HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5091 ORDINANCE NO. 5091
mammamm
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 07-2603, FOR
APPROXIMATELY 1 .59 ACRES, LOCATED AT 956 AND 918
NORTH 46TH AVENUE FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL-
AGRICULTURAL, TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From R-A, Residential-Agricultural to R-O, Residential
Office, as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. RFqs
PASSED and APPROVED this 18th day of December, 2007. _ _ • . Fes:
APPROVED: ATTEST: - AYEEVIELE;
By: A" 1 �/ By^l�%7tG�-N
wu'""```•
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerkfrreasurer
EXHIBIT "B"
RZN 07-2603
A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
(SW/4) OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN ( 16) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY-ONE (3 1 ) WEST OF THE 5 THPRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT 310.0
FEET SOUTH OF THE NW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 250.0
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 20 MINUTES EAST 277.7 FEET; THENCE NORTH
250 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 20 MINUTES WEST 277.7 FEET; TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
/vR6
City of Fayetteville 11LlG
Staff Review Form jv9�
City Council Agenda Items
ZN
or
Contracts
18-Dec-07
City Council Meeting Date
Jeremy Pate Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
RZN 07-2603: Kooshesh, 438: Submitted by Carmen Cubillo for property located at 956 and 918 North 46th Avenue. The
property is zoned R-A, Residential-Agricultural and contains approximately 1 .59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to
R-O, Residential Office.
Action Required: 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 nia
$
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item O Budget Adjustment Attached
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a
Department Di ctor \l— \ `Date Original Contract Date: n/a
Original Contract Number: n/a
City Attorney
Received in City Clerk's Office
Finance and Internal Service Director Date
Received in Mayor's Office
,& &4/407a�
Mayor Date
Comments:
City Council Meeting of December 18, 2007
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
Date: November 29, 2007
Subject: Rezoning for Kooshesh 956 and 918 46th Avenue (RZN 07-2603)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended to approve rezoning the
subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to R-O, Residential Office for
approximately 1 .59 acres located at 956 and 918 46`h Avenue in west Fayetteville.
BACKGROUND
The property is located on the east side of 46`h Avenue approximately 300 feet south of
Wedington Drive, and contains one single family residence and a 912 square foot
garage/shop that has been historically used as a screen printing shop and other non-
residential uses. The property contains approximately 1 .59 acres and is zoned R-A. The
property is bordered by single family residences zoned R-A to the north and south,
Covenant Church to the east, and the undeveloped Woodstock PZD site to the west that is
zoned R-PZD for 342 dwelling units and 100,390 square feet of non-residential space.
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission meeting on November 26, 2007.
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend forwarding this rezoning request to
the City Council with a recommendation for approval.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 07-2603, FOR
APPROXIMATELY 1 .59 ACRES, LOCATED AT 956 AND 918
NORTH 46TH AVENUE FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL-
AGRICULTURAL, TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From R-A, Residential-Agricultural to R-O, Residential
Office, as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 12007.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
EXHIBIT "B"
RZN 07-2603
A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
(SW/4) OF SECTION TWELVE ( 12), TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN ( 16) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY-ONE (3 1 ) WEST OF THE 5THPRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT 310.0
FEET SOUTH OF THE NW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 250.0
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 20 MINUTES EAST 277.7 FEET; THENCE NORTH
250 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 20 MINUTES WEST 277.7 FEET; TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Property description: The subject property contains approximately 1 .59 acres. The property is
located at 956 and 918 46 h Avenue, approximately 300 feet south of Wedington Drive. The property
is one parcel and contains one 2,457 square foot single family residence and a 912 square foot
garage/shop that was used in the past as a screen printing shop. The parcel is zoned R-A.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-A to R-O.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request based on the findings herein.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Single Family Residential R-A
South Single-Family Residential R-A
East Covenant Church R-A
West Undeveloped (approved for Woodstock mixed use PZD R-PZD 07-2576
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: The site has access to 46th Avenue. 46th Avenue is an unimproved, narrow roadway
in this location. Improvements to the adjacent streets will be evaluated at the time of
development.
