not allow for Use Unit 18, which is
restaurants that allow for drive -through, so many of the fast food chains
that were mentioned would not be something that we could approve even
under a conditional use condition, however, if it was a more eat -in
restaurant without the drive through facility, that's something that the
Planning Commission could consider, but it would have to come to you as
a Conditional Use and you'd have to be able to consider, I believe one of
the primary things that you're going to have to be looking at, or that we
will be collectively looking at in the future, is access. The access to this
site will be very important and what we're trying to regulate is 6th Street
not becoming College Avenue, which is what everyone points to and says,
we're not really willing to do that again because we feel that there are too
many problems inherent in that type of development. So access
management is probably one of the key points that we'll have to look at
for any type of development on the property, but as far as land use, you
can't grant a variance on zoning, but you can look at Conditional Uses that
are specified as the types of specific uses that you. can request under any
particular zoning district. An R -O would allow for an eating place that
does not have a drive -through.
Ostner: Thank you.
Planning Commission •
October 25, 2004
Page 24
Vaught: Question for staff. Just because I don't have it in front of me. A C -I,
what's the difference between an R -O and a C -I?
Warrick: C -I allows much more shopping, retail type activities, it would also allow
for drive -through restaurants I believe.
Vaught: What I'm debating is it's an acre site, so no matter what, it's going to be
fairly limited on what goes on there. You know, I do think that C-2 for
such a small site might be a little intense, but I'm debating between the
difference of C -I and R -O. As far as being appropriate, granted, I mean,
it's an acre in the middle of a C-2 island.
Warrick: I would just want to add that the C-1 zoning district is designated
neighborhood commercial. It is primarily to provide convenience goods,
personal service type items, and as I mentioned it does allow for
neighborhood shopping, which is most of your retail type establishments.
Gas stations and drive -through restaurants are also included in that
grouping.
Shackelford: I'm kind of going down the same road as Commissioner Vaught. I've said
many times tonight, I'm in agreement with City staff and their findings,
I'm not so sure that I wholeheartedly agree with these tonight. As you
drive out to this property, it's very much, in my opinion, a commercial
field on the site. You look at some of the adjoining properties, it's almost
an industrial field with the salvage yard and some other properties that are
very close in proximity to this property. You look at the map on 10.17,
there's C-2 directly across the street from this property to the north,
there's C-2, back to the east, you know I'm not so sure that this corridor
isn't a significantly different corridor than it was when the land use plan
was put together with the improvements of the Lowe's and the other
things out there and the traffic counts that we're seeing. I understand the
design and the desire for mixed use, I'm just thinking that this property's
going to struggle developing as a mixed use piece of property. And on top
of that, you throw into the mix that it's entirety is within the 100 year
flood plain, which I think is going to further limit the desire, or even the
ability, to develop this as an R -O zoning, with a residential house, duplex,
or some sort of nice professional office. I don't know that those types of
uses, from many different stand points are going to flow very well in a
flood plain area. This is one that I've struggled with, I've looked at, and I
understand where the staff is coming from on the specific findings of fact,
although I understand that they're following the land use plan that was put
.in place, my common sense is that this is a commercial piece of property.
And it makes sense to consider it with that zoning, so that's my comments
at this point.
Ostner: Thank you.
Planning Commi.csinn- • •
October 25, 2004
Page 25
Vaught: I have one further question for staff. C-1 to C-2, what does it now allow,
C -I versus the C-2?
Warrick: The C-2 district, beyond the uses permitted in C-1, opens up commercial
recreation land use, adult live entertainments, liquor stores, trades and
services. Trades and services is a pretty wide open land use or use unit,
and it basically, includes, automobile sales and service, truck sales, used
car lots, boats and accessories, and a wide variety of service type uses. So
those are the uses that in addition to those permitted in C-1 would expand
the ability for development in C-2.
Ostner: I'd just like to throw in my opinion here. When we were on tour, I
quizzed you pretty thoroughly about this because I didn't quite understand
your standpoint either. Because I would agree with Commissioner
Shackelford, there is a commercial field. It's apparent that there aren't
going to be homes built on this spot. But what Ms. Warrick explained to
.me, is it's almost an issue of scale. And as she referred to, this gentleman
does not have the ability to get with all of his neighbors and get a 20 acre
PZD together, just to get his project rezoned. But with a larger
development, there would be, instead of 12 curb cuts, 1. And that makes a
big difference between creating a College Avenue or creating something
more organized. Still commercial, it's still all developed, with a
commercial field, but it happens in a different pattern. I'm inclined to
vote with staff, that this zoning, with this scale, with this barely 1.03 acres,
is not, does not go with our plans to try to stop strip development. So,
that's what I have to say.
Vaught: My two cents, my gut is I understand that, and I wholeheartedly believe it,
but we're dealing with an acre in the middle of all this C-2. More than.
likely, if we wanted to really control the development in this area, it being
a C-2 and being able to combine some of the areas around it for a possibly
a larger development would make more sense to me than having a little
island that's forced to develop by itself. Ideally, if this would come back
as a PZD or something where we could see an overall plan for the area but
we don't have that luxury in this case. So we're looking at a one acre tract
in the middle of a large ocean of commercials. Granted, some of it's
undeveloped, and we would love to see it come through as a whole. So
I'm more inclined to make it a zoning that could be combined with some
areas around it, and be incorporated, because more than likely, this one
acre will be, need to be, due to its terrain and location, so that's where I'm
tom. I don't know if I feel R -O is necessarily the proper zoning for this
single piece of property. I just don't know if I believe R -O for this tiny
one acre tract is going to accomplish our desires for the overall area, but I
also understand you've got to start somewhere. It's one of those that it's
Planning Commission •
October 25, 2004
Page 26
difficult, but I'm more inclined to rezone it for some sort of commercial
use than leave it as an R -O, or to make it an R -O.
Ostner: Those are good points, I would want to continue that dialogue because I
agree. I'm not relishing the fact that he's somewhat suffering at the
expense of the overall plan. But once this one acre is rezoned, with that
zoning goes development rights. And the buyer does not have to
coordinate with anyone. And that's where small parcels are given their
development rights just like College Avenue. So that I completely
understand.
