Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 4812
ORDINANCE NO. 4812 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED C-PZD 05- 1704 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, LOCATED AT 20 EAST DICKSON STREET, 325 AND 321 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE, AND 350 AND 354 NORTH HIGHLAND AVENUE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.08 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-O, Residential Office, to C-PZD 05- 1704 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development plan, development standards, and conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council. Section 3 : That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this 3`d day of January, 2006. APPROVED: � s RA ;'�\TYCO . � ; FAYETTEVILLE ; _ By: A NO Via0 DAN COOD ayor , 9:QkANSP�J�',� P ATTEST: 'o;;l'GTOtA �^ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk Doc ID : 009660600002 Tvoe : REL Recorded : 02/15/2006 at 11 : 41 : 32 AM Fee Amt : $11 . 00 Paoe 1 of 2 washinoton County . AR Bette Bette Stamna Circuit Clerk FS1e2006-00006409 EXHIBIT "A" MDP C-PZD 05-1704 A PART OF BLOCK NUMBERED TEN (10) OF THE COUNTRY COURT ADDTITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE ORIGINAL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT SIX (6) OF SAID BLOCK TEN ( 10), SAID POINT BEING IN DICKSON STREET; THEN NO2°50'34"E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK TEN (10) 13 . 16 FEET TO A SET 1/2 IRON REBAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF DICKSON STREET FOR THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN S87°3' 19"E ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DICKSON STREET 234.95 FEET TO A CHISLED "X" IN A CONCRETE SIDEWALK AT THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 78.26 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING N47047'09"E 70.51 FEET, TO A SET %:" IRON REBAR AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COLLEGE AVENUE; THEN NO2°37'37"E ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 497.00 FEET TO A SET 1/2" IRON REBAR; THENCE LEAVING THE WEST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF COLLEGE AVENUE N87003'20"W 140.39 FEET TO A SET 1 /2" IRON BAR; THEN NO2050'33 "E 105.25 FEET TO A SET 1/2" IRON REBAR ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT ONE ( 1 ) OF SAID BLOCK TEN ( 10); THEN N87° 13'09"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT ONE (1 ) 42.42 FEET TO AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT; THEN NO2°33'24"E 67.78 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THEN N87°22'40"W 99.89 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK TEN ( 10), SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE; THEN S02043'02"W ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF- WAY OF HIGHLAND AVENUE 67.50 FEET TO AN EXISTING 1/2" IRON REBAR; THEN S02050'34"W 651 .84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 02/15/2006 11 :41 :32 AM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2006-0000640 Bette Stamps - Circuit I by A40 l / 34Z City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form City Council Agenda Items C OZb 45 ( ld� or Contracts 20-Dec-05 City Council Meeting Date Jeremy Pate' Planning Operations Submitted By Division Department Action Required: MDP C-PZD 05- 1704: (First Baptist Church, 484): Submitted by Cromwell Architects Engineers in behalf of First Baptist Church for property located at 20 East Dickson Street, 325 and 321 North College Avenue, and 350 and 354 North Highland Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 4.08 acres. The request is to approve a Master Development Plan - Commercial Planned Zoning District for a church facility and associated parking. $0.00 n/a n/a Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category / Project Name n/a n/a n/a Account Number Funds Used to Date Program / Project Category Name n/a n/a n/a $ Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached „ Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a ADep�arfmentirec or Date Original Contract Date: n/a Original Contract Number: n/a L Received in City Clerk's Office Fina6r EE an�nal-Service Director Date Received in Mayor's Office Mayor — Date Comments: r/e,�t cn YAe, S•e nd /e"d.n5 1—i ao % 5 City Council Meeting of December 20, 2005 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning f Date: December 01 , 2005 Subject: Commercial Planned Zoning District for First Baptist Church (C-PZD 05- 1704) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance creating a Commercial Planned Zoning District (C-PZD) for First Baptist Church, based on the Master Development Plan, development standards, and statement of commitments submitted. This action will establish a unique zoning district for a single-use project on approximately 4.08 acres located at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Dickson Street. The proposal consists of a four phase addition and renovation of the existing structures on the property as well as the addition of parking areas to serve the church. BACKGROUND The property consists of several parcels totaling approximately 4.08 acres that is currently utilized for institutional (church) use. The applicant requests a rezoning and Master Development Plan approval for the subject property. The majority of the property is utilized by the First Baptist Church and parking to serve this use. Also located on the property is a vacant commercial building proposed to be renovated and a residential home which is proposed to be removed for parking. Access to the property is established on Highland Avenue and College Avenue. The applicant requests a rezoning and Master Development Plan approval for expansion of the existing First Baptist Church. The project will include the removal of an existing house, the redevelopment of the former Goff-McNair building, and the construction of additional parking for a total 167 parking spaces. In addition to the renovation of existing structures, total area of new construction is 26,500 square feet. The enlargement of the facility will be for the construction of meeting rooms, though the existing auditorium which seats approximately 1 ,000 persons will be maintained. The proposed development is to occur under regulations of one Planning Area and in a total four Phases, with the parking area to be improved within Phase II. Phase I, the renovation of the existing sanctuary, is already underway. The projected time frame to secure all permits for full build-out is anticipated for 2015. City Council Meeting of December 20, 2005 Agenda Item Number DISCUSSION The Planning Commission voted 8- 1 -0 in favor of this request on November 28, 2005, with Commissioner Anthes voting no. A Planned Zoning District requires City Council approval as it includes zoning and land use approval. Recommended conditions were amended and approved by the Planning Commission and are reflected in the attached staff report. With the future submission of development plans, the applicant will be processing a request to development within the Master Street Plan right-of-way of College Avenue which will require Planning Commission and City Council consideration and approval for a lesser dedication of right-of-way on College Avenue. Discussion at the Planning Commission centered on the long-term proposal for a parking deck, which was removed from the application, and the effect of a potential future rezoning of the property within the Downtown Zoning Code. It was concluded that like the 1-540 Design Overlay District, staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council will likely review recently approved rezoning and development for possible exceptions. This decision, however, will be made in the future. BUDGETIMPACT None. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED C-PZD 05- 1704 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, LOCATED AT 20 EAST DICKSON STREET, 325 AND 321 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE, AND 350 AND 354 NORTH HIGHLAND AVENUE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.08 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PAN. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY *OUI�CIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the zone classific Y on`of the following des\�operty is hereby changed as follows: U From C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-O, Residential Office, to C-PZD 05-1704 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hetoa� nd.made a pa ereof. Section 2. That the change in zon�g cla` sification is based upon the approved master devlopm°�nt plan, d 1�llopmenty' tandards, and conditions of approval as submitted, determi, ed approp gate and approved by the City Council, Section 3. Thathi ordinance sh take effect and be in full force at such time as all of thele u►rem nts of tie ma ter development plan have been met. /Zreoal ttheo ieialoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hmended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSE SAND APPROVED this day of , 2005. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" MDP C-PZD 05-1704 A PART OF BLOCK NUMBERED TEN ( 10) OF THE COUNTRY COURT ADDTITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE ORIGINAL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT SIX (6) OF SAID BLOCK TEN ( 10), SAID POINT BEING IN DICKSON STREET; THEN NO2°50'34"E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK TEN ( 10) 13 . 16 FEET TO A SET %: IRON REBAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF DICKSON STREET FOR THE TRUE lPOINT OF BEGINNING; THEN S87003' 19" E ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY-;!LINE OF DICKSON STREET 234.95 FEET TO A CHISLED "X" IN jVCONCRETE SIDEWALK AT THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVEr78 26 FEET, THE CHO FOR WHICH BEING N47047'09"E 70.51 FEET, TO A SET W? lRONAREBAR AT THE -POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE, SAID POINT BEING,ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY i�, . LINE OF COLLEGE AVENUE; THEN N0297'37"ElAL>ONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 497.00 FEET TO A SET V2" IRON R 'BAR; THENCE LEADING THE WEST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF COLLEGE AVENUEiN83M3�20"W 140 39 F ET TO A SET W2 IRON BAR; THEN NO2°50'33 "E 105.25 FEET�TO WSET W' IRONIREBAR ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT ONE ( 1 ) OF SAID BLOCKJTENt( 10), THENN87°13'09"W ALONG THE ., SOUTH LINE OF SAID L'OT ONE ( 1 ) 42,,42 FEET TO AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT; THEN NO2°33'24"E 67.78 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THEN N8702214011W 99.89TEET TOrAN EXISTING IRON ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK TEN ( 10), SAID'P.OINT ALSO BEING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND�,AMVAENUE; THEN S626V02 W'ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, 67.50,EEET TO AN EXISTING %_" IRON REBAR; THEN S02°50'3:4"W 651 .84 FEET TO THETOWT OF BEGINNING. '° i T� 17ye V PC Meeting of November 28, 2005 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: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: November 21 , 2005 Updated December 1, 2005 C-PZD 05-1704: Commercial Planned Zoning District (First Baptist Church): Submitted by Cromwell Architects Engineers in behalf of First Baptist Church for property located at 20 E. Dickson Street, 325 and 321 N College Avenue, and 350 and 354 N. Highland Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-O, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.08 acres. The request is to approve a Master Development Plan — Commercial Planned Zoning District for a church facility and associated parking. Property Owner: First Baptist Church of Fayetteville Planner: Suzanne Morgan Findings: Property Description: The property consists of several parcels totaling approximately 4.08 acres that is currently utilized for institutional (church) use. The applicant requests a rezoning and Master Development Plan approval for the subject 4.08 acres. The majority of the property is utilized by the First Baptist Church and parking to serve this use. Also located on the property is a vacant commercial building and a residential home. Access to the property is established on Highland Avenue and College Avenue. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Commercial C-2 & RMF-24 South Commercial the old Jerry's C-2 & R-O East Commercial First State Bank C-2 West Central United Methodist Church R-O Proposal: The applicant requests a rezoning and Master Development Plan approval for expansion of a church institution on the property. The project will include the removal of an existing house and the redevelopment of the existing structure in which patrons of the church meet and the former Goff-McNair building into, the enlargement and connection of these structures, and parking areas The enlargement of the facility will be for the construction of meeting rooms, though the existing auditorium which seats 1 ,000 persons will be maintained. The proposed development is to occur in five four Phases. According to the K:IRepor1sl20051PZD-MDP ReportslFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church)Jor CCdac applicant, Phase I, the renovation of the existing sanctuary, is already underway. The applicant will add surface parking for a total 167 parking spaces with Phase II of the proposal and anethein net 88 spaces with f.., , e development of parking_bn;nse.. Staff finds, through the review of this proposal, that the addition of parking lots along Lafayette Street in this area would be detrimental to the street character. While this proposal does not include additional parking along Lafayette Street, it is important to note that as parking increases with the expansion of the churches in the area, it is important to evaluate the street character, as indicated in the Downtown Master Plan. Process: The purpose of the subject request is for a rezoning approval in order to allow the expansion of the First Baptist Church. In order to receive approval to expand the church over a long period of time, as funds are available, the applicant pursued the Planned Zoning District process. As recently approved by the City Council, an applicant has the option of presenting a Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District to the Planning Commission and City Council. Approval of this Master Development Plan would effectively rezone the property based on the plans and information provided. However, it does not give development approval. The applicant is required to return through the large scale development process for each phase of expansion, in this case, in order for the Planning Commission to confirm that the development plans presented are compliant with the zoning and Master Development Plans approved by the City Council. The following bulk and area regulations are proposed by the applicant, and are included in detail within the attached submittal: ZONING CRITERIA: C-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church) (A) Proposed Uses. Permitted Use Conditional Use Type of Use Unit 4 1 None Cultural & Recreational facilities *Includes church, classrooms, assembly areas, and other uses associated with the church use. (B) Density/Intensity. None (C) Bulk and area regulations. None (D) Setback requirements. None (E) Height. a. Phase II — Two Stories (24') b. Phase III — One Story ( 14') c. Phase IV — Two Stories (24'); Steeple to be reconstructed at a maximum height of 88 feet measured from the main floor of the sanctuary/auditorium. d. The .........sed ...._t_:ng a__'_ __:11 be a fnwiimum a,.,,,, levels in height. K:IReportsV0051PZ0-MDP ReporulFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church)for CCdoc (F) Building area. The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total lot area. Signage. Signage for the property shall be permitted in accordance with Commercial zoning district regulations in Ch. 174. Signage on the property shall be allowed as follows: Wet . c.,...... ..a ..:g.. ... College Amv.. a. , no otheF Si, Setbaek of Rreestanding Signage.- Freestanding sign at College Avenue and Diekson Streeti 15' (as shown an the plat) Reestanding sign at Diekson Street and Highland Avenue: 0' (as shown on the plat) Sipiage localion shag beperfnitted in aece.rdapipp with 9P.Fbq9.k9 9"4 oiheit criteria in (9k. 174 Signs-, wvkss nowd h-poin Water & Sewer: Water and sewer are currently available. However, evaluations of the water system, sewer system, streets, and drainage will need to be made as the scope of the project becomes clearer and as development may be continuing on the subject property over a long period of time. More specifically, the water distribution system may need to be upgraded by the developer to handle the increased demand for domestic and fire supply. The sanitary sewer system will need to be evaluated by the developer to show any deficiencies. Drainage improvements may include the installation of detention and/or improvements to the existing system. Access: Access is provided to this property from an existing curb cut on College Avenue and from three access points on Highland Avenue. The applicant proposes the relocation and reconstruction of existing curb cuts onto Highland Avenue. Interior to the project private drives and parking areas are proposed. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Highland Avenue (ST — 55); Sufficient right-of-way exists for this street. Dickson Street (MS — 55 : Main Street); Sufficient*right-of-way exists for this street. College Avenue (Principal Collector); An additional 25 ' right-of-way is required for Master Street Plan compliance. Street Improvements: Staff recommends the following: Construction of sidewalks in accordance with the Master Street Plan adjacent to College Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Dickson Street and through any existing or proposed driveway. The applicant requests the phasing of street improvements adjacent to College Avenue and Dickson Street to correspond with the phasing of construction to avoid the removal of new landscaping and sidewalk when renovating and adding to structures adjacent to the right-of-way. Other improvements will be recommended and determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development. K:1Reporn1d0051PZD-HDP ReporrslFirs( Baptist Chu h C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (Firs! Baptist Charch)for CC.da Drainage improvements associated with street improvements will also need to be evaluated and required, as necessary, based on the City Engineer's recommendation and the Planning Commission's determination at the time of Large Scale Development. Dedication of right-of-way to meet Master Street Plan requirements, appropriate drainage, lighting, sidewalk and other surrounding or adjacent street improvements as determined by the Planning Commission to be appropriate in alleviating the impact of the increase in use and traffic generation shall be determined by the Planning Commission. Tree Preservation: There are several existing trees on the property which may be affected with the development of structures and parking lots. The Landscape Administrator has reviewed the site and suggested means to save some significant trees on the property. The PZD zoning requires preservation of 25% canopy on the site, which will be expected for the development of this property. At the time of development, the applicant shall submit a site analysis and tree preservation plan in accordance with ordinance requirements to be reviewed by the Landscape Administer and reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission. Parks: No residential dwelling units are proposed for this development. Should the property owner at any time request the approval of dwelling units on the property, contrary to the use allowed within this C-PZD, the City Council shall reconsider the zoning of the subject property. Public Comment: Staff advised the applicant to contact the adjacent property owners regarding this request. Staff has received some inquiries from adjacent property owners, but no specific concerns have been voiced regarding this proposal. Recommendation: Staff recommends. forwarding;the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District for First Baptist Church (C-PZD 05- 1704), to the City Council for approval with the following conditions: The Planning Commission voted 5-4-0, with Commissioners Graves, Clark, Naught and Trumbo voting no, to (1) strike Condition #2 from the conditions of approval, (2) add additional language to Condition #9, (3) Include page numbers in the project booklet, and (4) Remove all references to the future parking deck (ar Phase II)from the project booklet and the plat. The Planning Commission voted 8-1-0 for approval of the rezoning with the following amended conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1 . The Planning Commission shall determine that the provided number of parking spaces is appropriate for the proposed use of the property. The applicant currently proposes to provide 167 parking spaces on the site; 175 spaces is the typical minimum permitted. 2. Planning Eemmission mYdetPrminatien o€ apprepriate signage Thee ' ioant shall .. J bregulations 1.. with the e 1' a' ♦ ' Ceanuner-eial l.T applieantrequests signs e ♦ at the a of Dieks StreetCollege II K:Vieportst20051 PZD-MDP ReponyiFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church)for CCdoc Avenue and Diekson Street and Highland Avenue. Smffreeeminends that (.We ............. ...... z.,:i::s-drsr-tip The Planning Commission voted to strike this condition. The applicant shall comply with the sign requirements of commercial zoning districts. 3 . The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 4. Pursuant to city ordinance, development of the property shall be approved by the Planning Commission through the large scale development review process. Should a subdivision of land be desired, all applicable ordinances and processes shall be followed in order to meet city ordinances. 5 . Public water and sewer lines shall be extended as required by city ordinance at the time of development. 6. Street improvements at the time of development shall include, at minimum, the following: Construction of sidewalks in accordance with the Master Street Plan adjacent to College Avenue, Highland,Avenue, and Dickson Street and through any existing or proposed driveway. The applicant requests the phasing of street improvements adjacent to College Avenue and Dickson Street to correspond with the phasing of construction to avoid the removal of new landscaping and sidewalk when renovating and adding to structures adjacent to the right-of-way. Other improvements will be recommended and determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development. Drainage improvements associated with street improvements will also need to be evaluated and required, as necessary, based on the City Engineer's recommendation and the Planning Commission's determination at the time of Large Scale Development. Dedication of right-of-way to meet Master Street Plan requirements, appropriate drainage, lighting, sidewalk and other surrounding or adjacent street improvements as determined by the Planning Commission to be appropriate in alleviating the impact of the increase in use and traffic generation shall be determined by the Planning Commission. 7. A Tree Preservation Plan that needs the Tree Preservation ordinance shall be prepared at the time of development. Trees that meet the significant tree status as determined by the Urban Forester shall remain, unless approved for removal by the Urban Forester. The applicant shall reference the attached comments from the Urban Forester and utilize them in future development proposals. Future development proposals shall K:IReporisl20051PZD-MDP Report Wirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church)for CC.doc indicate compliance with the landscape requirements of the Unified Development at the time of submittal. Staff recommends the establishment of a vegetative buffer between this property and any adjacent residential zoning, to be reviewed at the time of development. 9. All development shall meet applicable building codes and other ordinances of the City of Fayetteville. Development on the subject property shall comply with City of Fayetteville ordinances, including the Downtown Master Plan, at the time of submittal of development plans, unless approved otherwise herein. 10. The City Council approval of lesser dedication of right-of-way for College Avenue from the required 55' right-of-way from centerline to the requested 30' right-of-way from centerline prior to development approval for any Phase of development. 11. Zoning and development criteria shall be enforced as noted within the staff report "Zoning Criteria" sections A -F, as noted above. Said information shall be included with any submitted development plans. 12. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 13. Any right-of-way, easements, etc. which are required to be vacated to allow the _ approval of the proposed development shall be addressed prior to the approval of Phase II. . 14. Phasing: The anticipated build -out is 2015 for Phases I, II, III, and IV and approval of Phase V• In order to ensure the proposed Master Development Plan meets all of the goals and criteria set forth, a phasing schedule is required. If certain permitting times are not met, the Planned Zoning District approval shall be voided, or extended as allowed by §166 of the UDC. The following development phasing shall be enforced: • Phase I: The applicant has stated that Phase I of the project is underway. • Any other permit necessary for completion of Phase I shall be issued within I year of the passing of the ordinance. • Phase II: All necessary permits to begin construction of the project, pursuant to the criteria established in § 166, shall be obtained within 3 years of the date of the ordinance passing. • Phase III: All necessary permits to begin construction of the project, pursuant to the criteria established in §166, shall be obtained within 3-6 years of the date of the ordinance passing. • Phase IV: All necessary permits to begin construction of the project, pursuant to the criteria established in § 166, shall be obtained within 6-9 years of the date of the ordinance passing. Phase '/: All necessary permits to begin construction of the project, K: IReports120051PZD-MOP Reports tFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church)_for CC.doc Planning Commission Action: Meeting Date: November 28, 2005 Comments: Required YES ✓ Approved O Denied O Tabled Motion: Myres Second: Clark Vote: 8-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Date: Comments: Date yes Required Approved Denied The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", stated in this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this rezoning/master development plan item. IC Date K:1Reporzs120051PZD-AfDP ReportsiFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church) for CC.doc Findings associated with C-PZD 05-1704 Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD). (E) Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned Zoning Districts The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the review of a planned zoning district application based on the proposed master development plan: (1) Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the UDC and the General Plan 2020; FINDING: Staff finds the application to be in substantial compliance with the Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District criteria established by the City Council. In review of the General Plan 2020, the application provides for the expansion of an existing institutional use in the downtown area. (2) Whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory provisions; FINDING: The application has been reviewed and found to be compliant with applicable statutory provisions. (3) Whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services; FINDING: The impact of the rezoning and subsequent development may require the provision of public facilities, at the cost of the developer. Fire and emergency response time is adequate, as indicated in the attached correspondence. (4) Whether the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses; FINDING: The rezoning request, combined with the Master Development Plan, retains a downtown character with the structures built close to the street. The property is currently utilized for a church, as are several of the surrounding properties. Staff finds that the proposed use is compatible with these institutional and surrounding commercial and residential uses. (5) Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural environment; FINDING: The subject property is suitable for the intended use, as it has undergone development in the past. (6) Whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing road network; K:IRepartr170051PZD-MOP ReportslFirsi Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).doc FINDING: Based on the Master Development Plan submitted, traffic counts may increase. The applicant proposes the expansion of an existing church, however, the main auditorium is not proposed to be enlarged. At the time of development, the existing streets will be evaluated by the engineer and requirements made by the Planning Commission as to the extent of improvements necessary for development approval. (7) Whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a unified plan; FINDING: A plan has been submitted, recognizing the zoning and development criteria required of a Master Development Plan submittal. Conceptual architectural elevations of the proposed development and architectural standards have been proposed. Architectural standards will be evaluated at the time of development to ensure all buildings proposed adhere to the context of the neighborhood surroundings. (8) Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. FINDING: Staff finds that in review of the requested rezoning, the Master Development Plan proposed does not violate recognized zoning considerations, as found below. (J) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines (1) Generally. The Planning• Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those, utilized for zoning and subdivision applications. FINDING: The proposed Planned Zoning District has been reviewed in light of all applicable development and zoning ordinances. At this time, the Master Development Plan sets out the basic guidelines, development and zoning criteria, commitments offered by the applicant and those recommended by staff, and design standards to ensure the proposal will achieve a high level of compatibility with adjacent properties. The requirements of the Unified Development Code from which the applicant intends to vary include the parking ratio requirement (167 spaces are proposed, where the ordinance allows a minimum 175 spaces), the sign requirements and as with any other Planned Zoning District establish unique permitted uses and bulk and area regulations. K:IReports120051PZD-MDP ReportslFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).doc (2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and landscaping shall be provided as set forth in § 166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality (size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, berms and plant material to be used. FINDING: Screening is required between the parking lot and the any residential use; with development of the site, all applicable development criteria will be applied for appropriate landscaping, screening and buffering of parking areas and objectionable uses. (3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply: (a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of the projected future traffic volumes. (b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate relationship with one another. (c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different land uses. (d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system, providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development. (e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the planned zoning development and to adjacent areas. (f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code. FINDING: Ingress and egress interior to the project shall be evaluated and required to be constructed with the large scale development of the property. Public streets shall be improved to an acceptable standard, as determined by the Planning Commission, and interior private drives shall be constructed to provide for safe and adequate access to all structures for emergency vehicles. K: (Reports170051PZD-MOP ReporislFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).doc (4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172 Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the respective use areas. FINDING: The applicant proposes 167 spaces for to serve a main auditorium of 1,000 seats. Standard parking ratios require 1 parking space for every 4 seats. A minimum 175 spaces is allowed by ordinance for the proposed use. (5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this chapter of this code. FINDING: The development provides greenspace adjacent to the streets. Much of this property is currently impervious, though the expansion of the parking lot will reduce the amount of existing greenspace. Staff recommends that the development comply with the ordinance requirement to maintain 15% pervious surface and comply with the landscape requirements of the Unified Development Code at the time of submittal. (6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Sidewalks and other pedestrian connections will be evaluated at the time of development (7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Street lights will be evaluated at the time of development. (8) Water. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public water will be provided to the project site, pursuant to city code. (9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public sewer will be provided to the project site, pursuant to city code. (10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or private. (a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards of the City. (b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: K:IReparts120051PZD-MDP ReportstArst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).doc (i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul- de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street. (ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below. (iii)All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer. (iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density served by a loop street shall be 80 units. (v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private street." (vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the other parties to the covenants. (vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for such cost. The protective covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private streets for purposes of providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and any other of the municipal functions. The protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be amended and shall not terminate without approval of the City Council. (viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The following standard shall be used: K:1Reports120051PZD-MDP ReportslFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Churchj.doc Paving Width (No On -Street Parkine) Dwelling Units One -Way Two -Way 1-20 14' 22' 21+ 14' 24' *Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is intended. (ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private streets within a PZD. (x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street. (xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic. FINDING: All public and private streets/drives shall conform to city standards. Improvements to existing streets shall be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development. Public and Private streets shall not be gated, unless permitted by express approval from the City Council by resolution. (11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities. FINDING: N/A (12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The location of trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade levels. FINDING: A tree preservation plan shall be submitted at the time of development. (13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or K: tReports120051PZD-MDP Rep ortslFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Chu rch).doc commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in §166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for Commercial Structures. FINDING: Institutional facilities, including a church use, are not required to comply with standard Commercial Design Standards, though the proposed structures are evaluated for compatibility with the consideration of a conditional use permit. The applicant has submitted proposed elevations and architectural design standards for the proposed development. All structures shall be evaluated as set forth in the project booklet, to ensure that the proposed buildings will adhere to the context of the surrounding commercial developments and existing church structure. Architectural elevations shall be reviewed at the time of development for a determination of this development standard of the proposed PZD. (14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant restrictions. FINDING: Staff finds no specific scenic views to be protected on the subject property. (E) Revocation. (1) Causes for revocation as• enforcement! action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that any PZDt approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances: (a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed. (b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased development schedule as stated in the approved development plan. (c) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components. Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of each quarter, so that_the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or K: 1Reports12005WZD-MOP Reports Wars: Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).doc revoke those previously issued. (2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted. (3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued issuance of building permits. (F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations. (1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads, parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building, lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts and covenants. All legal.: instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally - owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a preliminary form. (2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the developer shall file with the plat. a declaration of covenants, and restrictions in the Guarantee that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are granted. (b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer. (C) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years. K. Viepor1s120051PZD-MDP ReportslFirsi Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).doc (d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes and other public assessments. (e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance assessment levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property. FINDING: The applicant shall comply with the above requirements, as part of the Planned Zoning District ordinance, where applicable. Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning District (A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. (2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. (4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. (5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative.effect upon the future development of the area; (6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. (7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. (8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing K.9Reporrsl20051PZD-MOP ReporlsiFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-f 704 (First Baptist Church).doc natural features and amenities. (9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. (10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. FINDING: Staff finds the uses to be compatible to the area, with the commitments, development standards, conditions of approval and other criteria in place with the rezoning request. (B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each rezoning parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label, along with the designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development plan and development standards. FINDING: The subject described real property is proposed to be rezoned to C-PZD 05- 1704, with one unique Planning Area. The development standards, statement of commitments and Master Development Plan approved shall be adopted with the rezoning. D) C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District (1) Purpose and intent. The C-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use developments containing any combination, including multiple combinations of commercial, office or residential uses in a carefully planned configuration in such a manner as to protect and enhance the availability of each independent use. The C-PZD is also intended to accommodate single use commercial developments that are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general commercial rezone. The legislative purposes, intent and application of this district include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) To encourage the clustering of commercial and office activities within areas specifically designated to accommodate such uses and to discourage the proliferation of commercial uses along major thoroughfares and noncommercial areas. (b) To provide for orderly development in order to minimize adverse impact on surrounding areas and on the general flow of traffic. (c) To encourage orderly and systematic commercial, office or mixed use development design or a combination thereof, providing for the rational placement of activities, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, access and egress, loading, landscaping and buffering strips. K: IReparu12005IPZD-MDP Reports Wits: Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).dac (d) To encourage commercial development which is consistent with the city's General Plan. (e) To accommodate larger scale suburban developments of mixed -uses in a harmonious relationship. FINDING: The proposed use of the property is confined to one specific use. A portion of the property owned by the applicant is currently being utilized for this use and it is a compatible use with the surrounding commercial and residential areas. The First Baptist Church is an established development and use in the downtown area. The requested Master Development Plan will allow an existing non -conforming use and structure to become compliant and encourage its longevity in the downtown area. (2) Permitted Uses. Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities FINDING: See Zoning Criteria Chart above for the use permitted by right as proposed by the applicant. (3) Conditions. (a) In no instance shall the commercial or office use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross leasable floor area within the development. (b) Residential uses must be appropriate to the design of the project. (c) Warehousing and light industrial uses shall have a gross area per use that does not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet and at least twenty percent (20%) of the floor area used for retail sales. *Required Findings for Rezoning Request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office, to C-PZD 05-1704, with.the adoption of the associated Master Development Plan. LAND USE PLAN: The General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a Historic Commercial. Rezoning this property to C-PZD 05-1704, with the associated Master Development Plan, is not specifically consistent with the land use plan for this area, however it is consistent with the historic and existing use of this property and several other properties within the downtown also designated Historic Commercial. The proposed plan, commitment and other conditions placed upon the project result in a compatible development with surrounding land uses in the general vicinity. K tRepans120051PZD-MDP ReportslFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).doc FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: The proposed rezoning is to a great degree consistent with many of the principles and policies in place 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 needed in order to develop the property for a church institution, a reduced setback, and a reduction in the parking requirements of the Unified Development Code without processing a conditional use requests, waiver requests, and variance applications. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning will not cause an increase in traffic, as the existing property is currently utilized as a church facility. The expansion of this use, however, will likely increase the amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic • on one or two days of the week. Street improvements will need to occur as a result, and shall be installed with development.of the project. Staff finds the • proposal will not appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Population density will not alter with the requested rezoning. There is one existing home on the property to be removed; however the majority of the property is developed for non-residential use. - 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A K: IBeports1200SIPZD-MOP RepartslFirst Baptist Church C-PZDIC-PZD 05-1704 (First Baptist Church).dac • Taye'Tttvi1e Planning Commission of November 28, 2005 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 444-3470 To: Cromwell Architects Engineers From: Sarah K. Patterson (Urban Forester) Date: September 6, 2005 Subject: Master Development Comments ITEM #: PZD-Master Development Plan (First Baptist Church) TREE PRESERVATION PLAN L Zoned PZD, a preserved canopy of 25% will be expected for thisarea: Significant tree • canopies, as defined in the Landscape Manual, will need to be denoted on the Tree Preservation Plan so that their location can be compared to that of development. 2. In the overall design, significant trees in good condition will be expected to have a higher priority of preservation. I would stress the importance of designing structures that work around these trees versus complete removal. 3. A site analysis report with map will need to be submitted for review. 4. The Tree Preservation Plan should include all grading, proposed preservation areas, and canopy square foot calculations including existing, removed, and preserved. 5. For the planned parking lot expansion near Lafayette Street it will be important to identify and call out trees and their condition. It might be beneficial in this area to try to create islands and planters around existing trees. Preservation might be a better option in this area rather than starting new with small trees. 6. Near the Playground and Phase II addition there is an existing tree that could add many benefits to the playground area. It will take several years of growth for a new tree to provide as much shade as a well established tree found in an urban environment. Depending on the health and species methods could be taken to possible preserve this tree for future enjoyment. Z O ^� w -^ z = H 0 WWQC/5 wa) D ��w H`H/'�OQZ� 00OQC7�Wzo�C7"'�Ox y�C7WQQo_Np� H C7 niUpQWE-)arn_F,E,UH �Gla_vw3�w��Q�Mw3QHo z�w0 zQ OoHOOQIT M �HM H.,OUv��O p00.,Z 0 WHN Op�HQO NQ�w wQ�wWw.w��C7 pip Cx7WE-.OQ�W,QzWZ7miHhId w Ex- a O O.x H CD a o W H 4 Wwmx4W�aw� z0= wm Coo 0 z Cry= QW NQ�,cv �WzOc7000NW�•,�OMp a��0 HW w - c7MQ o H..Q�tp Z Q7HWoC/�E''O o H z zzW WH�UW rJ cwi1�-?c°�pOZW �� HHwx�wQH zwtw7Q�2�QUwOww_ QQ xxHQOC)P' �OwOww"Qz o UwW WWQU A a� OUwv�WrnQWc) W z�ZO "IWMzUWWWOOP - F' 0 Wq0�w�QHPh I x�wwaF"OtI zo2wH ,_,QcQW .^Uzpo� Q w x Q Q O x o w W W w `�OQC/�Oo�a�QwwpO� y wz�zZxQQ _ [Ixw��HOpaOw000� 0�1 0�� C7 �'� WUOaz2 q w w c z x p U O O H x z Q Q �O���wH u., `7wzHoaoo`�`"aHHwaaa'�� w� - a Uv�O�"xOwxwNOC7r�xQxx`'' UU0z¢WwHU_UFx~CIDZu Q � WG�Q�W C7C7WHWOzW N Q H Q O H z U HExC a 0 0 0 Gn FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Jeremy Pate Director of Current Planning 125 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72702 Dear Mr. Pate, I am in receipt of the Master Development Plan of the PZD for the First Baptist Church located at Dickson Street and College Avenue. I was asked to share the proposed PZD with our Central Dispatch Center for input on any comments. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department this PZD will have a negligible impact on calls for police service. Sincerely, k Vv Lieutenant Rob Turberville Fayetteville Police Department POLICE DEPARTMENT FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 71701 P.O. BOX 1988 JAIL 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-1988 PHONE: 479-587-3555 FAX: 479-587-3522 Fayetteville Fire Department 303 W. Center St. Fayetteville AR. 72701 Date: November 2, 2005 To: Suzanne Morgan, Jeremy Pate, Andrew Garner, and Jesse Fulcher From: Dale Riggins Subject: November 7th First Baptist Church C-PZD. First Baptist Church C-PZD This Church is covered by Engine I and Ladder I located on Center Street. It is /2 mile from Station I with an anticipated response time of 2 minutes. Looking over the Plat Review Worksheet, which our Fire Marshal's office filed concerning this development, I see no problems with this addition to the Church. Typically, as with most assembly properties, there will be no adverse affect on our call volume. If you have any questions please feel free to call or email me Dale Riggins Fayetteville Fire Department FAYETTEVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT Offee of the Fire Marshal Plat Review Worksheet Plat Name: MPD for PZD First Baptist Church / Dickson St. Occupancy Classification: Mixed Reviewed by: Battalion Chief Kyle S. Curry Date: September 08, 2005 ACCE Cap able of supporting at least 75,000 pounds AFCD101.1 ess roads have a minimum width of 20 feet AFC 503.2.1 dings over 30 feet in height have access for aerial apparatus AFC DI0S. 1 ,L11•,'/Access roads for aerial apparatus have a minimum width of 26 feet AFC D105.2 ❑ At least one aerial access located within 15 feet (minimum) to 30 feet (maximum) from structure AFC DI0S.3 ❑ "Dead End" access roads in excess of 150 feet have appropriate turnaround provisions AFC D103.4 ❑ Gated access has a minimum width of 20 feet AFC D103.5 ❑ Means of securing gates be approved by Office of the Fire Marshal AFCD103.5 ❑ "Fire Lanes" 20-26 feet in width marked on both sides of lane AFC D103.6.1 ❑ "Fire Lanes" greater than 26 feet in width marked on one side of lane AFC D103.6.2 ❑ "Fire Lanes" have a minimum width of 26 feet (turnout) at hydrant location AFC D103.1 ❑ Multiple Family Residential with more than 100 dwelling units equipped with two separate access roads AFC DI06.1 ❑ One- or Two -Family dwelling developments with more than 30 units equipped with two separate access roads AFC D107.1 HYDRANTS �❑ imum distance between hydrants - 500 feet (fire flow requirement of 1750 gpm) AFC C105 [c Maximum distance between hydrants - ___________ (fire flow requirement of gpm) AEC C10S Wdicated hydrant within 100 feet of Fire Department Connection NFPA 13 FIRE PROTF,CTION SYSTEMS Sprinkler system required AFC Ch. 9 ❑ flood system required AFC 609 and Ch. 9 tL[ 'y6ndpipe system required AFC Ch. 9 • IA Fire Alarm and Detection system required AFC Ch. 9 e and Heat Vents required AFC Ch. 9 ire Department Connections "free standing" (height of building + 15%) in area that is visible and designated to what structure it supplies AFC Ch. 9/Requirement of F.F.D. ❑ Fire Pump required GENERAL ❑ Address numbers, names, and designations readily visible from street or frontage AFC Zx-Box or Knox Switch required AFC 506 ❑ Fire Command Center required AFC 509 COMMENTS • All access roads need to have a minimum width of 26 feet in order to allow for aerial apparatus • Hydrant spacing will need to be a maximum of 300 feet • Structure will need to be equipped with a s rinlder system • Free standing FDC located to the north of the west drive at the south west comer of structure • Dedicated hydrant within 100 feet of FDC * Fire alarm and detection systems will be required 303 W. Center St. Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 718-7639 :�.'i ■ :f±\ : A I E.'� 9N :11 I : sk 0 11111_ITlrl�l. Z( ( - Snll''i�����'�F nr R-••c�'-a— 1 .��' 11111 'a Iv 1 If . i I. Oi _1 i 4'`-� ti s nfl t�n�— 1.� FIB i� ' ��, ' (11111 {^ 1 ' �It � y VV t I11�� I Ip�li� j 11���1 ( ■ . : � � !04101 'son �r ill���� ` �� F.1I//b �/•r,� . a --_ -. 1 uii St_' r f t .Ir'' 1 .. pl, 1 Q61� 7111N!11W111 1111 s4. ,TY, .. ull'111111 IP 11 aau�� 411111 ,1 u, t ��111 ' 11- 3• 1111— 11111111w M1' lip = i ,j l" q�r_!�1 ,11 ;. 1 ,1 If.l nl... �� �1 11111111111111 Ili I4i {i,......1 r : 11 .i . 11111 �\ �I:�i•��i ie aTs/l I!.■ '�• - Y-a�a ._ r 1 e11141!� Prllsen'lllll . `{_■•�il,� 1 F_� 111111i�111_ 1 �.}�.1111 111 mn� r.'� f i OIIL[S X 111 Ills! 1 a��;�•11111���_II. EQltl111 n�1�1 �•--. �I WIN eras I'I t�s>. . . t `� rl II • zsllebnl, rl E-.11�1' - Y• IM1n • vlil •q l .J{ 1.. �[RJI Cc L III_ I • .;g,..{ .-J.}J- . [."p'f'pl�lV:t%i r t t _.. Il .. •n ' � P'. y 4 r i fl• 1.+� } 1� il.: 'i�Ril�V I[ ��l� V 11 I{. � 1 i[ � t t',. Ik ihfi • f1���r1k�(1 r 1 I f�Yl ( / 1 i 1 '� '4 r C ,. till, '�c udlllilllll l' -� f .. r- •! I % ��1`` ` �..^I' v' °I •' [ ; ( 'I P�pw111r,'11�11 Appllcdtlon for Planned Zoning District (C�FZD) FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH Fayetteville, Arkansas 12-01-05 1J GENERAL PROVISIONS FTfl 1. 1 4r,, ,,.il,I1 :n J 1n II YI ,sections. .n 1 .. ' ItIi i, \ 1 1 • 1 YI « \ 1 11 1 1. .II\ 1' :ndow r4 1191 "««e\\ 14I" 11'11.11 I Ilr• development 1 . 11 .111 PI LH .III all , it 1 Ir" 1 iji1 .1 I .. .1 .I 11 '�� II 1. 1 1111-1 ..II 1 J91«e 111, I'J..11.1 IrY Y\1 U 1 .'1 P• J:I 11-_I. ':1111 i1 11111' Y1 « . •Ln^ 1 I«I I "+114. •\I \ 11 1 1." -1 41 Y4 n 1 1 .111\ -1 1 I," . . (\I1 . 4«111 . I n i,Development11' u ' � n. s 4 1 r I n 41 .. n 1 1- . n 1 • 1 9 I I' development.I ipiI I MI .: r , i, I,1 9 fl K1 • IT_ LJ u 1.1111!i , 1 1 Y Y development1 I \.