Water: Public water is located adjacent to the site. There is an 8" waterline along 46th
Avenue. Water service may need to be extended through the property at the time of
development.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available on the site. There is a 6" sewer main through the
property. Improvements to the sewer system may be required dependent upon the
demand placed by the development. The capacity of the existing main may need to be
studied at the time of development
Drainage: Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the
development.
Fire: These 1 .59 acres are covered by Engine 7 at 835 Rupple Road. It is 0.70 miles from
the station with an expected response time of 2.75 minutes. The Fire Department
anticipates 9 calls for service, per year, once the development is completed and
maximum build-out has occurred. No adverse effects on call volume or response
time to this development are anticipated.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not
substantially alter the population density or create an undesirable increase in the load
on police services. The rezoning will not create an appreciable increase in traffic
K.Weports110071PC Reporeslll-16-07LVN07-2603 (Kooshesh).doc
danger and congestion in the area depending on the volume of traffic accessing and
exiting this area.
CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: The City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan
designates this site as City Neighborhood Area. Stafffinds that due to the City Neighborhood Area
designation on the property and the recent City Council decision to rezone the Woodstockproperty
to allow for a medium density mixed-use development, the policy decision has been made towards
the trend for mixed use and higher density and greater intensity development in this neighborhood.
The R-O zoning would be consistent with the City Neighborhood Area guiding policy to provide non-
residential uses that are accessible for the convenience of individuals living in residential districts
and where compatibility with existing development patterns occurs. Staffrecognizes that the current
R-A zoning is not appropriate given the anticipated growth in this area along Wedington.
Additionally, given the policy decision to rezone the Woodstock property a more intense zoning on
this property is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. With the Woodstock approval, this
neighborhood has been immediately defined with a land use pattern that is planned to be varied a
change from the rather old rural-residential pattern surrounded by new development that currently
exists. While the property will remain zoned R-A on the north, east, and south sides for the time
being, the R-O zoning would be compatible with the surrounding zonings and existing and planned
land uses.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
1 . A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use.
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The property is designated as City Neighborhood Area in the City Plan 2025
Future Land Use Plan. The proposed R-O zoning is consistent with the City's
land use planning objectives, principles and policies to encourage compatible
and livable neighborhoods and mixed-use development indicated by the City
Neighborhood designation. The second and third guiding policies listed under
City Neighborhood Areas are to:
"Provide non-residential uses that are accessiblefor the convenience of individuals
living in residential districts where compatibility with existing desirable
development patterns occurs. "
"Reduce the length and number of vehicle trips generated by residential
development by enhancing the accessibility to these areas. .. "
The surrounding property is established single-family residences, a church, and
rural residential use; with the undeveloped property to the west approved for a
29-acre mixed use development. The subject property is a large single-family lot
that has been used in the past as a single family residence with a screen-printing
K.'IReporis1200W ReporsV l-26-071RZN 07-2603 (Koos; a h).doc
shop in the detached garage/shop on the property. The subject neighborhood is
a pocket of older large lot residences that have been surrounded by new
development just off of a major arterial street, Wedington Drive. The land uses
transition from a busy transportation corridor along Wedington, immediately
into the established large lot residences and undeveloped land around the
subject property, to a new RSF-4 subdivision further to the south. Staff finds
that rezoning the property to R-O in this transitional area and adjacent to the
planned Woodstock development would provide the opportunity for non-
residential uses that are accessible for the convenience of the large number of
residences living in the immediate area, and could reduce both the length and
number of vehicle trips generated by the existing and proposed residential
development in the neighborhood.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: Staff finds a rezoning on the subject property and the surrounding R-A
property to allow for more intense uses is justified and needed. The subject
property is approximately 1.59 acres and does not meet the minimum
requirements for a lot in the R-A zoning district. The historic use on the
property for a screen-printing shop is not permitted under the current zoning. It
should be noted that if this use was allowed at the time the current City
ordinances were adopted or the property was annexed, it may continue under .