Vaught: And that's why I'm leaning towards C -I to further limit some of those
service and trade type of developments I think that come along with those
development rights. Even though it is surrounded by C-2, and it's next
door to several service trades.
Ostner: I guess I'm really talking more curb cuts than anything else.
Vaught: No matter what we zone it, this one piece of property would get a curb cut.
Ostner: Not necessarily, not at all.
Vaught: Not
unless it's combined with others.
If this is
rezoned anything, then
they
come through for development and
they have
to have access.
Ostner: Unless they're coordinating with a large development.
Vaught: Unless they're coordinating, but an R -O coordinating with a C-2 is what
would be an interesting coordination.
Clark: Maybe this is inappropriate, but tonight we are just deciding whether a C-
2 is appropriate for this piece of land, correct? It seems, and I'm
concerned by the same thing that both of you have discussed. I think that
C-2 is way too intense, I'm going to agree with staff on that. There are
options. R -O might not work, C -I seems like a very workable thing.
Regardless, I think that that can be worked out between Mr. Medley and
the staff. So I'm just going to blaze ahead and move that we reject RZN
04-1243 as a C-2. It can come back.
Warrick: Before you vote, I'd just like to add that it is within your purview, the
Planning Commission can approve, modify or disapprove a rezoning that
is before you. So you do have the ability to consider either R -O or C -I or
whatever other district you feel might be appropriate for this particular site
as a recommendation to the City Council. It's my opinion that it would be
appropriate for you to do that so that Mr. Medley doesn't have to start this
process again in order to get a recommendation.
Planning Commission •
October 25, 2004
Page 27
Clark: Okay, that's a new rule; I didn't know we could do that.
Warrick: You do have that ability.
Ostner: We do it all the time. Commissioner Shackelford's good at it. Would you
like to amend your motion?
Clark: C-1 okay with you. Why not, we'll take a time out.
Medley: First of all, I'd like to thank all of you. You're considerate, and I'm
willing to work with you all. If we could amend it to C-1, that's fine, like
I say, I'm willing to work with you.
MOTION:
Clark: C -I's okay, then I will amend my motion, to move we approve RZN 04-
1243 as a C -I zoning:
Myres: I'll second.
Ostner: I have a motion for approval for a C -I zoning on Item 04-1243. Motion
was from Commissioner Clark, a second from Commissioner Myres. I'm
going to vote against this. I believe C-1 is too intense for this piece of
property. Is there further discussion? Call the roll please.
Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN
04-1243 to the City Council with a recommendation for C-1 zoning was
approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no.
5
RZN04-1331
One Mile View
Overview
BALE
R54
[.l
cz
P�
z
R9F.�1
0p . i
i4F2_I��
Sr11—_
M.
24—, f
x RSF-
•%,
R -22 12
C.1 C3
jr
RSF
R -A
I.
C-2 RSFJI
/'i. RO
CR20
eJl 11 I
T li RT-f2
e..- C-2
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RSF-4 I RA
Legend Boundary Master Street Plan
Subject Property �1i Planning Area Master Street Plan
�
RZN04-1331 y000% Freeway/Expressway
000000° Overlay District ®Principal Arterial
Outside City r_ AenorMenal
Collector
0•• Historic Collector
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Miles
Ss
G
\y 1
w\ \
w e
.V w\
\ w
• . - •- 4
:... ...:• •r_.... ::.... : •.... .....
_.: c -s -.. ••__ .•. .. _-
. _ ::-_ _ _✓ .R -e
4 . • • . • a_ _
Mixed Use
:::::::::::::: SUBJECT PROPERTY j
egend.
......
. • R.A ? a Parks
• • • • _ • • • • • • • • _ "" <"
. _ _ . . . . . . ........................ Residential.:
❑,.
RSF.0: _ _ _ .:':: .. .: .. : .:i ce r-,�'_1" RegonalGomrt1
... _.. • .... ... _.. �+ RS ra ® Industrial...
i .. ..ysItI University
Overview Legend
Subject Property Master Street Plan
Boundary
--' -- RZNO4-1331 Freeway/Expressway
'" Planning Area
�000 , %. Principal Arterial
Streets 0o Overlay District
000000 A �
• \ Existing V Minor Arterial
_ ' outside City
Collector
ri Panned
••.. Historic Collector
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
0
JOHN LISLE (of counsel
CHRIS LISLE
DONNIE RUTLEDGE
STEVE LISLE
VIA
Ms. Renee
113 Wdst Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
;LISLE LAW FII- I P.A.
U.S. MAIL
Facsimile: 479-575-8202
1458 Plaza Place, Suite 101
Springdale, AR 72764-5273
479-750-4444
Fax 479-751-6792
December 16, 2004
Re: Property Located at 3513-3515-3517 West 6th Street
Application for Rezoning
Dear Ms. Thomas:
COQ Y
JAN THORNFON
JIM HATCHER
J. TRAIL ROGERS
ROBERTD. BRANDON
DOROTHYANNE BARRY
GENE A. FRANCO
I represent Mrs. Pat Bale in her request to rezone the above -referenced property from
Residential/Agriculture to Commercial Zone C-2.
In the Planning Commission meeting held on December 13, 2004, the Commission voted to
recommend the property be rezoned C -I.
In the upcoming city council meeting, we are going to request that the council rezone this
property to C-2 as per our original request.
If you should have any question or comment on the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.
Highest personal regards,
LISLE LAW FIRM, P.A.
Gene A. Franco
Attorney at Law
GAF/mrc
Cc: Hon. Kit Williams, City Attorney
Client
Jeremy Pate d�
Submitted By
dinance approving
• City of Fayetteville •
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
Contracts
4 -Jan -05
City Council Meeting Date
Planning
Division
Action
Operations
Department
at 3513, 3515,
AND 3517 W.
6th Street. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural
and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,
and contains
approximately 0.80 acres.
The request is to rezone the subject
property to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial.
The Planning Commission
recommends rezoning this property
to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial.