\I 1 , > 1 n u , Y •i .111 w..l.il .nresolutions\ I 111w . 1 \ \ 1 .fl1411 41 1 Lw L" 11 1111 111 w 1 1 - �Y 1." 116 . «M 11 I .111 \ .. 1 11.911 .11 .111thepres9 Ill n 1 11 "t \ 1- ' I I' 1 \ V 11 1 1 ' .11 : 111' 1 1' .IL, .1 911 MII ofcommitments,.,' .. 11 NI . L, J MI 1 ✓.111 .1 , JL1 I - . ✓. i . I 1 111111.\i 1'.91 pac I 111 11 favorn 1 ', wl .n 1 1 911, •J, . 11 YI 1 1 11 111 Y.11111 .11 119\1• . 1\1, il' L.111311 11 1' I b II \' 1 .11 11` ,i 1 Y 11 11 1 1 ' �,4 n, ll NI ' .11 1 . •\ I' ". II `I 1 i 11 1 9 1." .I 1 Y .s• I • 11 1 most_111 «I " ,imposesI 1 F Y✓ 11 1 \ 41 1 911 a 11 IK govern 11 :�\ determined \' Li . ' 1." Develop IIAII Administrator. Maximum 1 I;' 1', 11 :11 1- 1' 11111. . 9 11 ' 11 1" 'A 1 IY. commercial,. Y114h 1 1111 1 1 /1Y .11'1 1 YI \ 1' .. II NI 1111 L .1111n1' -+.n I' 11K b11 111 developmenti, ♦1 1 1 11' . LJp o 1 111 Ir';c 111114 1 1 ' I•J.1 \ 1' \'l ll'I . •111114 M. 1' Y1� 1 111 ll.: 11 114 1 " 1 subdivision \ 'IIm 1 91141 , .11 it 11 41fw11 11 1' I'- i. 911." 11 \ 1.' fl:Y.\1' 1 1 II - 1 " 1 , l 1 1 1 IK , \ _ ✓. 1 ' \ 1 11 411 , .1.. I 1 1 \ 11141 1 Ir 1 1.' ' .1111111' Y \ 1 11 1 . . 11 : 1 11 11 6 \11141 1111 .I 1 Ir q «4i1 N 2 Application for a Planned Zoning District Non -Residential Development Landowner: First Baptist Church 20 East Dickson St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Representative: Cromwell Architect Engineer 107 N. Block St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 ntaw;I0i31 ucs1LKc1`6[�51 As shown on the proposed Master Development Plan the church has set forth a phased development of the property that combines additions to and renovations of the existing facility buildings. It also shows the alteration of existing parking areas to accommodate the proposed additions, enhance traffic circulation, and provide new areas of landscaping. Inasmuch as the church sanctuary seating capacity is actually being reduced as a result of the currently in -progress renovation of the sanctuary (Phase I of the MDP) the church's vision is more oriented toward the following goals. 1) The alleviation of inadequate facilities for the services and ministries offered for the congregation. These include updating and expansion of children's department, rearrangement of classroom spaces for better access for the elderly members of the church, and other provisions for improvement. 2) The resolution of long standing internal circulation problems that have plagued the use of the facility for many years, and, 3) the re-establishment of the church's historical identity on the corner of College and Dickson, by the installation of a usable and appropriately sized front entrance and foyer with orientation to the intersection. As shown on the MDP site plan, the church expects to proceed through four phases of development. Phase I is the wholly internal renovation of the existing sanctuary. This phase is currently underway. Phase H consists of the addition of children's classrooms and circulation to join the former Goff -McNair building to the church facility. It also includes the renovation of a portion of the Goff -McNair building, and the alteration of the existing parking area to provide the church with full available parking capacity. New landscaping in compliance with the City Landscape Ordinance will be accomplished also. Phase II is anticipated to 3J be undertaken in the next 1-3 years, as funding is available. Phase III will continue the renovation of the Goff -McNair building and add classrooms and circulation to connect to the east end of the existing sanctuary, as well as additional landscape areas along College Ave. These additions will initiate the creation of connective elements along College Ave. to produce the street -wall effect envisioned in the city's master plan. The church anticipates undertaking Phase III 1-3 years following the completion of Phase II, as funding is available. Phase IV consists of the creation of a new front entrance and foyer to the south of the existing sanctuary. This addition is intended to re-establish the public image of the church on the intersection of College and Dickson while providing a usable main entry to the church as well as finalizing the creation of a fully integrated circulation system within the church campus. It will be accompanied by extensive landscaping, including the retaining of large mature maple trees, to appropriately define the nature of this important city focal point. Phase IV is anticipated to be undertaken in 1-3 years following the completion of Phase III, as funding is available. In addition to these phases the church envisions the replacement of the existing steeple atop the central church tower with an open bell tower in keeping with the scale and design of the existing tower base. In addition the church plans to erect one low monument sign on the property at the location shown on the Master Development Plan. These elements will be undertaken during one of the phases listed above as funds are available. The development elements of this plan, buildings, paved areas and landscaping will have the following types of impact. Surface run-off and drainage will have the same pattern as the existing drainage pattern. And while the altered parking area will add to drainage quantities, the addition of landscaped islands and perimeter landscaping, as well as the removal of existing curb -cuts and drives, will yield a more or less commensurate reduction in drainage quantities. The development will be compatible with the surrounding land use patterns, all of which is commercial or institutional in nature. Such needs as are deemed necessary in compliance with the requirements of the UDC in terms of Buffers and Screening, Landscaping, and Tree Preservation will be incorporated into the detail of design at the time of Large Scale Development Review. As to the impact on city services, the additional use of water and sewer services would appear not to be significant; and, while it is the hope of the church that the use of the facility will be increased with this development the impact on existing traffic patterns will not be significant. The proposed additions and renovations to the facility will be constructed in accordance with the city's adopted building code at the time of the issuance of a building permit and will employ all the necessary measures required by code for fire protection. 4 Being a non-residential development this plan does not provide for any internal streets, lots, parks or separate planning areas. As well there are no natural or man-made hazards or resource areas in its boundaries other than those falling under the guidelines for tree preservation. Proposed Zoning and Development Standards ZONING STANDARDS A. Permitted Uses : Church Facility — Use Unit 4 B. Conditional Uses: None C. Bulk and Area Regulations: None D. Density: None E. Setback Regulations: Front - None Side - None Rear - None F. Height Regulations: Building height not to exceed height of 88 feet measured from main floor of sanctuary G. Building Area: The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of the property. DEVELOPMENT/ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS The design of proposed additions and renovations will continue the current building heights and general massing, and will employ sloping and low slope roofs. The materials employed will fuse the existing buff brick with window walls comprised of translucent and transparent glazing. These window walls will echo typically traditional window forms as well as larger scaled combinations to achieve a new, more lively facade texture. Trim materials will follow the stone appearance of the existing dressings with both concrete and synthetic stucco. As can be seen in the accompanying depictions, the proposed additions along College Ave. are intended to engage the guidelines of the city's master plan to foster appropriate street -wall elements, while the proposed new main entrance and its garden setting are intended to provide the intersection of College and Dickson an appropriately scaled definition of the church's quadrant of the intersection. Site design elements will incorporate typical existing materials, concrete walks at secondary locations and patterned concrete at prominent locations such as the proposed new main entrances. With the exception of the walks at the intersection of College and Dickson, existing sidewalks will be maintained, or replaced where derelict, in their current configurations on the perimeter, and will meet the requirements of Section 166.03 All proposed landscaping will comply with current City Landscape Ordinance. Current street lighting will be maintained in place. Fencing indicated will meet requirements City Buffer and Screening ordinance at the time of Large Scale Development Review. A monument sign, indicated on the MDP, is proposed to be erected during the phases of development, and will comply with the City sign ordinance in area, height and setback. It will be constructed of materials compatible with the building, brick and stone with either applied or incised lettering. The surface parking shown on the MDP will be accomplished in Phase II, and will comply with the requirements of Chapter 172 of the UDC. The proposed future parking deck will meet the requirements of Chapter 172 of the UDC as well as the requirements of the City building code. 61 PHASE DATA PHASE II AREA NEW CONSTR 16,700 SF RENOVATION 6,800 SF PHASE III AREA NEW CONSTR 3,800 SF RENOVATION 10,400 SF PHASE IV AREA NEW CONSTR 6,000 SF RENOVATION 500 SF HEIGHT TWO STORY - 24 FEET HEIGHT ONE STORY - 14 FEET HEIGHT TWO STORY - 24 FEET 07i C. TABLE OF COMPARATIVE ZONING REGULATIONS LAND USE TABLE' ..,l4r 4 I.l 1L_t!.iz, .a ,'.:1_ w - . a ai - _]• —..--_s -s. - • li I I. - • •' -U I -p 1. • •. 1 i. -. • 1 I - - -s -i_s •_L ,j_. J • 1 j - • S • ,.l Wfl •, �i • IV III 1 ®©� ZONING REGULATIO1iS A. PERMITTED USES USE UNIT 4 CHURCH FACILITY B. CONDITIONAL USES NONE C. BULK and AREA REGULATIONS NONE D. DENSITY NONE E. SETBACK REGULATIONS Front None Side None Rear None F. HEIGHT REGULATIONS Building height not to exceed 88 feet, as measured from morn floor of sanctuary. G. BUILDING AREA The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of the property comprisin_g this Planned Zoning District. STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS First Baptist Church will comply with such requirements as are deemed necessary in accordance with Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection of the UDC. First Baptist Church will undertake the proposed phasing as set out in the General Project Concept. The church's envisioned timetable is dependent upon financial capability. First Baptist Church will ensure that all buildings set forth in this development plan will be constructed in accordance with the adopted building code of the City of Fayetteville and will as such provide necessary measures for fire protection in accordance with that code. First Baptist Church will ensure that all sidewalks, street lighting, water, sewer, street access and drainage will comply with City of Fayetteville regulations. First Baptist Church will provide the surface parking shown on the MDP during Phase II of the proposed Master Plan of Development. 101 t e . r [ r- • r L 1f • • if 11,111" U ( , ! I agLriIIrIiI1rq lftjt rt9yt[ }Ft EF pa rt&1 { �{ _' �1(tr t t� 1�t { w`� # {f{ n !1^ 1 '11 1' 9°tlrall'1•trtr}[•r °$; tt }1'`It` it'll k Littill !lklP �'i dit p. 1t L{ rF w B t ek'1t rLLii -f7 tF k.jF't• I.a [1�.t k �Ei([J�i• tr r rf l: . t rF 11, =,�t . Lr�t{C{.�1ri� k�}¢f ' fF{r" [1kt 46 t! ji; i{F iIt �' !li t 1 ! ( .: tl{#II}' I f fir} R•tardI IIBI I i rf { iI II {• ir•{ �f I 1 1 , I k[ {rt till I (LI �' {f •� 1•Jlllliiiitf � titl•Fli (i }nlli`11I I'i{naeEtI.{i 1 EF.?C"vl "I�1 tiB F let; �(l �j �ni l�11111,i . �. } kkI1 (l`[�ttkl{}r( t .p ia!!%jl r1 r tl}t $l I rr, r • P rr !t • t fe{ •. Iqi(}}ieii;� t i le?r{t}l C t•i ,{ �•7t fj V} �Ipf "{ "• (tl '1 a rtt! 1"'° kB`tle }'t} t}F° BPt}I•t[{j},tt }[[ {} l i erUp L�t 'L•f`ftiF } `ft I•t i}i} r r ;bi lrs1 nti;II} , t' } a6; rF16 r•1 lt L i [ t r r +• it C C 1 ttr{ it ItE�E�iJE}tt t [ twCt iIr}l t¢r I I l{"1F�t= kiFlt t l; ,, y{.r tLl• 1 Inl'iC' t It /t(l l r j •1 sy i r it I L {�i{ }t` J} j�rI[l1r.lF11r i�rFr[Cit F;.71 t�4 is i�ltfE{ tl # jflllt t}r,t r I { tl C}� t{I{ �w )f ttY t ,rkll III 1 LC i ktBil°-lFt k:t t aria n i1P v 1 1}t r rJ F w [p[ It k FFE [! Lit[a r 1 Jt 4 [ [ ► 'Ii;'l..f O.Iti r •}irtkr},i". .f iIr } i 'r L}t Iff };I F } t lilt BJ yrl tJ•} Pr ar pa •�• Lk , 1 t t [ IL' r itL•• t{r rr IJ L�IcI Cr}tFl•l !3 kai Ir rs }t t,t [=fate r { IIw R }fp[ {�tptplI }r ti igtI-r}It rr .• It I It I P t rat 1t( tJ r7t�a .±[t it'• }si s}tee T .p{ iolllt•t II1 t1•(1 I I. t r tit lr r 1tt Bltllytt (t' rtti # i 1 w�r[ni s at r. t. S aalaaa . tic:i .-ICe i i 1 o Jy 1 tOutIlia 0 F � {did°I y C Ij 3 lJ;t 8�9 a a O.� �i y< 1 1 } r • F� L t C. aft, I g§ U - tJ• x -ti '' t E 9 r E rI t § :° 1 zF 1 Ct,yl'( @ § �j s, rlt` r; }f S til ,1 j` t. 1 T `Y ` J ''a is, __ '- t•l iii :. II r E � `C -1. F ipr; • _ n o .r ft ' hi t —r —- X14 t[g j`` �w� glppL dkCD a a L l W < i5 - ' tai -r Itrr:.Bt Cl) a t I I 1 •o 8 �`! r . .bc �� • a g �_J fvai 1 I ,�d5`EezJaQa __ __r In '!E 3 r� p a?tot 4�°yg_ '..' _ v i t 3t.pp:.tA1FCQt ¢: 0 e' i {� L °i at•tQCri 1!p�F i le. ♦p F [.q ' I v 9 ' Qg8 � e[ � Quip% F.n ry�y. ____ ___ ^ J�d , ry Wt C.I mt:__ \. P[ �apdC`�i��8�ei�[.� i y J r] ry ,t o •g�4?Ya]+p.p1�itl3 5a�ehYE3Q t. / eta n1Thao• DifX50N SIREFI ral Y First BaptistChurch, Ar w � r � ' r 3 Master Development Plan i m:+ A Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Pagel C-PZD 05-1704 First.Baptist Church Commissioner Ostner: The next item is C-PZD 05-1704 for First Baptist Church. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. This is a unique request for approval of a Master Development Plan Commercial Planned Zoning District for First Baptist Church located at the corner of Dickson and College Ave. This request is for approval of a rezoning. -and future development which will occur in 5 phases. At this time, what is before you is noidetailed plans for this development with specific street improvements outlined, etc. How'eyer; this is a zoning issue and will establish the land use and building requirements, bulkand area,and signage usage for this property. This property is currently being utilized foslxirstBaptist Church and buildings surrounding the property. The applicant desires to enlarge th structure as'§flown on the plan before you. With this proposal, additional parking t o ld be provided in a coming'phase with a parking deck on the property. The applicant proposesthis in five.phases, which iricliides the renovation of the existing building that is occurring at thittime Tiie applicant proposes compliance with the majority of the requirements of the Unified Development Code. There are some slight modifications; the parking proposed is for a total 01,67 parking spaces - with current_ordinances a minimum 175 parking spaces are allowed so"'the applicants are requesting eight fewer spaces without a conditional use,approval. That is addressed in condition one of the conditions of approval. Briefly going through the zonii gcritena p;oposed, the proposed use unit is Use Unit 4, Cultural and recreational facilities, which alto s di church use. The property is currently zoned C-2 and ROOEariThrequires a conditional use a p oval for this use. The density or li intensity is listed as none which will. allow for the proposed development. They are establishing a maximum buildable area of 60% of the property: Height regulations are listed for.each phase of development with phase two being two stones, as'ell as phase four. Phase three is a one x{"5`1 F"��.. A. story proposal at 14 ft; the pang deckould be riiaximum of 3 levels in height, with a net 88 spaces. There are;notany setbac ` requirementswhich would allow the development of this building to`the property lihe, Th current existing structure is built within the Master Street Plan right-of-way for College*A e. The applicant is required to process a request for lesser dedication of right=of College1%e. way for College. and p 'tential1y Dickson Sdepending on where the building is located adjacent to the right ojf way.✓However, this would be done at the time of the development and"the conditioi s we listed in the staff report reflect this. With regard to signage, the applicant is proposing something a little different than what is typically allowed for monument signs. Theappl ant is proposing two monument signs on the property, one at the corner of Dickson and College and a second at the comer of Dickson and Highland. The applicant proposes a I5 ft setback for the monument sign on Dickson and a zero -foot set back for the one on Highland and Dickson. Staff recommends the requested monument signs, as long as they meet the regulations set forth in the Commercial Zoning District requirements. We have included that as the second condition requesting Planning Commission review. There are proposals for phasing, shown in shading, based on the development plans. Construction of sidewalks will be in compliance with the Master Street Plan adjacent to College and Dickson. The applicant requests the phasing of street improvements to correspond with the phasing of Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 2 construction to remove any landscaping or sidewalks during renovation. Since we are not reviewing development at this time, the applicant will be required to come through review for each of its phases as a large scale development. No residential dwelling units are proposed. Listed are 14 conditions of approval, and staff is recommending forwarding this Master Development Plan to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Thad Kelly with Cromwell Architects represented the applicant. He stated that the proposed right-of-way off of College is a huge issue with them, that it takes 20;feet of the building that is already existing. He showed where the line would be on the map. The point being made is that they would prefer condition number 10. This is important for the whole project. We can not build in a right-of-way. He stated that they tried to enhance the comer of College and Dickson with a structure that builds a streetscape and landscaping.