City ordinance. •In addition, if the owner wishes to change the nonconforming
use in the old shop to a .different' use, they may apply for a conditional use
permit to do so, as long as the historic nonconforming use has not been
abandoned for more than six months. The applicant has applied for such a
conditional use permit if the subject rezoning request is denied. This area is
identified on the CityPlan 2025 as a City Neighborhood Area, indicating more
intense uses and an urban development pattern.
3 . A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: It is expected that a rezoning from R-A to R-O would create an increase in
traffic compared with that allowed under the existing zoning, though it is noted
the property has historically been utilized for non-residential uses. The
adjacent 46th Avenue is an unimproved two-lane road and would be required to
be improved if the property redevelops for more intense uses. Wedington Drive
is a principal arterial street approximately 300' to the north and is currently
being improved to its Master Street Plan standard by the City. Without
improvements to 46th Avenue the proposed R-O zoning would create or increase
traffic danger and congestion. With the street improvements required as part of
the Woodstock development across the street, 46th Street would be fully
K:IRepmaVO0APC Reporal I l-26-071RZN07-2603 (Ko Is h).d"
improved along the project frontage. If the Woodstock project is not developed
prior to development or re-development of the subject property, street
improvements to 46th Street would be evaluated and likely required.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police department that an
appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion would not
be created by this rezoning.
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: The proposed zoning would increase the potential population density. The
property contains 1.59 acres under R-A zoning which would allow for a
maximum of 1 unit. The proposed R-O designation specifies a range of density
from 4-24 units per acre. Two family units are allowed by right in the R-O
zoning district and require a minimum of 60' per lot. With the subject property
containing approximately 250' of frontage onto 46`h Avenue, a feasible
maximum of four two-family lots, or a total of eight units could be developed.
Rezoning the property increases the possible number of residential units by 7
units over that allowed under the current zoning. However, staff does not find
that this increase in residential density would create undesirable impacts to
public services, or a density that is incompatible with the surrounding area,
based on a review of infrastructure, existing land uses. I
.
Increased load on public services were taken into consideration and
recommendations from Engineering, Fire, and Police Departments are included
in this report.
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;
It may be practical to continue utilizing the property as a large lot single family
residence similar to some of the other lots to the south. However, the lot size is
nonconforming under the existing zoning and redevelopment on the property
would not be allowed by right. As discussed in Finding No. 2 staff finds that
rezoning the property to allow for more intense uses is needed due to the
development pressure and the future land use designation of this area. This
parcel and the surrounding property were developed many years ago and
remain a small pocket of R-A zoning on large lots generally surrounded by new
K. Wepartsl20071PC Reporlst ll-26-071RZN 07-2603 (Kooshesh).dw
development. However, more intense land use on this property should be done
sensitively and appropriately to be compatible with the remaining pocket of
older residential development, and to provide a more comprehensive approach
to the policy decision of rezonings in the area.
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: Not applicable. Staff recommends in favor of the requested zoning.
K.IRepwis110071PC Reportsll1-26-071RZN 07-1603 (Kooshesh).do
Fayetteville Unified Development Code exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from
any boundary line of any residential district a
161.03 District R-A, Residential-Agricultural distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in
excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured
(A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural from the required setback lines.
district are designed to protect agricultural land
until an orderly transition to urban development (G) Building area. None.
has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering
of development in Waal areas; obtain economy of (Code 1965, App. A., An. 5(I); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70;Code 1991,
§160.030;Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-3 1-
public
178, 8-31-
public funds in the providing of public 99)
improvements and services of orderly growth;
conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for
affordable housing, increase scenic attractiveness;
and conserve open space.
(B) uses.
( 1 ) Permitted uses.
Unit t City-wide uses by right
Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 6 Agriculture
Unit 7 Animal husbandry
Unit 8 Single-family dwellings
Unit 9 Two-family dwellings
Unft 37 Manufactured homes -
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 20 Commercial recreation large sites
Unit 24 Home occupations _
Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Units per acre I One-hall
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Lot width minimum 200 ft.