$0.001 I n/a I I n/a
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category / Project Name
n/a
Account Number
n/a
Project Number
Budgeted Item EJ
n/a
Funds Used to Date
n/a
Remaining Balance
Budget Adjustment Attached
n/a
Program / Project Category Name
n/a
Fund Name
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
_____________ / G `, o7" Original Contract Date:
Departure t Director Date
j% t, lei- \ Original Contract Number:
/ / J
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 l l'0`1 Received in City Clerk's Office
City orney Date
• •
Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
Page 51
RZN 04-1331: Rezoning (BALE, 596): Submitted by LISLE LAW FIRM for property
located at 3513, 3515, AND 3517 W. 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R -A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The
request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1331 for Bale. If we could have the staff report
please.
Pate: The subject property for item number sixteen is located at 3513, 3515 and
3517 W. 6'h Street. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial and R -A, Residential Agricultural and does contain
approximately 0.80 acres. It is directly west of the Medley rezoning
request that just went before City Council. I did include it as part of your
history here. The applicant directly to the east, Mr. Medley, recently
requested a change in zoning from R -A to C-2, much like the current
applicant is requesting. Staff did recommend denial of this request based
on it's incompatibility with the land use plan and policies along with other
findings with regard to our findings for a rezoning. I did attach those
minutes for your review. The Planning Commission voted seven to one to
forward that request to City Council with a recommendation for C -I as
opposed to C-2. The applicant was before Council on December 7`h and
was approved for C -I zoning. That is just a little history on the property
directly to the east. This request is also for a C-2 zoning. The surrounding
properties are zoned primarily R -A and C-2. Much of these properties
were developed and/or zoned prior to. 1970 when our current zoning
regulations went into affect. Therefore, there are a lot of non -conforming
structures and non -conforming uses in this area. This property contains
three non -conforming structures and would be a non -conforming use were
they in use. The structures have been vacant for more than six months. -
Thus, only uses permitted within existing R -A zoning district area
allowed. The entire property is also located within the 100 -year
floodplain, much like the property to the east. This is approximately .15
miles west of the Lowe's PZD on 6`h Street. Properties in this area have
experienced flooding in the past due in part to the existing development
located within the floodplain and floodway constructed prior to our current
drainage and floodplain regulations. As noted in the zoning maps attached
in your staff report, mainly page 16.11, you can see a strange shaped piece
of R -A property. The auto salvage yard you see there is zoned C-2. It is a
non -conforming use in the C-2 zoning district. Meaning it would not be
allowed today in that zoning district as it is developed. This request is not
that entire R -A piece. Essentially, it is the rectangle piece, .80 acres
around those three structures that you see there that we did visit on
Thursday at agenda session. The site does currently have access to public
water. It does not have access to sanitary sewer. Any redevelopment of
this property would require extension of sewer lines to serve this
development. The property is located 1.4 miles from Fire Station #6, fire
Planning Commission •
December 13, 2004
Page 52
response time is approximately 2-3 minutes. Staff is recommending
denial of the C-2 zoning request based on the policies found in our
General Plan 2020 land use plan. This plan designates this site for mixed
use, as many of the projects that we have seen recently have shown.
Rezoning this property to C-2 staff finds is not consistent with the land use
plan. Many of the same findings are actually found in this report as with
the last report. We treat each one of these individually but the
circumstances here are much the same. Our 2020 Plan does state strip
development along heavily traveled areas has been a common pattern.
However, if Fayetteville is to retain it's identity as a unique place, strip
development should be discouraged. That is a quote out of General Plan
Chapter 9. The existing zoning land use decisions for nearby properties
were made under at least three different General Plans and reflect a wide
variety of the policy in the city. Several surrounding properties have, for
the most part, existed as they are for over 30 years and consist of many
non -conforming uses that were established prior to 1970, which was when
the current zoning regulations were adopted. Staff finds also that the
proposed zoning is not justified or needed. The applicants stated intent is
to rezone the property to allow for a new use in the existing non-
conforming buildings. Rezoning the property however, will not create a
conforming structure. It will change the uses, the setbacks, the bulk and
area requirements allowed on the subject property however. A more
intensive use pattern would be allowed on this property. Additionally, the
property is located entirely within the 100 -year floodplain and will have
certain restrictions imposed upon redevelopment on this site. Access to
this property from the police department states a concern because the road
system on W. 6'h Street. The speed and road type are of concern to the
Fayetteville Police Department. However, they do not believe that this
should prohibit the rezoning request. As I mentioned, staff is
recommending denial of this rezoning request and finds that there are no
peculiar or extenuating circumstances which justify this zoning which we
find is not compatible with our land use plan.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present?
Bale: Good evening, my name is Pat Bale, I own the property that we are trying
to get rezoned. My husband and I acquired this property in 1979 and we
have been in business down there since then. I am being represented by
Mr. Franco here.
Franco: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gino Franco, I work
with the Lisle Law Firm in Springdale. I know it is late and I have sat
through these things for a long time in Springdale too so I'm going to try
to be brief. I will try to go as quickly as I possibly can so that we can to
get to the question. We are requesting a C-2 designation. Ms. Bale and
her husband have been business residents of Fayetteville for 42 years.
I
I
I' Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
Page 53
They have had Advanced Floor Company. They were in what is now the
Federal Building. They moved from there out to College Avenue where I
believe Edward D. Jones is now. They were then on the square near
Guisingers on Mountain. They were in Westgate Shopping Center and
then we have been in this property on Hwy. 62 since 1979. They have
constantly had their carpet business in one of the buildings as I noted in
the packet I gave you with photographs. They have been running their
business out of that building since 1979. The property, as was described,
if you look at Exhibit "3" and in conjunction with Exhibits "1" and "2"
show the areas that we are talking about here. If you will notice from
Exhibit "1" buildings two and three are about V2 C-2 right now. Building
three is '/2 C-2 right now. Building three is where Ms. Bale runs her carpet
business and has since 1979. Building two is not empty, it is not vacant.