µABetter flow and,eirculation of the church and internal processes would be achieved. It would be"done in phases`in.the next 22 years, and the parking deck would be the last thing., This was planned in mind to;engage the city's master plan for the street/wall elements alor gi€college. We agree with everything that staff recommends, including establishment of vegetation asatbufferrto' any adjacent residential property. Part of the reason we are doing this is due to the; oiling, which is from a different era when this was R -O. We are trying to do`'thi sas a current PZD atoget away from the R -O. Everything that is touching us or near us isacommercial. He cited.buildings in the surrounding r , -r-. area as examples ft's••.. g,," Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public corndmentj iThere was no public comment. Commissioner Trumbo stated b6diad a question on the monument signs, what is shown on the plat given to us, is this setn ston�?jr Mt. Pate stated it is not setisloSe5t1tajwitha1kMaster Development Plans, this is a template; to see what t deu I er is gomt• gtto do with the frilly designed project. No, we do not anticipate that is exactly where theirnonumentsigns will be but they will be in that general area. Condition 2 in the staff report statest the nibhiin?eht signs must meet the setback requirements within a commer ialtzoning district Signage is'a zoning issue and ties back to the zoning ordinances. Staff appiYa�.is based on the setbacl[ requirements that are required in that zoning district. Commissioner Vaught statedxthat they never had anything this long term in phases before, is that acceptable in a PZDf<,,' Mr. Pate stated that City Council and Planning Commission will determine if it is appropriate, with their review of the master plan. Commissioner Vaught stated that phase five is the parking deck. Mr. Pate stated that is correct. J Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Ostner stated he would like to know where the parking deck is slated to go. Mr. Kelly stated that the parking deck would be between them and the Thrify Nickel, at grade with College Avenue, and extending out to three levels on Highland. There is a grade change on one deck level there. We could laminate a building on the street edge if needed. Mr. Vaught, on the phase question, the church has been there for 150 years, and this document is to let you know that they intend to build for next 22 years. Commissioner Vaught directed his question to Mr. Pate on the parking deck requirements. With the calculations, with a parking deck, will that allow 167 narkini s n, Fv7 Mr. Pate stated that 167 spaces are shown on the plans, withath additiono f the parking deck it would allow 88 net spaces to be provided. `�. Commissioner Allen stated when the parking deck is completed; would they be willing to do ,. . g some shared parking during the times you don t have church aetivesrgoing on, with other business on Dickson Street? -' Mr. Kelly noted that the church has been'very',xaccommodatingwith the businesses in the surrounding area. He didn't see any problem w ih° that. Also, the]ng was based on the 1000 seats in the auditorium. However, with the rov tttiat.is goingcurrently, the church has decreased the seating and moved people around. Commissioner Ostner stated he un rstands that is a Master Development Plan, and they are not asking for develop ent, but how does this wofikcwith our rezoning and Unified Development Code? Besides the4discr- ancy wit the right-of-way�on College, he thought a proposal needed a zoning change that did not fit§in itit-rr t-codes$to propose a Master Development Plan. Why are we seeing,ihis, not a large tale development with right-of-way issues? Mr. Pa estated that the prolem of11P right-of-way is only one; issues with setbacks and zoos nglis another. He explained these issues to Commissioner Ostner. Lommissloner,Ostner stated due to the right-of-way issue, zoning, and conditional uses required for a church weSee&it as a PZD. He stated he understands it now. Commissioner Vaughtts aced that nothing on the drawing states phase 5, do we need to make it say phase 5 for the parking deck on the paperwork as stated? Mr. Pate stated it can be, as it is stated in the conditions. Commissioner Lack stated his concern with the parking deck. Listed in the booklet in phase 4, the parking deck is mentioned. He stated his concern on the open door this will give someone in the future. With it mentioned in Phase 4, it will allow an open deck area and height limitations. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 4 This would limit the 2 story parking area to a 24 ft. height, but he can also see the desirability of the liner building and the streetscape. Mr. Kelly stated that the confusion of the height is that the 88 feet is the existing building and it would go no higher than that. Commissioner Lack stated that in the booklet for phase 4, there are diagrams with calculated height requirements for each phase. He sees a limitation to the two story parking deck. Ms. Morgan stated in the booklet at one point in time all of the�pfiases�were broken down and phase five was specifically identified as the parking deck. It appears in'reyisions if you look on page 2 of the general concept, discussion of phase 4, it states,in�khe second paragraph, mid -way down, that at some unknown future date, the applicant,e ivisions a 2-3 level�pazking deck. And the parking deck is shown in the plans Commissioner Lack stated with the limitation of requirement established for the parking garage. Mr. Kelly stated the garage should be in th r wired 24 feet hi be taller than that, but the structure itself juld be pen on the Commissioner Lack stated that would be development plan.' byphase, we do not)have a height light, requirements. The cars would top' `: ga"condition or part of the Mr: Murphy with C of i ejI-Archii is stated the p'°sirking deck is a future consideration that the V was church has in mind, not bemg ver}specific at this timg It is a thought towards two things: One, to provide the church with lie vadabil t, "to:=inerease their parking. The parking deck is .� described as so. building wenty y`bars'from now, the city's point -of -view about parking ma change, orih'e city might ask them to build a 3 story parking deck, then add one story ttiit is not very wet ushed' ut.n$w. What Thad said about the height is true, because of the change in grade there.: It wouldlie in the keeping with the building heights in the Commissioner Cabi stated ware being asked to approve a master plan and we are establishing those criteria for all`the,otherr phases. The one phase that would have the most potential for concern is the parking garage. We do not want to end up with an open parking deck on the streetscape and the los's of that facade. Mr. Murphy asked Commissioner Lack if it was his recommendation to amend our proposal to provide a more specific description of the deck? Commission Lack stated looking into this as an over-all Master Plan that was his assessment of it, and would like to hear from the other commissioners. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Murphy stated he would like to address the parking deck in general, at this point. He stated again, that there were two purposes to the parking deck. One being the church's use of it, due to the overall parking situation in Fayetteville and the ideal structure to meet the current PZD. He stated again that these are plans for the far future, and it was good to think in those terms. He also mentions that possibly pulling the parking deck from the proposal at this time to go forward would be a good idea. rt Commissioner Lack stated that he would like to applaud the idea of using a parking deck with an urban church in this urban campus. .-, - Commissioner Graves stated that he was going to propose, before the ppant had, to possibly remove the parking deck from this particular application; due to it being so far off in the future, and not even knowing if they are going to be doing,itz; If they do, they don't seemto know what it would possibly look like. The applicant seemspretty.knowledgeable in the othilrareas of what they want, and he states he doesn't feel comfortable binding the Planning Commission 20 years from now. He states an example of this and advised that it would be a good idea to pull this from the application. Commissioner Vaught stated he also appla'sthe ideta of the parking3eck. He asks Mr. Pate if they should strike the whole parking deck out; or leaved?part of it./Will it come in as a large scale development, or how will they go about'that in`fhe'futu e ..-...> a 1,. .. _ . .y.[ Mr. Pate stated it is really up to'thetCommission>`tf they feel'it is more appropriate to strike it or do not feel comfortable:wtth it at This time. Staff felt it was a major component for this downtown developmenf'tobave st Wired parking as'opposed to surface parking. This has been an issue for many of the churches,in''this'downtown area. If the applicant has no problem of r _n sq% . striking it at this tiirie'we see noiproblem in'itParking decks can be added at a later date. Commissioner Vaught directed a questiontto Mr. Williams. If we approve this, under the Master Development Plan, will the<applicant 6`e subject to the Downtown Zoning Code once passed? Mr. Williamstated that it might be subject to both of them, though this will be granting them the approval to tidiid-it. It is not final approval, because they do have to come through as a large scale development and,coriply with the existing ordinances. This is more of a rezoning issue, and the location of various buildings, which they are showing. Commissioner Vaught stated that if the Master Development Plan passes, and one year or 10 years from now, for this parking deck they come forward with the liner buildings, they will be held accountable for the standards at that time, not what is being passed now. Mr. Williams stated that this is an difficult question, because you would be approving a parking deck here, whether or not it is required in the future to have a liner building with the parking from it, we would be exceeding the maximum development allowed in this zoning. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 6 - deck or not. That part may not be enforceable down the road in the Master Plan, assuming it would be approved. Commissioner Vaught stated again about the time frame of the parking deck and the issues of not knowing what could happen in the next 20 years. His concern is whether to keep it in the Master Development Plan or take it out, or add some kind of condition stating that at the time of approval, those are the guidelines that need to be met. Mr. Pate stated its better to remove it altogether for the packet to theCity Council for the zoning decision rather than add arbitrary conditions. They may still be<thedrawings, but we can state Master us e, with its. Mn. igs that d it is not r staff a phase. ig built ing deck Mr. Williams stated that would be true unless it was an amendment to the Master Development Plan that was presented by the applicant to ensure in the future any revisiting of the zoning issues, by the City Council and Planning Commission in this particular case. What you say is correct, but they can come back in the future and say they want a change to this Master .)i Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 7 Development Plan that was approved in 2005, and list the reasons. The Planning Commission can look at that and it would not be in violation of that policy. Commissioner Anthes stated if nothing is planned for that site, then we would get a large surface parking lot. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone was opposed to taking out the parking deck in the proposal. Commissioner Anthes stated that she is not comfortable yet with that decision. Commissioner Ostner stated that he would take that as opposed: No one else opposed. He stated L i . that the informal reflection in the conditions and recordfrefl cfxthat eight of us are in favor of the parking deck being removed from the proposal, and; n e is opposed to it. Commissioner Anthes stated she had no problem withhtfie land=` lr.-,�Fr. questions on the bulk and area requirements, and on the Pack -of our other PZD processes. The applicant.has stated that theif ii4t" Development and Downtown Master Plai tinftheir developments addition of parking lots off of Lafayette Street in the area would character. She states that the development shown is,also`>highly character of Highland Avenue. It is almost all 'surfac nark•art Highland Avenue, whichi Plan or with the developmen of the buildings that1are bein Avenue, but in the surroug�di, states that the one story adlit might siopi stalking the mi t 3 stone ;�an r the parking deck as being a 2 on the monm rent signs to sta monument sign; and believe 1 what the chuck fas and what Mr. Pate stated that church might be able She is in keeping of the in the iise'as a church, butdoes have time requirements, compared to ention is to reflect the Downtown report indicates the :ntal for street I for the street along the entire length of ale of the Downtown Master it for the future. That leads into the heights One shows one story on College minimum i's; f or 3 stories on our major streets. She ;keeping -for downtown. Also the Planning taboos (in the Downtown Zoning Code) that this height it might be too low. She also notes the dimensions of vifh a sloped ramp and a liner building. Also, a question :s that normally we allow a sign on the building and one ve signs on their building now, and can staff explain are proposing. know how many signs they had on the existing buildings, the r that. Commissioner Anthes stated that there is one on the drive-thru canopy where the proposed monument sign is shown. Mr. Pate agreed, but monument signs are in a separate category. Commissioner Anthes asked normally don't we issue one monument sign per commercial Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 8 - business? Mr. Pate cited the ordinance of the monument and wall signs. He noted that I wall sign per wall face for each business is allowed. Commissioner Anthes stated we need to keep everything uniform for the surrounding area, which would almost disallow the second monument for that reason. Sh;stated that the building area shown is a maximum 60% coverage, assuming it is covered in cur, ent,.ordinances. How does that compare to what we are looking for on Downtown Development? She believes the Downtown Master Plan requires more coverage than this. Mr. Pate stated that was correct. Commissioner Anthes stated that in approving this proposal, it will be for less co? erage than what is stated in the Downtown Master Plan and,expeeted development for the future± She stated that she would like staff to look into this open ended phasing thatseems very longs "Normally there is some kind of expiration date on a PZD and we caQ me along and check on it. With this Master Development Plan, is there some where down t e like, will we be able to re -look at this. Mr. Pate noted the normal PZD expiration d e of one year. In zoning, there is no expiration date. That is where we look at bulk and area%jc. Due to the zoning request, we felt it was appropriate to allow that timeNn lso stated t hen the evelopment comes back thru it a o would be subject to devpmlations in lace at that time. This allows the zoning to be put in place. This is$ que sis a smaller pa el, but they have a long term plan on that parcel. With a Master Plantallowi gsome flexibilian applicant doesn't have to come back to the Planning Commission br ty Critp Count 1everyfie they need to develop something else on their propertyyHestated that the�o�rdinance allows the flexibility for the applicant to propose �somethinnd if it Wi% sometllin�giteasonable to the council, they have a say in the matter. He stated t r t the 20 year mark id initiall}�rponcem staff but staff believes the development regulations at that time wouldlbe enforced. This is not an over-all development approval on this proposal, buttemplate withlxibility with the applicant and with the Planning Commission and City Councils- The applicant may move things around a bit, but the applicant should be aware that regulations wouldb in place and enforced at that time. Commissioner Anthes'stated that if this was a straight rezoning, not a template with a drawing, it would be easier to understand at this point. She stated the conflict is in the details in the booklet and the drawings, which is the template of the zoning. Mr. Pate stated that the zoning regulations in the booklet proposed by the applicant are crucial. The width of the parking deck is not what we are reviewing at this time, but at the time of development, we would. He stated a couple of other regulations they would look at as an example. ) Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Anthes asked about height. Mr. Pate stated it was important to look at height at this time. They are establishing a maximum height; that is part of the regulations of zoning which is why it is needed to be called out. He stated again that this is not a development approval of what is proposed, but the Planning Commission as a body would now or in the future look at proposals with, what ordinances and regulations are existing at that time. 1:..e Commissioner Anthers stated she wanted to keep her comme: heights - 2 story structures and a 3 story parking garage being with the specific conditions proposed, she would like to recc"or approvals as follows: Condition of approval 2 to allow o errri approval 9 to add "development on the property shalit a in cc in effect at the time of submittal including, but noPli`m ted to, an additional condition should be added stating "prior 3ity be revised with the following provisions: the booklet shallw% remove all references to the parking strue re and liner buildi Commissioner said earlier." Commissioner Ostner motioned to amend Commissioner Myers secon`de&the motion. host but is concerned about the posed'.ih the future. She stated and a motion to amend the ment sign, condition of fiance with ordinances that are downtown zoning code"; and incil, the projectbboklet should sed to include page numbers, i compliance with what the Commissioner Vaughtzst ted he would support tha amendment, but not all of it. He stated he did not have a problem wiw tfi'the second monument sign , and had a question on the Downtown Master Plan on how uld efect Thu ure deveellopment of this project, due to the amendments regues Mr. Pa e=stated he was noes, re ho the� - 6wntown Zoning Code will be passed, that there will be s m eonflicts with som`�oathe properties that are not developed yet. He stated an example that someoneUwa�nting to dev"elor a 1 -story development will have to develop a 3 story building. If the conditions are includedas stated, he believed they would.have to comply with the future Downtown Zoning Code, since it is included in that zoning boundary. Commissioner Vaughtjsta ed if they do not put that condition in, the applicant is subject to bulk. and area requirementscthat we are passing tonight, correct? Mr. Pate stated only for the zoning. Commissioner Vaught expressed concern regarding the conflict between this Planned Zoning District proposal and future zoning actions on the property with the Downtown Zoning Code. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Pate stated if property is zoned right now from C-3 to C-4 and then the Downtown Zoning e, which is a zoning ordinance, is passed, it will affect the zoning of this property from what This is not the only property to address. Commissioner Vaught stated he does not support the amendment, and will vote against it. Striking the parking deck is a wise choice, but the other two he does not agree with. Mr. Williams stated he would recommend the Planning Con with signage, it is really not up the Planning Commission to Council has passed a resolution regarding signage. He state City Council and Planning Commission should not be invol Sign Administrator to handle that part. Anthes stated doesn't the sign for those zoning districts. Clarification on how signage is to be administered signage must follow established zoning districts w approval 2 and c include the page Commissioner Anthes Commissioner Vaugh"ta ordinance,to be held to propertyjncluding the Downtown Zoning ige. The City and explains why the gage. It is up to the 2, based on these conditions for the applicant which would phase 5 which was the parking deck. of approval number 9. Zoning Code is a zoning change and is not an not been passed. We are setting zoning for this f this zoning change happens in 2005, and m the fact that it is recent makes no difference. ied, it will be a blanket rezone regardless how long a zoning has Commissioner Ostner discussed with Commissioner Vaught and Mr. Williams on the differem of what is in compliance now versus what will happen when the Downtown Zoning Code gets Commissioner Graves stated it seems wrong to ask applicants to bring a PZD forward with a level of certainty of what it is going to look like, and for this body to turn around and say that we Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 11 arc going to require you to comply with some unknown zoning ordinance in the future. Commissioner Ostner stated that there is motion to alter these conditions and vote on that. Commissioner Graves stated that he had a problem with the verbiage stated. Commissioner Vaught stated that he had a problem with the verbiage stated and would like to. leave it out. Commissioner Allen stated we should look at what is put b Zoning Code at this time, and some common sense just nee Commissioner Allen moved for an immediate vote. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone was opposed tb n it Commissioner Clark stated yes, she would like to split th would like to vote on Commissioner Anthes' proposals one Commissioner Ostner asked inhere were any'fuiter Comm vote. No comments were made. ;k Commissioner Ostner amend condition 9 wit ordinances that are in1 zoning code," the app] remove Phase 5 parkir these conditioner. , n Ostner vote of Commissi with the a. ][r not have a Downtown vote. She stated that she before they ;that t e motioner lia$$requested t6 remove condition 2 completely, it m4eni developmenon the property shall be in compliance with at the rtt time of submit t including, but not limited to, the downtown dill a d paage numbers to the booklet, and the applicant would k from-thlsproposal. e stated that we are only voting to change Iced all fi the amendments requested. q The amendments were to approve the forwarding of C-PZD 05-1704 to City Council Commissioner Clark seconds the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of C-PZD 05- 1704 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-1-0, with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 12 ANX 05-1811 Summer Resources Commissioner Ostner: The next item is ANX 05-1811 for Summer Resources. Mr. Pate read the staff report. This property is approximately 3.75 acres, located east of the Waterbrook Phase I and 2 Subdivision that is north of Huntsville Road.The Planning Commission recently approved two phases of Waterbrook Subdivision1'•Phase one, which fronts Huntsville Road and Phase 2, which is to the north of that, surrounds a large, previously excavated pit. Parks and Recreation board voted to take parkland'"forfthis development. However, land that was agreed upon was in the county and adjacent to?the;site. Part of the conditions for approval for the preliminary plat, prior to acceptance of thatlhnd the property had to be annexed into the city. The park requirements for th ccuu`rrent phases ofrWaterbrook Subdivision require 2.75 acres. The remaining approximately I acre would be utilized for potential tree preservation mitigation, which waszal olirought to'tthe Planning Com °mzssion's attention at that time. Staff is recommending approv ltof=this item.. An recommending this approval to the City Council, staff finds that the request d`o', s ;meet the intent and is in compliance with our guiding Policies oftthe General Plan 2020.. E Afir Mr. Mel Milholland, with Milholland Eng"meearnngrepresentatrve for e applicant, spoke briefly, concurring with all the comments that staff made: This Waterbrook preliminary plat has 71 been approved by you, as a tract split. This tract of=1a"nd:int}ie county at the time the Preliminary Plat was apprrouedObyyyou and the c''unty: He wbi5ld like to make the request of annexation approval to forward<o the City. Council. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward ANX 05-1811 to the City Council. Commissioner Trumbo seconded theiinbtion. V.. Roll Call: Upon'the completon of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1811 to the City Councihwas approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 13 R-PZD 05-1798 DePalma Addition Commissioner Ostner: The next item is R-PZD 05-1798 for DePalma Addition. Mr. Pate read the staff report. This site you have seen before, as part of the Biella Subdivision that is located off of Hwy 265. At that time, 10 acres of this niece of the was indicated to be brought back to you as a Planned Zoning Distil requesting a Master Development Planned Zoning District to conta tLkc private drive. The current zoning allows 4 units per acre, resul` this site. This proposal is a significant down -zoning on the p14of this property that has significant terrain and tree canopy Th of -way from Ansen Street. As part of the conditions�gapprot Plan, the applicant shall show proof of access to the -Site off of ensure that all access easements are in place from(all property Planning Commission's approval of a preliminary plaIT actua action tonight would not subdivide the property, but would entitlement and zoning rights. The project booklet is much't Zoning District. It is a much smaller dev finds that the proposal is compatible with density, and that it is consistent with the I combined with compliance with the tree r development on the project booklet has I the Master Developi staff report, staff is i with 9 conditions of is also the 5 lots woum nave to meet Fayette Mr. Tom Hennelly.with H2 that he had no problems wit ,,;t= around the pronertteswrthd Commissioner process. to be for property licant is single family lots and a naximum of 40 units on for this Ma Ansen Stri tiers in that ivide this appropriate use ess with right - ac, to to the y. This have the applicant gain it then the last Planned with not aster any issues to discuss. Staff ending developmentfwhich is relatively low •e low density, large -lot requirements ordiftanc would help reduce grading and wed with current zoning. The planning ng and development criteria requirements of th those findings and others included in your led to the City Council for consideration, ioresstng.1ne!access into this property, Planning Commission (to reduce`thtthquired 22 foot wide pavement section to 20 feet iending approval of this waiver, finding low density of traffic of connectivity to the streets in the area. Street construction city standards. ineenng represented Mr. Oates, the property owner. He stated conditions of approval stated. There are 50 foot setbacks all 5 lots, and works well on the mountain. the floor to public comment. Sue Cauldren, a resident of Ansen Street, stated that she had a couple of questions to ask the board, but would like to say that she was very happy about how this 10 acres of land was going to be used. Two acre lots with 5 houses and a private drive saves the density of the beautiful area. Her fear is that in the future, if the DePalma family heirs decide to not build and sell it to a developer, with the current zoning, can they put 40 homes on this piece of property? Also, if this Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 14 is passed, would there be any kind of restrictions put on this property, so it would not happen? And we do not lose the density we are trying to preserve? I also represent my next-door neighbor, Carolyn Ferrel, who is ill, and could not come tonight. Her property is right next to this 10 acre strip of land. She has a structure directly behind her house, which is used for an art gallery and guest home. But it seems the private drive will be directly under her nose. I haven't seen any maps, but I don't know if that second structure is on them or where the property line is. So, my second question would be a sign of goodwill, if this private drive be screened or moved further down the property. If it is built up and straight, it would destroy, her,property, view, etc. I don't know what the setbacks are for a private drive, does it follow<ihe property line or follow certain requirements? Commissioner Ostner stated that this street does touch hertul, de -sac, theiiMit,goes off at an angle, and makes a pretty big triangle away from her propertyrli'ne. ._ Mrs. Cauldren was offered a copy of the maps, showing how thesprivate drives a e U up. Commissioner Ostner also stated that he would address he first question. Mrs. Cauldren stated she had a last question jthat 9 conditions of'approvals were mentioned and would like to hear them read, since she did Mik owawhat they were.. l ti J Commissioner Ostner stated that he would get�her a ip' ,ofnh'em`before she leaves. He also asked for any other public.cominents, before he�a'ddressed her first question. There were no more public comments,;hb closed the public co ment portion and brought it back to the Commission. Commissioner Ostner stated tliat on Q1's<<Cauldren''s concerns, that since this is a Residential Planned Zoning District,t. the zoning will have io ollow this drawing. And if the land was -sold to another dy eloper, theyyuld havefito_ come back to us for another rezoning to change this Mrs. Cauldien3asked if the app%oval would be for this zoning only then? Commissioner Osstne stated yes, that there was no way they could squeeze 40 homes past you X�r. - all. They would havetogthrough this whole process again. On the issue with Mrs. Ferrel, he believed this layout gives as much room as possible. If the road kept continuing straight, then it y would go further awayfrom her property, but it does create a buffer triangle. Commissioner Ostner questioned the applicant, "Is that triangle a build -able lot?" Mr. Hennelly stated he wanted to answer Mrs. Cauldren's first question. Mr. Hennelly stated he would like everyone to know that this PZD would be good in perpetuity, this is as good as forever, however long Mr. Oates takes to develop this. So he would like to assure the neighbors that they don't have anything to worry about. Regarding the triangle created by the access drive Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 15 _ splitting lot number 1 in half, he did angle it down. There is a very small portion of property, that could have a small storage shed built on it, next to the drive. This has 50 foot set backs on the front, side, and rear. He would not anticipate this happening, the majority of the property is west of that drive, and he would anticipate that triangle would be wooded. It is in the conditions that the trees could not be cut down without urban forester approval. This would give a 50 -foot screening from Mr. and Mrs. Ferrel's house to the drive. He does not imagine a great impact on their art gallery or home. Commissioner Vaught stated he had a question about the road. off the cul-de-sac. Does that meet all our requirements, it look 13 Mr. Pate states that it is just a drawing on paper now, andstaff f of the development guidelines with the preliminary plat`2 Commissioner Allen made a motion to forward R PZDf05-175 conditions stated to the City Council. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner asked if there were an. fi her A;cr,.t,0;n. Commissioner Anthes stated she had a few questio submitted, and would like.clan'fication on the st ff large setbacks of 50 ft,.cayou explain the differe, (Falling Waters,) tryrhglto,keep setbacks tight with what the strategy is with'``�hetlargejbnilding setback on a pretty sharp angle cry steep slope. that as part the City CountilWwith the 9 looking at the Master Development Plan ort on page 5. The question is, on the from the project you submitted earlier street to minimize the tree removal and 1 amount of tree removal? Mr. Hennellysiaiedrinihe cross eferencce to h roposed Falling Water:PZD primarily there were houses on both sidof the street and they were serviced by gravity sewer. It was good to get them;up to the street, because of'the'aniount of grading that would take place. With the way we }tielave drive, there is no vas much grading needed. We tried to buffer with 100 feet of wooded area Between each house, and 50 feet of wooded area between the existing homes. Also with the density!of the wooded area, Falling Waters had %2 acre lots versus two acre lots here. It was also good to getthose homes closer to the street. As it is, for these homes, they will have low pressure sewer, if_wtie can get engineering to sign off on it. Plus it is not cost effective to bring a gravity sewer lineup thru the Sequoyah Reserve to service 5 houses. We weren't faced with a lot of those same challenges. Commissioner Anthes asked on the development plan, that the houses are required a 3500 sq ft minimum floor plan with no height restriction? Mr. Hennelly stated yes. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 16 - Commissioner Anthes asked if staff can recommend a 3500 sq fl house with no height restriction on a hillside? Mr. Pate state that there are currently no height restrictions at all with the zoning district that it is located in now. As a benchmark, when staff reviews the development with no height restriction now, -we saw no reason to impose one arbitrarily. Commissioner Anthes asked when development occurs on this the ordinances and height restrictions at that time. Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Commissioner Anthes stated next question, the department is talking about 20. Do you agrees Mr. Hennelly stated yes, they did. Twenty feet is fin initially had it at 18 feet, but after we talked with the Commissioner Anthes stated that the sidewalks or street lights in this deve Mr. Hennelly stated yes. Commissioner Anthes a k"ed stffljhout their comments on they be subject to stated I 'the plat accorc we changed it. the fire there will be no Mr. Pate stated that with l . is and private street, Ute street will probably function very well for pedestrian and vehicular m 'em nt, es eeially with no connectivity to the east, south, or any direction. T1he.aso no o e sidewa k 'n t is area currently built, and it is unlikely the public w, uld ventu do wh a pri ate treet. Corfimissioh;Anthes stated`O8e would'a" ree with Mr. Pate on the sidewalks, but would disagree on the usage ofhe street areaWPeople would use it to get to the park dedication area and AI - wonders about'ih Mreet lightszbeing beneficial. Mr. Hennelly stated'ti atttheey would normally be opposed to the additional street lights, but due to the secluded area on fl'illside, we could get with staff and come up with individual gas lanterns or something'of that nature, with lower illumination. We can make that a private light and a requirement in the covenant, that each one of the lots have one of those. Commission Anthes stated that would be nice. A low light for the pedestrians and a safety factor. Mr. Hennelly stated that something like that could be worked into the project. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 17 Commission Anthes stated that her other question would be the nine minute response time, that the Fayetteville fire department has written us a letter, indicating a nine minute response time with no likelihood of changing, because of the steepness of the existing streets and narrow winding road into the development: The question is, with that response time, what is the wisdom of granting condition number 2, which involves a waiver request for a dead end private street longer than 500 ft in length? Would the Commissioners like to comment on that issue? Commissioner Clark states that she was concerned about the letterfrom the Fire Marshall, but remember that this was status quo for the streets in that area, so riof'to make the situation worse, ut the response time is normal up to this property. She believes�ihsurance�will.be a bear, but that is down the road. A question was directed to Mr. Pate, when'do you say "N6.on ion the lack of response time or even with police response time? Not to this particular development, but any development, or situation. Aw. Mr. Pate stated you have to always keep in mind that responsegtim`e is not the only.factor to consider. In the annexation policy there are 20 guiding criteria, with rezoning there are 5 or 6. When the staff, the Planning Commission or City Council reviews the requests, and believes it is not in the interest of public safety, that isw en it is not recomrhi nded. He describes the ?'Z Qr fundamentals of the zoning review process? ≥ z':= I. Commissioner Clark stated that this is concermngythat wehaveta"reas existing in town that will 'e ti : ~ r um g down before we et there: She is not parheul'arly troubled about this development, it is not making it worse, but 1 othere is ever a fire.