Lot Area Minimum:
Residential: 2 acres
Nonresidential: 2 acres
Lot area per dwelling unit 2 acres
E) Setback requirements.
Front 1 Side Rear
35 ft. 1 20 ft 35 ft
(F) Height requirements. There shall be no
maximum height limits in the A- 1 District,
provided, however, that any building which
K.lReportsl2007lPC Reportilll-26-071RZN 07-1603 (Kaoshah).dw
161.16 District R -O, Residential Office
(A) Purpose. The Residential -Office District is
designed primarily to provide area for offices
without limitation to the nature or size of the
office, together with community facilities,
restaurants and compatible residential uses.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by ht
Unit5
Government facilities
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 12
Offices studios and related services
Unit 25
Professional offices
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
Citywide uses by conditional use permit
Unit3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 11
Manufactured home park
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping oods
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 26 -
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Bulk and area regulations.
(Per dwelling unit for residential structures)
(f) Lot width minimum.
Manufactured home park
100 ft.
Lot within a manufactured home
park
50 ft.
Single-family
60 ft.
Two-family
60 R
Three or more
90 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum.
Manufactured home park
3 acres
Lot within a manufactured home
park
4,200 sq.
ft.
Townhouses:
Development
Individual lot
10,000 sq. ft.
2500 sq. ft.
Single-family
6000 sq.
ft.
Two-family
6500 sq.
ft.
Three or more
8000 sq.
ft.
Fraternity or Sororty
1 acre
(3) Land area per dwelling unit.
K:IRepora[20071PC Reports)f t-26-071RZN 07-2603 (Kooshhesh).doc
Manufactured home
3,000 sq.
ft.
Townhouses & apartments:
No bedroom
1,000 sq.
ft.
One bedroom
1,000 sq.
ft.
Two or more bedrooms
1,200 sq.
ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
500 sq. R
per resident
(D) Density.
IUnitsperacre I4to24
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
30 ft.
Front, if parking is allowed between the right-
of -way and the building
50 ft.
Front,
in the Hillside Overlay District
15 ft.
Side
1 o ft.
Side,
when con' uous to a residential district
15 ft.
Side,
in the Hillside Overlay District
8 ft
Rear,
without easement or alley
25 R
Rear
from center line of public alley
10 ft.
Rear
in the Hillside Overlay District
15 ft.
(F) Height regulations. There shall be no
maximum height limits in R -O Districts, provided,
however, that any building which exceeds the
height of 20 feet shall be set back with any
boundary line of any RSF or RMF District an
additional distance of one foot for each foot of
height in excess of 20 feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total
area of such lot.
(Code No. 1965, App. A., Art. 5(x); Ord. No. 2414, 2-7-78; Ord. No.
2603,2-19-80; Ord. No. 2621,4-1-80; Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code
1991, § 160.041; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16.98; Ord. No. 4178,
8-31-99; Ord. 4726, 7-19-05; Ord. 4943, 11-07-06)
Planning Commission
June 11, 2007
Page 12 of 21
RZN 07-2603: (KOOSHESH, 438): Submitted by CARMEN CUBILLO for property located at
956 AND 918 N. 46TH AVENUE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -
AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.59 acres. The request is to rezone the subject
property to R -O, Residential Office.
Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Gamer discussed staff's findings that the
requested zoning could result in some objectionable uses and nuisances depending on the scale,
transition and use of the property. Garner stated that the current R -A zoning may not be appropriate
given the anticipated growth in this vicinity, however, a straight rezoning does not ensure a
compatible development pattern in this pocket of old rural -residential uses surrounded by new
development. Staff recommended denial of the rezoning at this time.
No public comment was received.
Cyrus Kooshesh (applicant) was present for the application. He discussed the history of the
property and how it was annexed into the City, and that R -A zoning is not in compliance with the
size of the lot or the historical uses on the lot. It was discussed that a silk-screening shop has been
on this property for approximately 30 years, but has recently moved out to other areas. He discussed
that some of the surrounding neighbors provided letters of support for the requested rezoning,
agreeing with the neighbors' letters that professional offices were needed in this area of town. He
stated understanding of staff's concerns with the proposed rezoning, and offered a Bill of Assurance
to limit development on the property to no more than three buildings, no more than two stories in
height, and no more than 2,500 square feet per floor for each building. He noted that the City Fire
and Police Departments stated that rezoning would create no adverse impacts. He also stated that he
is almost going bankrupt with this property and needs to improve it and continue the non-residential
use.