It is now and has been a warehouse storing fixtures for IGA food stores for
over 15 years. It has been used for that for over 15 years. I have kind of,
if you look at Exhibit "1", those are the setbacks from the side of our
building on every side to about the property line. That is where we are at
right now. There is about 63' of setback from the roadway and I don't
think we measured that from the right of way, I think we measured that
from the edge of road. We have that much up front. We have the setbacks
on the back are 18' on one corner, 41' on the east comer and we have 24'
on the side between what is noted as building one, which would be the
eastern boundary of our land. These three buildings, when Ms. Bale and
her husband bought these three buildings, like I said, building number
three in photograph number one has been Advanced Floor Company since
1979. Also, up until December of last year they also sold trailers there,
horse trailers, flat beds, all sorts of trailers were sold out of that business
also. Building number two, as I said, has been used and is still being used
for warehousing fixtures for IGA. It is not vacant. Building number one
has been a series of businesses, which I listed from the time that we
acquired this property. It was Freight Sales Furniture. It then was
Kawasaki Motorcycle Dealership and Service, which I believe has now
moved out to I-540 north. It was marble art at one time, they
manufactured marble and had a sales and showroom plus did the
manufacturing of the marble in that building. After that we became
Superior Vaults for a while. They sold tombstones and burial vaults. After
that they were Furniture Connection, so they were another retail furniture
sales and then until August of this year it was Baceys Roofing. It was a
satellite office and storage building for a roofing business out of Rogers.
Building number one became vacant in August of this year. Until then it
has been constantly in use off and on through that entire time. This is a
commercial situation. I have also given you a couple of the letters from
surrounding land owners. The other photographs, if you look through
them, photograph two is property just across Hwy. 62 and just to the east
of us, they have automotive repair. Right across the street from us is Wild
On, the bar at this time. They have their bus there that they pick people up
Planning •
Commission
•
December 13, 2004
Page 54
with. Of course photograph number four is the auto salvage with our
buildings to the left and then finally is a view from the other side showing
back down the auto salvage. You can just barely see the property that was
rezoned, Mr. Medley's property. I know staff, from doing this and being a
part of rezonings in the past, I know that these people work really hard and
I know that they are not out to stick it to the land owner. We have to
disagree with them. We do not agree with several points that they have
made. We have water to the property. We have sewer to the property, at
least we get charged for sewer each month. I am not certain where the
problem with that is. The buildings have been in continual use the entire
time that we have had it and building one until August of this year. We
have an individual who is ready to sign a lease right now, he is going to
put in a pawn shop. That is when we first found out that we weren't zoned
to do this. He went down to get his license or whatever and they told him
no, you're not zoned for that. You are zoned Residential Agricultural.
We have been under the impression all along that we were zoned C-2.
This property is unique. It is significant and we have to respectively
disagree with the Planning Department. It is significant because V2 of our
buildings are already C-2. Residential Office in this area, the concerns
about mixed use are all very well taken by us. We understand that but this
plan came along long after we bought it. We are stuck with what we have
got and we are in the 100 -year floodplain. Residential Office is going to
do us no good even when Hwy. 62 Salvage decides to do something
better. It is not going to do us any good because that land as R -O is not
going to produce enough income to justify the development that the
floodplain requires. We understand that we are in the floodplain and we
understand that if we ever decide to develop it or if somebody else is
going to come to develop it, they are going to have to put a lot of money
into it to satisfy the requirements of the floodplain and they are not going
to be willing to do that if they are sitting on a piece of property that is
zoned half R -A and half C-2 or a lesser zoning. That is why we are
requesting that you all recommend this to the City Council as a C-2. Like
I pointed out, we are unique. We are in a situation where over time the
city has decided we don't want a complete strip of C-2 up and down that
highway. We are going to come back now and not try to work against
these. That may help and that helps the folks up from the road from us
that we just heard from. That helps them and they are ok with that. We are
not because we are stuck with 1/8 of an acre smack dab right on one of the
busiest roads in Northwest Arkansas. It screams to be C-2 because that is
the only thing that we can justify. That is the only thing that this property
can continually be used as in the future. If somebody is willing to lay out
the money to develop that property there has to be a back end of it. That
back end is it has to be profitable. It is not going to be as profitable if we
put in a doctor's office or a dentist's office from the standpoint of putting
money out. The doctor may go home with some money or the dentist may
go home with some money but the property itself making money for the
Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
Page 55
owner, not to mention with the surrounding areas around it, we would
request that you recommend C-2 on this property. We have no plans at
all, other than what was stated with the individual who was willing to rent
one of the buildings. We have no development. We are not trying to
develop it. We just want to be like everybody else is right around us. If
you will look at Exhibit "1" you will see that pretty much all around us is
now C-2. You have 1/8 of an acre here right next to us has been rezoned
to C-1, you have us '/z C-2 and our land becomes useless if we are
anything other than C-2. We can't use it to it's best ability. It becomes
almost arbitrary to say you can be C-2 and you can be C -I because now
we want it mixed up and down through here. We are unique and I think
the only thing that we can do is C-2. That is the best way we can use our
property. We appreciate all the work that the Planning Department does
and appreciate your time in letting us speak. If you have questions for me
or Ms. Bale we will be happy to answer them. I don't think there is
anybody here against us from the public. We are ok with everybody
except getting this through you guys. I don't think we are doing anything
out there that is going to decrease anybody's values. We are not going to
increase the noise or traffic or anything like that. We just want the rest of
our lot to be what maybe '/4 of it is right now.
Ostner: Thank you for your presentation. At this point I am going to open the
floor up to the public if anyone would like to speak about this rezoning
issue, RZN 04-1331. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it
back to the Commission.
Shackelford: Staff, if you go to page 16.15 and take my comments with regards to the
property next to this they pretty much apply to this property. Where are
we, or has the City Council looked at that C-1 proposed zoning that
adjoins this property?
Pate: It was approved last Tuesday night by the City Council.
Shackelford: As a C-1 zoning correct?
Pate: Correct.
Shackelford: Would a pawn shop be allowed in a C-1 zoning?
Pate: I don't believe so. I would have to check the use units but I don't believe
it would be. The C-1 zoning district is more neighborhood commercial.
The use units listed here are office, studios and related services; eating
places; neighborhood shopping; gasoline service stations; drive in
restaurants; and professional offices.