*; Mr. Pate stated that the Planning Qommission should get the minutes from the last City Council meeting, that the Fire Chieffmade°"so`m gFtat. esponses regarding the same issue. He noted some of the issu . thatrwere discussed at th Council meeting. He also stated that this rezoning request actually de eases some otlthe issues on response time, due to the decrease in number of Lomm,ssionettClark stated that we can look at emergency access when we look at the preliminary plat; at that time. Mr. Hennelly stated t1iat,was the point he wanted to make. With Biella, there was an emergency access established. Atthis time, we are working on an emergency access for this development and it will be in place; and reduce the response time, considerably. Commissioner Allen stated that she is part of the Neilson family that watches the government channel, and watched that particular City Council meeting, and found that very confusing. She requested Mr. Pate to contact Fire Chief Johnson and see about coming in before one of their meetings and discuss with them some of the issues they are having. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 18 Commission Graves states that the fire department can not take into consideration the stations that are not built yet, or the underdeveloped roads in these developments. He stated other assumed issues that the fire department has to take into consideration on making these response times. Commissioner Lack stated that the decreased density and change of zoning were appealing. Also, he would like to ask a question about one of the use units. Units hand 8 are permitted uses, 24 is a conditional use; use unit 24 is listed in the permitted uses`rcategory, instead of the conditional uses? Mr. Pate stated that the first is correct, and how the other Commissioner Clark called for a vote. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone is against .tfi8 all of the Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the 179 as revisions. None approval of R-PZD 05- Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 19 R-PZD 05-1734 for Paradise Point Commissioner Ostner: The next item is R-PZD 05-1734 for Paradise Point Ms. Morgan read the staff report. This is a detailed Planned Zoning District Master Development Plan, an application requesting approval for not only the zoning for this property, but also the development approval for a large scale development. The p operty contains approximately 1.55 acres and is located west of Crossover and southof Joyce Boulevard. The .,.? d4 applicant requests a mixed -use development, which will incorpdFafe,,123residential units and 12,065 sf. of retail/office space. The retail/office space is located on the first floor of the development as well as one residential unit. There will bet1 L..residential t`u'nittson the second floor. Page 2 on the staff report indicates the permitted 'and conditional usSaproposed by the applicant. Density on the property currently would,allow the development of 29tilnits per acre; the applicant requests 7.7 units per acre. Setback4 egmr_ements area little differen (than the RMF-24 and C-2 requirements. Fifty -foot front setbacks and tlfree"foot setbacks on the side and rear are proposed. A maximum 35 ft in height and a total building area of 20% is proposed. Access is one of the issues we discussed=with this Cdevelopmen"t_3,Proposed is one access onto rossover Road and a norther access through property to t} a north, through an existing parking lot. At the time of the report, the applican 'was coordinatngwsih the property owners to the north for approval for an access easementA which w ll-fallow them access onto that property. If those agreements and easements are not oblainedfby thetime building permits are being reviewed, this application,wo ldihave to come] aek to the Planning Commission for review to determine whether a single access.,onto CrossovrRoad will constitute safe means of access to this development. Wthtregard to ee preservation there is an existing 23% canopy on the property and the applican `jtlptroposes to preserve 13%u of that canopy. With the proposal, mitigation would be required by either planting onmsite or contributing money in lieu. Staff is recommends g fir` aiding this aster Dev lopment Plan Planned Zoning District to the City Council ofapproval ath a total o6 conditions of which are included several determinations, includixnngg Planning Commission dett;cmination of street improvements. Staff recommends consiruct1on of a 6 foot sidewalk along°a Crossover Road. This portion of Crossover and Hwy 265 is not yet improved and is slated to be improved in the future. Therefore we are not recommendiri ny other impr§vements than sidewalks at this time. Condition 2 of the Planning Commission d termination aiidresses commercial design standards. The applicant has brought a board representing theproposed elevations as well as a material sample board. Staff finds the proposed elevations are=m compliance with commercial design standards. Subdivision committee found in fa or of the elevations and support of the modifications of the western facade. Condition 3 regards the determination of safety access discussed. Condition number 5 discusses the approval from any adjoining property owners if grading is proposed 5 feet from the adjoining property line. Typical developments of this nature do not have to address that situation, but as the applicant is proposing to build this structure 3 feet from the property line, it would certainly need to be addressed. In addition to that, there are some offsite easements that will be required. There is an existing easement on the property that will need to be vacated prior Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 20 to the issuing of building permits. With regard to signs, the applicant proposes all signs in accordance with ordinances, and staff would request a modification to condition 14, to allow Use Unit 17, Trade and Services, as a permitted use, proposed by the developer. With regard to phasing, they would typically have one year, and after that one year, a one -ear extension on the timing of their permits. The applicant is requesting five years from City Council approval for all issues of permits for this development. They anticipate breaking ground soon. Mr. Jeremy Thompson with H2 Engineering represented the applicantft. b4stated the location and advised that there are two lots with an irregular shape. The arelitects worked hard to put together this structure to work with the current dimensions. Ito story structure proposing office retail space on the bottom floor with one residential untitt The seco td -story contains residential units only. We are in agreement with staff comments. On condition number two, we f ti would like to give an update. Utility easements are inth'e process of being acq ired to the south and west side of the property. We also have verbal,ageement on the transfer oof that easement but have not obtained signatures. Also, on the acct s easement`ib the north: the plans show access on the east side of the existing building and the property o ers are asking*us to move it to the west side of their structure. You will notice a parkingr ra ea on the west side - we are proposing to extend that directly north. 'ijjhis will actually co''ect perfectly with an existing access off of Joyce Street. That is the•direetibn that easement is going now. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask, and the archite_-t is here and can 'answer any questions you have on the structure. Commissioner Ostner openediilIe floor to publi omment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Vaughtxasked staff'iiithis is a MasterDevelopmentPlan? Mr. Pate states it is also development -related.. Building permits can be issued after City Council approval. He Iso explained they tfferences" to�Commissioner Vaught and advised that staff will always explain which e oof application is before the Planning Commission. Vaught noted€the differences on the last PZD verses this one. ComtnissioneeA'nthes stated 's We has two questions. The first is directed to Mr. Kit Williams. Use Unit 17 is requested as atpermitted use; is it more appropriate as a conditional use within this zone? 4n Li \pJ1 Mr. Williams stated he`didn't believe it was required to use all the use units that the applicant requests. You can use your own judgement on that, just like the City Council can. You can also make some permitted or conditional; just like our normal zoning districts do. I don't think you are bound to what they are requesting, even though staff is recommending it now and not intentionally leaving it out. Mr. Pate stated that is correct and the biggest reason for that is often times on Unit Use 17 there Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 21 are higher intensity uses and one doesn't know the development pattern that will occur. But in this development, we do know where everything is going. There is no question on what is going to be built, we know the footprints, parking space, etc. Commissioner Anthes asked that if the building configuration would not lend itself to the other uses anyway, then you are not concerned? Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Commissioner Anthes stated another issue she would like to diceu' s A the condition of approval for phasing. That is the required permits of the 5 years bein requested�She states she doesn't see any circumstances for this approval. This developmenttis actually smaller than a lot of large scale developments. She would be more inclined to follow the same patternn this issue, and revise that to a one approval. roval. �'.. Y PP Commissioner Vaught stated that he would like to year extension. aut Mr. Thompson stated that the owner's enteritis -to after approval s In the new PZD process, we are allowed totdevel P%a time frame, a little extra time, we proposed 5 years. He'sstates h would be wi years, since it is allowed in the new PZD and there is's m`eco'hsic Commission's part. Commission AnthesOerj Mr. other developments or plan coi Mr. Thompson` s`tafed'that he but refersteremy f ate n the propat. -' Commissi ne :.Clark stated that to build it. Commissioner Trumbomotione • s., Commissioner Mvers,secnnrtea how they requested the 5 onstruction of this project. o provide the owner with to back down to 2 to 3 on on the Planning is any different than any of the flUt the development was any different than the others that allows the time frame. Since it is allowed, we it is 6dd that it is one phase, one building and it will take 5 years to amend the time requested to 2 years. the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated the motion is to amend condition number 17 to read 2 years to gain their required permits. He asked if there were further discussion on this. There were no more further comments. Roll was called, and the amendment to condition number 17 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 22 with Commissioner Anthes opposing. Commissioner Clark motioned to forward R-PZD 05-1734 to the City Council with stated conditions, as amended. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Mr. Pate mentioned that the stub out access shown on the east side onile plat and to be aware of the discussion to move it to the west side. Commissioner Ostner asked if there was any further Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the 1734 to the City Council was approved by a vote of R-PZD 05- i V1f WI �' 4'ia �r\S'., � 1 e9 �r' SS e { i 9; • ; 1/ , }e;,s ; PP f P P ,',ji { 11111to P etc i f 4 P e, €`jst Yu t{is�s Se•s/€; P "Px jig Yt Y. {PPle;! e , r 4 aU o -c V JI} grill I — liii ii iiji4iirutn Enfog O����lg Willi, hi tr,titUi!If use ill iitgI2 "L a i 'pP [ jiI!j ['111 11111 4iLift I a r!LI •'5 It k f ru iu i;::_1 I Jtpa From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 1/6/06 5:17PM Subject: Ord. 4812, 4813, 4815, 4816 & 4817 Jeremy, Attached are the ordinances passed by City Council, January 3, 2006. CC: Bell, Peggy; Deaton, Vicki NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Erin Emis, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Arkansas 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: ,14C&t"`C 2_ t 1/ was inserted in the regular editions on ol,ryLw�P PO# ** Publication Charge: $ Subscribed and sworn to b914 /l day of Notary Public My Commission Expires: me this Sharlene D. Williams Notary Public Ctate of Arkansas My Commission Expires October 18. 2014 " Please do not pay from Affidavit. An invoice will be sent. 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX ;1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED C-PZD 05 1704 FIRST BAPRST CHURCH, LOCATED AT 20 EAST DICKSON STREET, 325 AND 321 NORTH COL. LEGE AVENUE. AND 350 AND 354 NORTH HIGH- LN4D AVENUE. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.08 OF FAYETTEVILLE: AND ADOP11NO THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE R ORDAINED By THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEYLLLY. ARNANSA$ Section 1: That the zale dessI lcatlon of the IdrnMlg desdbod property is hereby derged as blows: From C-2, Thorughfare Commerdel, eno R-0, Reddenllel Otte. to C-PZD 05-1704 av shown N E,dti A* attadied hereto eM made a part hereof. Sedan 2: That the change h zoning dasslecetbn is based aeon the approved roaster development plar4 development standardg. end candtiorne of approrel as submitted. dot em rod appropriate and ePpwed by the pry Coundl. Seclbn 3: That this ordinance sM0 take effect and be In M farce at such tone as as of the regtrlenta of the master development den have been met. Section 4: That one official zoning map of the City of Fayaoesee, Aflm sas, b Iemby amended to reflect the zoning change pro-Aded In Section 1 above. PACED and APPROVED ti -is 3rd day of JerY y, 2008. APPROVED: TO THE CITY 1 TO IRON REBAR ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT ONE (1) OF SAID BLOCK TEN N ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT ONE (1) 4242 FEET TO AN D5 NUMENP THEN N02°3324E 8718 FFFT Tn eu cVicnr m ,w.°i EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF -WAY OF HIGHLAND AV W 651.84 FEET TO THE PC Proposed Zoning and Development Standards GENERAL PROVISIONS Authority ZONING STANDARDS This PZD master development plan is authorized by Sections 161 1' i rct n intl ct (1n 11 .>LItC Vt,Y tJLJC.t</t t /(/!V A PART OF BLOCK NUMBERED TEN (10) OF THE COUNTY COURT ADDITION TO Fayetteville, DESCRIBED AS FAYETTEVILLE COMMF NNNC SAS, BEING I HE ORIC INAL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT SIX (6) OF SAID BLOCK TEN (10), SAID POINT BEING IN DICKSON STREET; Arkansas 1 HENCE NO2°50'34"E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK TEN (10) 13.16 FEET and 166 — Planned Zoning Districts of the City of Fayetteville Unified A. Permitted uses: Church Facility - Use Unit 4 TO A SET 1/2" IRON REBAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND TiIE NORTH RiGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DICKSON Development Code. The provisions of this PZD master B. Conditional Uses : None STREET i FOR THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S87°03' 19"E ALONG THE development plan shall run with the land. The landowners, their Bulk andRe latiNApplicant/Landowner - First Baptist Church successors, heirs, or assigns shall be bound by this master20 East Dickson St. NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DICKSON STREET 234.95 FEET TO A CHISLED "X" C. Area hmons : one IN A CONCRETE SIDEWALK AT THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 50 FOOT RADIUS development plan, as amended and approved by the City Council. D. Density: NoneM aster D CURV}i'I'O THE LEFT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 78.26 FEET, Fayetteville, Ar 72 701 THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING N47°47'09"E 70.51 FEET, TO A SET 1/2" IRON REBAR Adoption E. Setback Regulations: Front - Noneeve1 opiii.en.tPlan.. Cromwell Architects En bineers AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WEST Side - None Representative The adoption of this PZD master development plan shall evidence Rear - None 107 Block St. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COLLEGE AVENUE• THENCE NO2°37'37"E ALONG SAID the findings and decision of the Fayetteville City Council that this �"developnieritplan Fayetteville, Ar 72701 RIGHT-OF-WAY 497.00 FEET TO A SET 1/2" iitON REBAR; THENCE LEAVING THE Planned Zoning District for First Baptist Church of Fayetteville is in F. Height Regulations : Building height not to exceed height of 88 feet as measured from the An y WEST RIGHT -OF --WAY LINE OF COLLEGE AVENUE N87°03'20"W 140.39 FEET TO A oc '33" 105 25 FFFT TO A OCT 1/2" •IRON REBAR ON general floor of church sanctuary. conformity with the Fayetteville General Plan 2020; is authorized by o the previsions of Sections 161 and 166 of the City of Fayetteville G. Building Area: The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of the Unified Development Code. property. The provisions of this PZD master development plan shall prevail LEGEND and govern the development of First Baptist Church of Fayetteville. DEVELOPMENT/ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS t ,,�, J EXISTING BUILDING provided. however, that where the provisions of this Master development plan NEW BUILDING do not address a particular subject, the relevant provisions of the The design of proposed additions and renovations will continue the current building heights and City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code, as amended, or any general massing, and will employ sloping and low slope roofs. BUILDING TO BE REMOVED other applicable resolutions or regulations of the City of + PHASE II ii PHASE O LANDSCAPING Fayetteville, shall be applicable. The materials employed will combine the existing buff brick with window walls comprised iof .. translucent and transparent glazing. These window walls will echo typically traditional window forms xh: , R 4I lad PHASE III E'RE nr''g`a=1°,; a PHASE III LANDSCAPING Enforcement as well as larger scaled combinations to achieve a new, more lively facade texture. Trim materials will e r T' PHASE IV T PHASE iV LANDSCAPING To further the mutual interest of the residents, occupants, and follow the stone appearance of the existing dressings with both concrete and synthetic stucco. owners of the PZD Master development plan and of the public in ENTRANCE the preservation of the integrity of the Plan, the provisions of this Plan relating to the use of land, statement of commitments, As can be seen in the accompanying depictions, the proposed additions along College Ave. are — — PROPERTY LINE/ROW development and architectural standards, and the location of intended to engage the guidelines of the city's master plan to foster appropriate street -wall elements, common open space shall run in favor of the City of Fayetteville x — x — FENCING and shall be enforceable at law or in equity by the City without while the proposed new main entrance and its garden setting are intended to provide the intersection of limitation on any power or regulation otherwise granted by law. College and Dickson an appropriately definition of the church'squadrant riT g scaled I1'zJ;: NEW TREE Conflict !)t Site design elements will incorporate typical existing materials, concrete walks at secondary locations ( EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN Where there is more than one provision within the PZD Master Development Plan that covers the same subject matter, the and patterned concrete at prominent locations such as the proposed new main entrances. With the provision which is most restrictive or imposes higher standards or exception of the walks at the intersection of College and Dickson, existing sidewalks will be f EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED requirements shall govern unless determined otherwise by the maintained, or replaced where derelict, in their current configurations on theperimeter, and will meet Zoning and Development Administrator.Pg PARKING the requirements of Section 166.03. All proposed landscaping will comply in each phase with the Maximum Level of Development current City Landscape Ordinance. Current street lighting will be maintained in place. Fencing 105 STANDARD SPACES IN ALTERED EXISTING LOT The total number of dwellings or the total commercial, business, or indicated will meet requirements of Large Scale Development Review. A monument sign, indicated on 16 HANDICAPPED SPACES IN ALTERED EXISTING LOT industrial intensity approved for development within the Planning the MDP, is proposed to be erected during the phases of development, and will comply with the City 46 STANDARD SPACES IN EXPANSION LOT Areas is the maximum development requested for platting or 167 TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED construction. The actual number of dwellings or level of Sign Ordinance in area, height and setback requirements. It will be constructed of materials comp title development for commercial, business, or industrial properties may with the building, brick and stone with either applied or incised lettering. W 250 TOTAL SPACES ALLOWED © 1 SPACE PER 4 SEATS IN SANCTUARY be less due to subdivision or site improvement plan requirements or l I other requirements of the City Council. The surface parking shown on the MDP will be accomplished in its entirety during Phase II i ,+ x 't' Project Tracking development, and will comply with the requirements of Chapter 172 of the UDC. The proposed ft Dc — __, , j ' ct ,=, '•' z x rr a ai ", At the time of subdivision finalplat or large scale development the parking deck will meet the requirements of Chapter 172 of the UDC as well as the re uiremlents o th r i , + 'V "asa }''• t"�'iitt" k"" if e P q p q applicant shall provide a summary of the development, to date, to ado tedCil buildin CodC. %t the Planning Division, in order to assure maximum development P Y g H \ Y z )' 7 .♦ 1 4 ,/p. ?t rr t, t p Ai,/i, ji "1�l V r,x: �'' l :p4 }'�1t { )IJ a - limits are not exceeded. ti ( �, "tag �eW'H / /gv4f y1{q. „x'¢Inni, 9 ' f F/ ✓ t1J d >— fi vel \ /Y / _ rvrt,� AI <r' 1141£ V uYA/ / j ALTERED EXISTING PARKING 1. GENERAL PROJECT CONCEPT Ave. to produce the street -wall effect envisioned in the city's master plan. L�� t� ��„ /+°�;,;', ;;,i �' ,` 1 1 o SPACES ,Q i'hx ,+>"°:hL IiI.r}v{ P. �.-nfy i"+1�, r, ivy; L .r '` DROP OFF LANE The church anticipates undertaking Phase III 1-3 years following the x r +` I ' 4'r + \ ✓'l 4'x t \, �, ``. lt/ t r�\ r, r,,;an x\\J a^ ,!4 �Wll,. As a I as funds are available the church has set completion of Phase I shown on the proposed Master Develo mcnt Plan sP , P P P forth a phased development of the property that combines additions to and renovations of the existing facility buildings. It also shows the a new front entrance and foyer to the Phase IV consists of the creation of y alteration of existing parking areas to accommodate the proposed south of the existing sanctuary. This addition is intended to re-establish the additions, enhance traffic circulation, and provide new areas of public image of the church on the intersection of College and Dickson while landscaping. providing a usable main entry to the church as well as finalizing the creation of a frilly integrated circulation system within the church campus. It will be Inasmuch as the church sanctuary seating capacity is actually being accompanied by extensive landscaping, including the retaining of large reduced as a result of the currently in -progress renovation of the mature maple trees, to appropriately define the nature of is important city in 1-3 years followingmore toward the following goals. 1) The alleviation of inadequate facilities the completion of Phase III, as funds are available. for the services and ministries offered for the congregation. These In addition to these phases the church envisions the replacement of the include updating and expansion of children's department, rearrangement existing steeple atop the central church tower with an open bell tower in of classroom spaces for better access for the elderly members of the keeping with the scale and design of the existing tower base. In addition the church, and other provisions for improvement. 2) The resolution of long church plans to erect one low monument sign on the property at the location standing internal circulation problems that have plagued the use of the shown on the Master Development Plan. These elements will be undertaken facility for many years, and, 3) the re-establishment of the church's during one of the phases listed above as funds are available. historical identity on the corner of College and Dickson, by the installation of a usable and appropriately sized front entrance and foyer The development elements of this plan, buildings, paved areas and with orientation to the intersection, landscaping will have the following types of impact. Surface run-off and drainage will have the same pattern as the existing drainage pattern. And As shown on the MDP site plan, the church expects to proceed through while the altered parking area will add to drainage quantities, the addition of four phases of development, landscaped islands and perimeter landscaping, as well as the removal of Phase I is the wholly internal renovation of the existing sanctuary. This existing curb -cuts and drives, will yield a more or less commensurate phase is currently underway. reduction in drainage quantities. The development will be compatible with Phase II consists of the addition of children's classrooms and circulation the surrounding land use patterns, all of which is commercial or institutional to join the former Goff -McNair building to the church facility. It also in nature. Such needs as are deemed necessary in compliance with the includes the renovation of a portion of the Goff -McNair building, and requirements of the UDC in terms of Buffers and Screening, Landscaping, the alteration of the existing parking area to provide the church with full and Tree Preservation will be incorporated into the detail of design at the available parking capacity. New landscaping in compliance with the time of Large Scale Development Review. As to the impact on city current City Landscape Ordinance will be accomplished also. Phase II is services, the additional use of water and sewer services would appear not to anticipated to be undertaken in the next 1-3 years, as funding is available. be significant; and, while it is the hope of the church that the use of the Phase III will continue the renovation of the Goff -McNair building and facility will he increased with this development the impact on existing add classrooms and circulation to connect to the east end of the existing traffic patterns will not be significant. sanctuary. These additions will initiate the creation of connective elements along College The proposed additions and renovations to the facility will be constructed in TAf3LL.. OF COMPARATIVE ZONING RE_CULATIONS accordance with the city's adopted building code atthe time ofthe issuance —._ _.._._._.____. of a building permit and will employ all the necessary measures required by 12D ___ _ i'f ....._ code for fire protection. A l HUR( I I PIFMII➢O Ih1S l A( If II Y (,IIIiI 1 4 1^ I I, I 1 1`♦ 1( [IoII;, I v v rl 11 1? tU`♦1' tlfli't 4l ,� if; hJ '(, ,, and :1 and )': ---- Being a non-residential development this plan does not provide for any U. tlnite :4,1S,-1.Gh rotminnw4l �` v , it t"Ili ' ' "'v ' '' n1,1 ` internal streets, lots, parks or separate planning areas. As well there are no ow- 11EHfi un4 AREA natural or man-made hazards or resource areas in its boundaries other than 1I "11-.ATYR) — — — those falling under the guidelines for tree preservation. D['NSIIY lJOIJE i4ONF' in'tp{7hv ,I I` Invldenl ql r ( thin x nv i' F, 'r Out NT',ti Fr Out let) f I FrVnt $0 II IF I+Lf,UtnllnNS Ile Il.:r'e Side IJ :nr ':, ip ft Side' When II, ft Silk when IS it - `Iltl 1111A,16 tIJ 1]lelet IIIll,tl$ t(f f SICiCn tl Cli ( $I(1, I,tl ,l III,o1' W/h ete,<IY,QIII 1�% rt h(' t1I" bone ♦ Petit tali(` Re -or' 11:)111 1fIVo''!• to II hnr of pubic °Ilny IIUF11 h/'igllt My wfueh er✓ectthe Ihele InJI1* no lnaeimum k(t;Ait Al IONS nol c x, veal to hrlylJ el !tl lee] Wlnlrhe Set d (A f Ought m 0 E£} r; t. CS hod tom wry y line d h IM fifty rynv,lel, howewel . thin airy L' o1", mOllf ll 10ri el ruldontinl i6; Ir it 1 Cl tubing Whit ( xreflc the fI^d u min 116p,' of ,pslonrp of one foci! Inc such I helghl of HI et shtJfbe ,nit xYncLWar y:. Ind etl hei,hl iii exl(",, o1 f Imo wk nny hcil 10 4, t Ni, huillhnq =hnli of (f Did of any f /t n1 hMl air ix t<IICS ij U(t oh on n4lflfl n111:i1"Iol e of one r-xre 1 91 fool Io1 path foot of hf„)hi In Iii heIg11. egp5 of /0 t .-...— tic' or ,) I by Kinally lot ho Iup} On Illy Ill the null._......._,._,,,,,_,_ f "Uplen rll oaupuA by of bwldnf/ aWpel by Sn¢s IElIIt01JC AREA hntldin 5 boll l `hnllrut "me0 60/ fil I (holNio exceed nod n, the O p ores o of the loloio'M of nt fltn t°I°I or 1, of su�.h tot. ;utIf I01. n( th( pI oprr tY ompf Iowa this I' Inrl rd /unw/} BELL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVE]) Referencing the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 92D of 275 .)FT 1/2 IRON REBAR, IiiENCE NO2 .0 E THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT ONE. (1) OF SAID BLOCK TEN (10); THENCE N87°13'09"W for Washington County, Arkansas dated July 21, 1999 this property ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT ONE (1) 42.42 FEET TO AN EXISTING is not affected by the floodplain data. CONCRETE MONUMENT; THENCE NO2°3324"E 67.78 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE N87°22'40"W 99.89 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ON THE WEST LINE CURRENTLY PROPOSED OF SAID BLOCK TEN (10), SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE R.O.W. OF MASTER STREET OF HIGHLAND AVENUE; THENCE S02°4302"W ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF HIGHLAND AVENUE 67.50 FEET TO AN EXISTING 1/2" IRON REBAR; THENCE ° INBEGINNING,COMPRISING 4.1 ACRES PLAN(ADOPTED 2000 $651.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF � .02 5034 W CONFLICT WITH DOWNTOWN MORE OR LESS. GIs GIS FAYETTEVILLE MASTER PLAN N: 638330.268 GUIDELINES (2004) COLLEGE AVENUE N: 637833.790 E:674624.592 E:674601,812 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ CURB- -i - EXISTING MONUMENT SIG 0 EXISTING 2 STORY GOFF-MCNAIR AIR BUILDING REPLACE S SIDEWALK REBUILT-� � � &c ,ii♦ , MI Y4 Gt,r+ ;'r z Yi VIX CROM AND USE `nl:?L F '{III I ,} �r' I to H .,--t_L •M� L I L.._I. c _m IL 11 111 PHASE RENOVATION OF SANCTURY STING 3 STORY BULDI NEW BELL TOWER EXISTING 3 STORY BUILDING I 0 : 1. x 'y ,A ( pa, „ y,, £ try of r r { o Y f ( ✓ n ♦ 1 �, is '��� . a rt 9, j ,,,r/y„ „M,x a'`r'° EXISTING 2 STORY BUILDING "t-�'j f i. E ` .1 / /% .r'Ax'•nr/�(M �♦4,)%" ir4 ,'ll 41, I�%.\�/ .ry Y£ \ A Y , rrY %}{,4 •• 4 '�•� ��. ,t. , /h h f N r ,.. +i4 in. IF,. ,r y 1 :r,. , .n a..,t4 fArv,l ••,.f } „�\ \ ` St' .r ` �. / ,. ,,..... .. l ,e/fyl..,.n... ( ,h,::, t :...%; `f ..* ; (,..c � .`, r„ ry .eOt � �. • '� )} I, ,p..1; r.. U' l,r ,/f.....I1 `Ih xt. ..:R } r ♦\' r..y ,1� ,\ / '₹I ,� 4, VY{:. I' ':]:. ,..,.x.a A,1 / xF.AI %a.C- " •f xs,': . 4y i /feF !f F x.. �1 .� _] .f ...✓ v i -',;- „,f }I - £ 'rvr COVERED DROP—OFE ( ' I.l� VACANT LOT fi / i I EXISTING PARKING' '�'``^;"r�:; " rv, PARKING EXPANSION r/ {,` -, -, ESPAIiER WALLSCAPE— 1Ie f/~~. _. `i"! 46 SPACES >a I,.. 71 SPACES ,rlr:` {r Nt1'Ik Swr"1 .. —. ' �'^ :..e; .,"`. t ,ApO`gn ._., x •. }, `A4' rv.I �rt ., ..m.. ��.. ..�... / v nf♦(, 1' P: x t,..?tf .✓^ 4r ♦ ,. '.ry a......h f \.-,,.., w,r.re.. .R.m , ♦, /...... / ,.... t r ",:, yit df.,w '."Y4 ♦♦., n.., It)Iir 1 r 1,:.....e U .r _e: n\. t ,.fl M1tl l\ ..M,,,Ir... A"I Yl` `: "IR r'If i` "r, ♦:" .., r 1 .e u.' ,.\r. (.:.1. } r .+ t :, j. , } iv ,.,, e r♦ ,", ,xi1(aflr. ,..1 J .,1ft }'hy: 1$`` �;}vr � � F; vni,!°r i.„Y 1,v//(ixr. ay i : 4,. .n.... �. x Q) M\,?.. .1.♦1.: ` ,n 4-£ Ir .r. Y/./ , / }i , 1I :{tv r q, ./ u.:, .. ♦. x il).. kt� 5 �+1. r., 4. o- :Y• rrr 'Il \t }, .: V , I S v£ ♦.. �., I. .♦I`fi 'i 1!. 4 ,.. , r PI ", F,JV ,. },f `-.{;, r+ f � v n`i y r1.6r ).F.r:5x '." 3 ,.♦i x r Ov..' .,ry ,� } �{. ,r: m. is r : ), .in I ,f ,.... ,.t „. h ♦„ i v h n. n.. .v ., ♦ {.. ...a... 'v' .<4.. , A ..F. ..a, .. .. .... L.n. , n e , 4 Y. /,.- 1 { ♦ , •.' .. n li ". A .h 1.y n rv. ('. 6 ♦ ♦ ..f 4 n ,. r.. ♦ 1 t.. , r. •.. ". ). i .. 4. , ., n ': ,{. ,,; ` ) :_, : .It v. � r r, , N. .♦.x ) . , A ., 0 , .,, , , :,, / t _, , 4 . n a , r ....,,,., , yr x , t .,y { . { .' iY ✓rt h ( i .... x r I ei A -un ,, rz. y , : , v 114. i. r 1.. .. i. 1': L.. ..♦.. 4 ... r .... ♦ ♦. n .... . nr x 'a } ./, .m .. e. '(1.. x P. ,i4 Y t ,. ', < ♦z : .} .a u : ., t ., e r }.. 4 l„ I...r } , / 4 .<v ,. „. r , a 4 :..... ♦ v L l(rV ( A f t 1, t ,. ♦ a.. J� , .. v ..r. ,.r .r ./. v , : n i l 'n nV : a i 4 T. % f A : ♦ ♦ r v ery .. .. I. ./. r 1 n k A 't., , e .. x f a �, r ♦. , " e. : `uG lr:r r `.r4}. `4 J.. :.e li m, n ,..a , 1 (nl r:. r 4,:.1 is , v /t ! \k ..F J):3 C ri. Ll v Irv: . ,, a f )... f `.r1 e ... v. T: ,. .r .:nv .u. .� ♦N ♦ ..... ,Ir v t ♦ f.. 5. x , :y: :: .yi , F 4 % t l r f r.,. r A.r £ v. e ♦J, :.. x A 1 ( v .. {. e,.. i, A. .. Yx b a.., ,Y ,,.:arl .. „r :N rV. t. ♦ xl : ' O , .. „ r . v ,.. / p. x 4 ,.e. ... :.. , A.A „ , , .:: n. .1• H. r , r _.. ♦ y, , � i n. ,l. 4 , v ♦ F ,..: l ._i J .: s, „ ... 1, 5.. to ..♦ �. : J..1.., rf :.. u v r -<.. a ,..v ,.. f 1 , ♦ :.., :.(., v <d v n b:.., i r r '..: u. h L.. v Y .ui. .. r e. ,,, , ,,.,., /i'", .. _� 4u:'vnu v. rl:Ai.x, ,f r".:or ♦ ,:♦... yY.� ,6 r I* "{ t :{.'lry rr 1 ♦, fh C`s fr Y:n{;a `h,A ,2_, 1p J:' v;..1 S J r :. i 4 1 v ' "eF1f r :£ir ,i:i' Y,ir ,{ ly,i, by , { �,y ,yi 3 ice: ,t.. + u/tJii vN .,r1"lei v1Yl'♦ 3' 1. i V.Ah ♦A, s ,P , rv) e ev {14711°" � :. +� 1.<Y2x4'�' Y.;a, ♦ r ELIMINATE EXISTING CURB CUTS CUTS - - - - - - ---------------- ----- - G - ----- - - - ---------------------------- - --EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE REMOVED HIGHLAND AVENUE REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS First Baptist Church will comply with such requirements as are deemed necessary in accordance with Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection of the UDC. First Baptist Church will undertake the proposed phasing as set out in the General Project Concept. The church's envisioned timetable is dependent upon financial capability. First Baptist Church will ensure that all buildings set forth in this development plan will be constructed in accordance with the adopted building code of the City of Fayetteville and will as such provide necessary measures for fire protection in accordance with that code. DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY First Baptist Church will ensure that all sidewalks, street lighting, water, sewer, street access and drainage will comply with the City of Fayetteville regulations First Baptist Church will provide the surface parking shown on the MDP during Phase 1I of the proposed Master Development Plan. II -4 -4b' _4 '_ r.4 RSr-A d; C-2. SP r 4 RsF 4; } ...kSk 4 RSr-4 RSr-4 RMr SF 4 RS 4 I R RSF MF 2 ,, RMF-4U i ` • RSr-4 View from College Ave. Phase III and Phase IV View from Highland Ave. Phase I1 PM CK Q cc a -e� II T Ce' Ga cn z z ©N p¢jZ W 0< 0-LLJ X af to W r 4 CL Q n h W o �o<µw rx� d- ry� z w 0 • J O l.! 4 N o Lt I' Cf1 S. -1 CROMWELL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS 101 SOUTH SPRING ST LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 TELEPHONE 501-372-2900 FACSIMILE 501-372-0382 SHEET TITLE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE 10-05-05 PROJECT NO, 2002-036-13 1 OF 1