Commissioner Cabe asked staff about the status of the Woodstock PZD being proposed across the
street.
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the Woodstock PZD is a large mixed use
proposal that has been through the technical plat review meeting, and that there were substantial
revisions to the project that are being addressed by the applicant. He stated that he is not sure when
it will be re -submitted.
Commissioner Anthes asked staff if they had reviewed the Bill of Assurance and if it would change
staffs recommendation.
Garner responded that he had worked with the applicant and given some suggestions on some of the
items offered in the Bill of Assurance. Gamer also stated that he had discussed other options with
the applicant to continue the historical non-residential use in the garage/shop by applying for a
conditional use permit.
Commissioner Graves asked staff about this request being a spot -zone, and whether the applicant's
Planning Commission
June 11, 2007
Page 13 of 21
Bill of Assurance would negate the spot -zone status.
Pate responded that this would still be an R -O zoning surrounded by R -A, even with the Bill of
Assurance. Mr. Pate also discussed that a policy decision to increase the intensity and density of
uses in this area has not yet been made by City Council. The timing for this request seems
premature.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, added that a
spot -zone is generally
referring
to an area where
proposed zoning could
result
in conflicting or incompatible land
uses with
the
surrounding
area.
Commissioner Graves stated he agreed with staff that the timing of the request is premature. As it
stands now, completely surrounded by unlike property, he would support staff and vote to deny.
Commissioner Anthes stated that she shared the same concern, but hated to take away the
applicant's ability to use the property for its historical non-residential uses, and would like to see a
conditional use permit application to allow for the existing nonconforming nonresidential uses in the
garage/shop on the property to continue. Two options were available: 1) Denial, which would result
in waiting one year to resubmit; and 2) tabling or a conditional use permit request.
Commissioner Lack agrees that a conditional use permit would be a good option. He also stated
that he is inclined to deny the rezoning request with the Bill of Assurance to protect the applicant
from unnecessarily limiting the use and value of his property in the future. If the surrounding zoning
and uses change in the future, such as proposed with the Woodstock PZD, a more intense zoning on
this property may be encouraged. He would like to table this item.
Commissioner Anthes asked for the applicant's input. It may be better to table to a date specific to
see if surrounding property has been rezoned after some period of time.
Kooshesh stated that, yes, he would be willing to table the item. He asked if the conditional use
permit was a different application. He also asked if tabling the item for six months was appropriate.
Commissioner Graves asked staff that if this rezoning is denied, may the applicant ask for a
different zoning at any time, and may a conditional use permit be applied for at any time?
Pate responded that a conditional use permit may be submitted now, even under the existing zoning.
Motion:
Commissioner Lack made a motion to table the item until the applicant deems it appropriate to
bring the item back before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Myres seconded the motion, and asked if the tabling should be for a specific time
period.
Planning Commission
June 11, 2007
Page 14 of 21
Commissioner Lack responded that he is okay with the item being tabled indefinitely and the
applicant bring back the item at his discretion.
Williams answered a question from the commission that usually when an item is tabled indefinitely
by the City Council it is pulled off of any docket at the end of the calendar year. However, he is not
sure how long an item may be tabled indefinitely by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Anthes clarified for the applicant that tabling of this item does not prohibit an
application for a conditional use permit or a different re -zoning request.
Upon roll call, the motion to table indefinitely, allowing the applicant to bring it back as he saw
fit, passed with a vote of 6-0-0.
To: Mr. ANDREW M. GARNER, Senior Planner, Fayetteville Planning Commission and
Fayetteville City Council
From: Cyrus Kooshesh RECEIVED
1812 33r1 Ave.