Planning Commission •
December 13, 2004
Page 56
Shackelford: I make that statement because obviously, if you read the minutes from the
previous meeting, a lot of what I said applies to this property as well. If
you all go out and look at this property I think it definitely has a
commercial feel to it. I don't know that Residential Office will work here
in particular with the floodplain issues as we addressed in October on the
adjoining property. I will let other folks comment but I think that I am
going to come along pretty much on the same lines as the property that is
adjoining this property back in October that we looked at.
Vaught: I feel the same way and my main question was why not C-1. Is the pawn
shop the only use that would not be allowed that is currently done on this
property? Do some of the other uses not be permitted under C-1? The
carpet business, would it be allowed in a C-1?
Pate: Most of the uses that were here prior to this development are continued
uses that were there, they were existing non -conforming uses and
therefore, they could continue as long as they weren't in operation for
more than six months. I believe that the applicant stated there was a
period there where they were not in operation. I don't have the exhibits in
front of me and we weren't given that so I'm not sure what buildings were
referenced. We did check water records for the City of Fayetteville and
there were some uses that were not served with water.
Vaught:
I was just curious what the
thrust
was and I
guess the main reason is that
they are not allowed a pawn
shop
in a C -I is
that correct?
Pate: Many of the uses actually that were mentioned would not be appropriate
for a C-1 district but rather for a C-2.
Vaught: Would they be allowed by a Conditional Use?
Pate: Not likely with C-1. C-1 is more neighborhood commercial.
Vaught: What are the use units in C -I?
Pate: Use Unit 12, Offices, Studios, Related Services; Use Unit 13, Eating
Places; Use Unit 15 is Neighborhood Shopping, Gasoline Service Stations
and Drive in Restaurants and Professional Offices. C-2 adds hotel, motel
amusement facilities; trades and services; commercial recreation small site
and large site; adult live entertainment clubs or bars and liquor stores as
permitted uses. Just to mention, the trades and services use unit is
probably one of our largest categories. The impact from trades and
services is quite extensive. Use Unit 17 includes anything from used car
lots to manufactured home sales to marine craft sales/service, parts and
accessories, packing, crating, rug cleaning.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
Page 57
Vaught: What are the Conditional Uses in a C -I?
Ostner: Under C -I Conditional Uses are Unit 34, Liquor Stores; Unit 35, Outdoor
Music Establishments; Use Unit 36 Wireless Communication Facilities.
The ones allowed by right are Use Unit 13, Eating Places; Use Unit 15,
Neighborhood Shopping; Use Unit 18, Gasoline Service Stations and
Drive in Restaurants.
Vaught: The pawn shop would fall under Use Unit 16 Shopping Goods?
Pate: Either Use Unit 16 or Use Unit 17, that Trades and Services.
Vaught: I'm like Commissioner Shackelford where most of my comments on the
neighboring property apply. Where I'm torn is I understand it is a
developed site. It is different because these buildings are here. Non-
conforming uses could continue so it is not affecting the current business
and operations. This is basically to allow a pawn shop. I'm torn in our
responsibility in what we think this property should be not affecting
existing businesses and setting it as C-2 so one business can operate in this
location. Do we rezone the whole thing so they can have a certain
business in one of the buildings or do we set the zoning with what we feel
like complies with the master plan and leave non -conforming businesses?
Ostner: In my opinion a rezoning is a land use issue, not a business issue. If they
wanted that business they could either go somewhere else or they could
rezone but when they rezone they can't claim we have to rezone because
of this business. It is the other way around. In order to get the business
we have to rezone. It is almost not the issue. The issue is all the things
that we are allowing in C-2, which I don't think are appropriate. I think
Mrs. Warrick stated it best in October when we were talking about the
same issue Mr. Shackelford was talking about. On page 16.14 "I believe
one of the primary things that you are going to have to be looking at in the
future is access. Access to this site is very important. What we are trying
to do is to regulate 6'h Street, not to become College Avenue, which is
what everyone points to and says we are not willing to do that again
because we feel there are too many problems inherent with that type of
development. Access management is one of the key points we will have
to look at for any type of development. As far as land use, you can't grant
a variance on zoning but you can look at Conditional Uses that are
specified as the types of specific uses that you can request under any
zoning district." I would be in favor of R -O here. I agree, this is a
commercial area, it is not a residential area. R -O is a different animal. It
is not solid cars, customers, which is strip development. I don't think we
are imposing the master plan. They came to us. They want a new zone so
they can do something different. The rules of the community change as
Planning Commission •
December 13, 2004
Page 58
time goes on. I am opposed to C-2 and C -I but I would be amenable to R-
0.
Vaught: I don't think R -A is correct right off the bat. I think C -I would be
appropriate in this area. I don't think the adjoining properties would get
C-2 if they came through today. At the time the ordinances were way
different and as we update our ordinances they try to fit them as best as
they could into the new zoning regulations. I think this area a C -I makes
sense. We had the same conversation back in October. I think that it
would be unfair of us to look at the two sites any differently. There are
several uses in a C-2 by right that I think this area would not be correct. It
doesn't match, it doesn't meet.
Myres: I know it's late but I need something clarified. I am confused about the
non -conforming structures and businesses that are currently on this
property. If it is rezoned to one designation are those grand fathered in
basically? They can continue to operate. But what happens if down the
road somebody wants to open up something that is non -conforming again?
Pate: As Chairman Ostner read, there are not variances in zoning that are
allowed. Conditional Use requests deal with land issues to a certain extent
but only within that zoning district that they are allowed in. With regard
to the structures, I believe the structures based on our Master Street Plan
requirement of 55' right of way from centerline with an additional 50'
setback, I seriously doubt that those structures meet these requirements as
they were there prior to our Master Street Plan that is in existence at this
time. For the uses, I believe that the whole issue has come up simply
because there was not a use established there for at least a period of six
months that could be proved that was established there. A request was
made to reuse one of the structures but that use could not be permitted
because it was not a use by right or even by Conditional Use in an R -A
zoning district. Were it rezoned to C-1 any use that was permitted within
the laws of the zoning district would be permitted. Expansion would have
to meet the zoning district setback requirements and parking requirements.
This site in almost it's entirety is non -conforming with regard to access,
parking and all the other typical development standards.
Myres: Any future development on the site would have to conform?
Pate: Yes, it would not necessarily take an entire redevelopment of the property
just to conform. Our ordinances allow for a sliding scale based on the
additions proposed. If the entire lot is the lot that is under question there is
no room to expand on this .80 acres that goes from side to side essentially.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
Page 59
Vaught: I really don't think you are going to get C-2, if we would forward it as a
C-1 or R -O would you want us to continue or would you want to
withdraw?
Franco: No, we request that you vote on C-2 at this point.
Vaught: Up or down on C-2, you don't want to amend it at all?
Williams: Let me make sure
the applicant understands.
This
is just a
recommendation going
to the City Council and you can
appeal
an adverse
or whatever is going up.
Vaught: We can modify if we see fit?
Williams: Yes, you can recommend a different rezoning than they request, just as
you did with Mr. Medley.
Anthes: The staff report on page 16.2 at the top states that the structures have been
vacant for more than six months and thus, only uses permitted within the
existing zoning district R -A, are allowed. The applicant has stated that in
fact, one of these structures has been continually in use, how does that
change how we look at this or does it?
Williams: That is simply a proof problem between the staff and the applicant about
who is correct on that. If an activity has gone on and has not been
suspended for six months then that activity would be able to be grand
fathered in. It is once the activity ceases for a period of six months at that
point the grand fathering of this non -conforming use ends and they have to
come back, even if they want to reestablish the same use. I don't know
who is correct. That would be something up to the fact finder to decide
who is correct on that.
Ostner: It is completely separate from the zoning issue.
Williams: I would not consider that in this zoning request.
Anthes: They do the investigation and the title search and doesn't that tell what the
zoning is?
Williams: I don't think that that is usually a part of a title or a deed. It is actually
records kept right here in the city. We have a zoning map and there are
zoning ordinances for that. If they wanted to know their zoning they
probably would've come down to the city and taken a look. -
Anthes: That burden of proof is on the owner to provide that or to know what they
are buying when they buy the property. Is that what you are saying? They
Planning Commission •
December 13, 2004
Page 510
are not provided with anything that directly tells them what the zoning is
but that burden of proof is on them when they are purchasing the
property?
Williams: If they wish to know what their zoning is then yes they would need to
come down to the city. I can tell you sometimes property gets rezoned.
When I had my rezoned here back to R -A I wasn't aware for a while that
some of my property was zoned RMF-24. They wouldn't be the only ones
that did not know exactly what their property was zoned.
Anthes: I guess with this I'm saying that it appears that the zoning has not changed
since this property owner owned the property. It appears that the zoning
has been in place since before they purchased the property. That is the
zoning is R -A. I am looking at the buildings as they currently exist and
thinking about which zoning would better bring the existing buildings into
conformance with our ordinances. It looks to me as I'm looking between
C -I and R -O that the setbacks that currently exist on the property as stated
by Council here, do not meet the setback requirements in the C -I district
but they do meet the setback requirements in R -O. Even if there is not
going to be additional development on the property it seems like being
those buildings into conformance and the development into conformance,
an R -O zoning would do that.
Ostner: I would just like to interject that a land use decision and a rezoning issue
really supercedes all of that.
Anthes: They are trying to use their property.
Ostner: I understand that but even if they won't utilize these things we are
granting them. We are granting these different use units and that carries
with the property and not with them. No offense.
Anthes: I'm agreeing with you and I'm saying that the use units that I think are
appropriate and meet our General Plan 2020 also bring the existing
structures into better conformance at an R -O.
Shackelford: Here is my take on it. This is a rezoning request which I think we are not
looking to bring non -conforming property into conforming property. I
think that we are looking at basically future land use. The rezoning is
going to out live the existing structures. You just get to a common sense
point of view. We have to figure out what is the best future land use for
this property. We have a big issue that is somewhat unique to this
property because it is in a 100 -year floodplain. I think that affects the
ability to rationally believe this property will develop with an R -O
development. We also have a situation that part of this property is
currently zoned C-2. Again, I'm going to go back to where we were in
Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
Page 511
October when we looked at these same set of standards in the property that
adjoins this. I think the proper land use given the restrictions unique to
this property are in the future land use will be a C-1 zoning. I think that
that is going to be a development that this property can withstand and I
think that it is a good fit for this area given the conditions and uses for the
properties adjoining and the surrounding property. With that being said, I
am going to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council RZN
04-1331 with a specific recommendation of C -I zoning on this property.
Vaught: I will second.
Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by
Commissioner Vaught for a C -I zoning.
Anthes: A clarification for Commissioner Shackelford, I don't think I understood it
quite the last time and I would like for you to explain it this time. The
implications of the 100 -year floodplain and why you think that particular
finding makes a difference with the R -O verses C-1.
Shackelford: The 100 -year floodplain substantially changes the development costs of
property, what it takes to build structures on that property. Second, it is
going to change the insurance value and what it costs to carry property. A
more expensive building will usually not be located in a floodplain. A
Residential Office building with the high end finish out with the materials
and all the furniture and stuff like that is somewhat prohibitive for flood
insurance. The main thing is the development cost. In order to get the
base elevation up you need more density and a little more cash generation
potential to develop property in the floodplain.
Anthes: Do we determine land use based on development cost?
Shackelford: I think we determine land use based on unique characteristics that are
associated with properties just like we do with tree preservation and many
other aspects that will go into the development density that we allow on
the project. I think that that is a unique aspect to this property to be taken
into consideration.
Ostner: I appreciate that perspective but I would disagree that land use discussions
with rezonings be compared to development issues such as nuts and bolts,
trees and stuff like that. Because land use issues are big. We have to look
at this piece of property and fit it in a long ways away. Where does it fit
with the interstate? Where does it fit with the traffic coming out of
Farmington?