Sterling, IL. 61081 OCT 222007
Email: koosheshc@yahoo.com
Phone (815)973-6660 PLANNING DIV.
Re: REZONING REQUEST OF PARCEL #765-162570-000
956 N. 46TH AND 918 N. 46TH AVE. FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704
Dear Mr. Garner, Honorable Members of Fayetteville Planning Commission and Fayetteville
City Council:
On June 11, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning request of my property
Located at 956 and 918, 46`h Avenue in Fayetteville, Arkansas from R -A to R -O. The planning
Commission decided to table my request upon their review. One of the main obstacles at the
time was a request for rezoning by Woodstock Community (R-PZD07-2576). However since
the rezoning of the Woodstock Community has been approved by the Planning Commission and
the City Council, I am respectfully asking your favorable review of my rezoning request at your
earliest scheduled meeting. It should be noted that at the time of my original request, I submitted
three letters of support two of which where from the adjoining property owners. At this point I
wish to withdraw my Bill of Assurance which I have submitted with my request, however I am
open to any suggestion and condition that the Planning Commission or the City Council might
have.
As I stated in my original request part of this property (918 46`h Ave.) has been used as a local
business in the past 25 years.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any additionai questions.
Respectfully,
Cyrus Kooshesh,
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission and Fayetteville City Council
From: Cyrus Kooshesh Carmen Cubillo as Agent
1812 33' Ave. 107 S. West Ave.
Sterlin, IL. 61081
Email: kooshesLs®y 40O.Co
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Email: Caob11(0®aoI sCOn+
Cell: 479-225-0055
Home: 479-521-5677
Re: REZONING REQUEST OF PARCEL #765-162570-000
956 N. 46TH AND 918 N. 46" AVE. FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704
Question #Sa) Current Ownership
Cyrus Kooshesh residing at 1812 33n° Ave. Sterlin, IL 61081 is the current owner of record for
Parcel #765-162570-000 located at 956 466 Ave., Fayetteville, AR 72704. Within this one parcel
there are two buildings separate and apart.
Building One is a 2,457 sq. ft. residential building with an attached garage and driveway.
Building Two is a separate 912 sq ft. finished building with a 575 sq. ft. attached garage and
separate driveway. The buildings are separate and have maintained separate use since 1979.
Building Two just received a new address at 918 North 466 Ave., Fayetteville, AR 72704.
Owner purchased this lot with the two buildings existing and the current non compliance issues.
(See Attached Property Record Card Description for Layout)
There is no proposed or pending sale of the said property. Properties across the street and south
have sold to a developer for the Woodstock Community Project.
Sb) Need For Rezoning
Mr. Kooshesh is requesting rezoning from the current Residential Agricultural (R -A) to
Residential -Office (R -O). Granting this request will put the lot in proper compliance with current
ordinance requirements, make "best use" of the land, follow Fayetteville's 2025 master plan, and
allow for the continued use of the property as a mixed -use residential office as it has been used
since 1979. The rezoning is being requested for the following reasons:
1) The property is now in non-compliance with its current R -A zoning. R -A zoning according to
the code must be lots of two (2) acres or more. This parcel is 1.6 acres and does not meet the
code standards for R -A
2) The property is now in a mixed commercial, multi dwelling, office use area. This area has
changed significantly from when it was zoned R -A. The intersection of Wedington and 466
avenue is just north of this property. Many lots on Wedington have been rezoned for commercial
and multi use. Nearby lots on 466 Ave. are zoned for multi -residential use. Directly across the
street from this plot, the Woodstock Community Project is underway. If Mr. Kooshesh's plot
were rezoned R -O the property would relate well to the similar surroundings. The property
would also comply with the R -O zoning code.
3) Since 1979 the property has had a single family home and separate office -workshop. There
have always been two separate tenants. The buildings have been rented separately as a residential
home and as a business. The workshop/office has been used by a silk screen company.
Customers came to place and pick up orders. It has been rented for the past 27 years.