Vaught: Along those lines, I do think C -I is a good step down from what you see
closer to the highway. I think that it will allow for a few more uses, not
Planning Commission •
December 13, 2004
Page 512
many, eating places and a couple of others are the difference. It will
provide some variety. Closer to the highway is definitely a more intense
use and it needs to be. This is a transition area. In 20 or 30 years down
the road I imagine that those three structures will be replaced including the
salvage yard and hopefully that will be staged down as well. I would like
to see R -O a little further out. In this location it is in close proximity of
several large commercial developments and neighborhood commercial I
do feel is appropriate. It is a transition zone.
Ostner: The other draw back to C-1, if it is not clear, I don't think C-1 is
appropriate. With C-1 nearby it can all be absorbed as one big C-1 lot and
it can be developed by right. When there are different zoning districts a
developer who is going to absorb different lots has to rezone again. He
has to either do a PZD or put more scrutiny if lots are absorbed and get to
be larger, which I foresee as being probable. It is very difficult to sell and
be able to develop a .8 acre lot. With the zonings different if this were
developed R -O with all the C-1 next to it most likely we would see a PZD
or we would see another rezoning where they were trying to straighten out
their zones so they could develop which if it were a larger lot, would give
a great opportunity to use the floodplain area for something that wasn't
built. I am in favor of R -O. I think it is best for the city. I think it stops
strip development and I think plugging this C-1, finishing out the strip is
just throwing up your hands and saying we can't do anything to stop strip
development. .
Vaught: If you look at the zoning map though it is not all C-1. It is all C-2. What
we are doing is a step down and the only other C-1 it abuts is the little
piece that we just saw, which is a similar size, all in the floodplain. It is
surrounded by R -A behind it and C-2, a large auto salvage yard, which
someday will be redeveloped I'm sure. These two at C-1 will more than
likely combine with the adjoining C-2 and we are going to see it all again
as some sort of development or rezoning or PZD probably. Who knows?
It could be 20 years down the road. Like you said, any commercial
development on that small of a site gets difficult. I don't think that we
should set land use just to ensure that we get to see it again 10 years down
the road. I think that we should establish what is a proper use for this
piece of property if it were redeveloped. That is what we have to assume,
that it will be developed on it's own. I think just as the piece next to it, C-
I is proper, but I also know that you didn't agree with that at the time.
Allen: I would like to call for the question.
Myres: Second.
Ostner: Please call the roll.
Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
Page 513
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 04-1331 with
a recommendation for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial was approved by a
vote of 5-3 with Commissioners Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Clarice Pearman - RZN 04-1331 Page 1
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Pate, Jeremy
Subject: RZN 04-1331
Attached is the ordinance passed by the City Council on January 4, 2005 regarding rezoning 0.80 acres as
submitted by Patricia Bale.
ra i ' s stsi i1i lxiI i;weii
FIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, JIXY L cow , do solemnly swear that I am the
Legal GI rk of the Aifktisas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication, that advertisement of:
flCb -kth- was inserted in the regular editions on
PO#
** Publication Charge:$
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
oC day of ! .L , 2005.
Notary Public Sharlene D. Williams
• Notary Public
My Commission Expires: State of Arkansas
My Commission Expires
October 18, 2014
** Please do not pay from Affidavit.
An invoice will be sent.
RECEIVED
JAN 242005
a ".TTEVILLE
OF:ICE
P.O. BOX 1607•212 N. EAST AVENUE • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 • 479-442-1700 • 479-442-5477 (FAX)
0 0
ORDINANCE G THATWiwlile
AN ORDINANCE RONING THT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN RONING PEThION RZN 041331FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT3513, 3515AND 3511WEST 6Th STREET CONTAINING APPRO%IMMTELV0.50 ACRES FROM R -A RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL-
ARKANSAS
TURAL AND C-2. THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL
TO C.1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
Be R ORDAINED BY TNB CITY COUNCIL OF TNB CRY OF FAYBTTEVILLE. ARKANSAt
Sectbn 1: That the zone dassiflcaaon of the followtrg deschbed Property Is hereby clanged as toaa :
From FR-A,
s9 IdentiS AgdcuIttai and C-2, shown In E,111 1t,AR attached hereto and Bmade apart hereof. to C-1, Nelghbodlood
S a zonl2l:That changhe e a ooMcIW InSateen 1there.
zoning t the City of Fayen Mle. Arkansas, Is hereby amentled 10 reflect proAdPASSED ma APPROVED this 4th day of January. 2005.
,I SONDNA SMITH, City CI.ct
DO-lIBfT 'A'
RZN 04-1331
PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19. TOWNSHIP 16 I
NFM eNn RFJNG MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT
POINT
MH 74
ci
JOHN LISLE (of counse4
CHRIS LISLE
DONNIE RUTLEDGE
STEVE LISLE
Fayetteville City Council
125 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Li E LAW FIRM. P.A.j
1458 Plaza Place, Suite 101
Springdale, AR 72764-5273
479-750-4444
Fax 479-751-6792
January 4, 2005
Hand Delivered at City Council Meeting on 01/04/05
Re: Property Located at 3513-3515-3517 West 6th Street
Application for Rezoning
Dear Council Members:
JAN THORNTON
JIM HATCHER
J. TRAIL ROGERS
ROBERT D. BRANDON
DOROTHYANNE BARRY
GENE A. FRANC))
I represent Mrs. Pat Bale in her request to rezone the above -referenced property from
Residential/Agriculture to Commercial Zone C-2. I have provided herewith some information
on paper so that you can be adequately informed as to the issues and matters in resolving this
request for rezoning. Attached you will find numerous documents or other items that I would
like to spend a little time describing for you.
Attached and marked as Exhibit 1 is a zoning map printed out from the City of Fayetteville's
website. Mrs. Bale's land is marked by the boundaries which have been added to this map. As
you will note, this property contains three buildings that face or front West 6th Street on the south
side of the road. The distance from the western boundary to the western building is 62 feet. The
distance from the eastern boundary to the edge of the eastern building is 24 feet.
The property line is also marked showing the rear boundary of the property 18 feet behind the
buildings. (Please note that the boundaries marked on Exhibit 1 are not to scale but are only for
reference purposes.) As you view Exhibit I you will note that part of buildings 2 and 3 are
already contained within lands that have been re -zoned to C-2.
The next document you have which is labeled as Exhibit 2 is a larger map showing more area
surrounding Mrs. Bale's property. Again I have placed a circle around the areas that we are
seeking to re -zone.
The next item that is labeled as Exhibit 3 is actually a composite of five photographs showing
various views including the subject property.
•
Fayetteville City Council
Re: Bale Property Rezoning
January 4, 2005
Page 2 of 3
a. Photograph No. 1 is a view of the properties on the land owned by Mrs. Bale and
showing from left to right Building No. 1, Building No. 2, and Building No. 3 as
they have been labeled.
b. Photograph No. 2 shows the view looking north from the front of the subject
property and showing property almost directly across the street and to the
northeast, said property being zoned C-2.
c. Photograph No. 3 shows the property directly north and slightly to the west of the
subject property with said property being zoned C-2.
d. Photograph No. 4 is a photograph taken from a vantage point north and west of
the subject property. The photograph shows on the left the three buildings located
on Mrs. Bale's property as well as the adjoining property to the west, 62 Auto
Sales and Salvage Yard, which is also zoned C-2.
e. Photograph No. 5 is a view of the property from a vantage point north and east of
Mrs. Bale's property showing Mrs. Bales' property in relation to her adjoining
neighbors to the east and west. .
Regarding Exhibit 3, Photograph No. 1 we would like to provide the following information for
the Commission. This lot and all three buildings were acquired in 1979. When this land was
purchased, these buildings were already on the property. In looking at Photograph No. 1,
Building No. 1, the following businesses have been located in this building since Mrs. Bale
acquired the property: a) Freight Furniture Sales; b) Kawasaki Motorcycle Dealership and
Service; c) Marble Ark (business manufactured marble on site and also conducted retail sales); d)
Superior Vaults (sales of vaults and tombstones); e) Furniture Connection (general sales of home
furnishings); and, most recently, f) Basey's Roofing (satellite office from their Rogers home
office as well as storage for said business.
Regarding Building No. 2, this building has been and is now used as storage for IGA Food
Stores. This building is used to store IGA's fixtures including shelving and the like and has been
used as such since Mrs. Bale acquired the property.
Building No. 3 denoted in Photograph No. I is Mrs. Bale's personal business. This has been
Advanced Floor Company since the property was purchased by the Bales in 1979. It consists of
a showroom and sales for carpeting, and all other manner of residential flooring. It is also used
for storage of carpeting and other flooring.
Building No. us at this time vacant. A Mr. Gene Hudgins is desirous of using said building to
open up a pawn shop. Mrs. Bale stands ready to rent this property to him if the property can be
re -zoned as she has requested. Other than this one issue, Mrs. Bale has no other plans at this
time to change or otherwise modify this property in any way or the way the property is used.
Fayetteville City Council
Re: Bale Property Rezoning
January 4, 2005
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 4 attached hereto is a letter from Chris Sargent. Mr. Sargent is the owner of 62 Auto
Salvage. This is the land and business located directly to the west of Mrs. Bale's property and is
reflected in Photograph No. 2 of Exhibit 3. This letter purports that they have no objection to the
re -zoning of the subject property to C-2.
Exhibit 5 attached hereto is a letter from Mr. Harold Burnett. Mr. Burnett owns the property
across 6th Street north and east of Mrs. Bale's property. This property is depicted in Photograph
No. 2 of Exhibit 3. This letter also states that there is no objection to the re -zoning of Mrs.
Bale's property to C-2.
We have received no negative feedback from any of the members of the public regarding our
request to re -zone the subject property. We are under the impression that there is no objection
from the public to this re -zoning. Considering the property surrounding Mrs. Bale's property
and the nature of its use at this time as well as how it is zoned, we would submit that allowing
this land to be re -zoned to C-2 will not bring about or cause the general complaint and/or
objections one hears from the public at large in typical re -zoning cases. Specifically, in
considering the nature of the property and the zoning surrounding the subject property, re -zoning
Mrs. Bale's property to C-2 should not create any future problems with traffic, noise
concentration, or, most certainly, not provide anyone with a basis for claiming their property
values would be decreased. More specifically, this property is obviously used for the type of
zoning requested and we would submit that there are no reasonable or rational bases for denying
the re -zoning.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Highest personal regards,
LISLE LAW FIRM, P.A.
Gene A. Franco
Attorney at Law
GAF/mrc
/encls
cc w/encls: Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville Planning Department
Client
I
q.• "�F
i ncyy��
EXHIBIT
9
I
I
V
• •
.fA�O•J e -lo ... �n
RSF O' H�4.4+L c:yC'�i.%Si—=Jq r': Joo v{
RW 4 RA �'�' O Vvvv..y{Cis
HSI 4A. A� J ° CZ C2 O LT cs � psf.d n
HO 4I W, nc7
t� G2
C2 HN
O i RSA
is IIJI 4
tt
4
RSI'4
J D-i ami
:ittn://www.favgis.org/website/Zoning_FAY/MapFrame.htrn
4
EX H �8�T
11/8/2004
62 Auto Salvage
3595 W. 6TH STREET
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704
(479) 443-2101
FAX (479) 443-2078
December 7, 2004
To Whom It May Concern:
My property located at 3595 W. 6th Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas adjoins
the property of Advanced Floor Co. owned by Pat Bale located at 3517
W. 6th Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. I have absolutely no opposition to her
rezoning her property to C-2.
Sincerel
s Sargent
President/Owner
Hwy. 62 Auto Salvage & Sales Inc.
EXHIBIT
H•R TIRE & AUTO, 8NCO
3500 W. 6th _ HWY. 62 W.
FAYETTEVILLE, ARK. 72701
Phone (501) 443-4155
Dec. 02,2004
To Whom It May Concern;
The said property at 3517 W. 6th St. in
Fayetteville, AR belonging to Mrs. Pat
Bale.
Which is across the street from H & R
Tire & Auto Co., Inc, at 3500 W. 6th.St.
We have no objections to the property
being Zoned C-2 Commercial.
We were under the understanding that
all the property on W. 6th St. was Zoned
C-2 Commercial.
Thanks
Harold Burnett