4) Owner cannot make" best use" of this land if it remains R -A. Keeping land in non-compliance
status is an undue hardship on owner. Owner wants to continue renting the property and have the
use comply with the new updated zoning that is being requested. If owner were to sell the
property zoned R -A future owners would encounter the same encumbrances with a small R -A lot
of this size, thus reducing the property value.
5) Granting rezoning from R -A to R-0, fits in with the City of Fayetteville's 2025 Master Plan.
The area where the plot is located is zoned purple. (Mutli-use residential). An R -O mixed use
zoning for this property fits well with the City of Fayetteville's future visions goals_
Sc) Properties Relation to Swroundings Properties with New Rezoning Land Use, Traffic,
Appearance, and Signage
Land use in relation to neighbors would remain the same. There are few neighbors currently in
the area. The south of Mr. Kooshesh's property borders an empty lot, owned by Dr. Kenny who
supports the rezoning request. (Please see attached letters of support.) The East of the property
borders the large parking lot of the Covenant Presbyterian Church. The church supports the
rezoning request. (Please see attached letter of support)
The North of the property borders three lots. An empty lot owned by the city of Fayetteville,
another small empty privately owned lot and the back yard of another residential owner who
might be selling soon. (Please see all attached letters of support for the R -O rezoning request
from remaining neighbors.)
Across the street from this parcel is an empty field soon to be the Woodstock Community Project.
Mr. Gott; the neighbor across the street and to the south, who is in support of the rezoning, has
sold his land to those same developers.
Traffic use and parking will remain the same under the new R-0 rezoning. Most of the traffic
now comes from the intersection of W.Wedington Rd. and N. 46th Ave. and it will continue to
do so under the new zoning.
Both buildings have independent drive ways, a two car garage, and a parking area. No parking
increase will be needed under the new rezoning. Owner does have ample room on lot to pave a
larger parking if needed for future tenants. Currently the two buildings have separate electric
meters and share water. Owner wants to install a second water meter. Two separate addresses for
the buildings have recently been established to facilitate mail delivery and utility billing.
The appearance of both buildings will improve if R -O rezoning is given. If R -O rezoning is
granted the overall appearance of the buildings and property will improve. Owner is waiting to
do improvements on the buildings and landscaping until rezoning is granted. Owner has
estimates and is ready to begin work.
Signage is allowed both under the current R -A zoning and the requested R -O zoning. Rezoning
would not change the ability to put up signs.
Sd) Availability of Water & Sewer
There is both water and sewer currently existing on the property that has been used for 27 years.
R -O rezoning would not affect the present water and sewer needs.
#6 a) Degree to which proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives
As stated in 5b & Sc above the requested zoning is consistent with the land use planning's
objectives, principals and policies. The requested zoning fits well with other projects under the
Master 2025 plan. The degree to which this rezoning request complies and is consistent with the
land use planning objectives is 100%.
6b) Is Proposed Zoning Justified/Needed
The rezoning from R -A to R -O is a timely and justified request. The request shows that there is
a need for affordably priced small multi -use work spaces in our community_ The property needs
to be brought into compliance as soon as possible. R -O would also allow for the property to be
used as residential or office if so desired thus allowing for the "best use" of the current buildings
and land. (See Question Sb)
6c) Traffic Issues
Proposed zoning will not create any increases in traffic or traffic danger. Property rezoning will
not affect any current use. No increase in traffic is foreseen from the rezoning from R -A to R -O
since it has been used for multi use oficefresidential. (See Question Sc)
6d) Population Density/Public Services
The population density as a result of this rezoning will not be altered. Population in this property
has varied but averages from 5-10 people and will remain about the same. Property will continue
with the existing water and sewer.
6e) Impracticality of Using Land Under Current Zoning
It would be difficult to use 1.6 acres in a R -A zoning. Raising animals or growing crops
necessitate more land than this. Considering the changes in the neighborhood agricultural zoning
is no longer appropriate. The land use planning map shows the 2025 Master Plan aims towards
residential office multi -use in this area.
The rezoning from R -A to R -O is justified and needed for the above reasons. Rezoning updates
and modernizes this property in compliance with current and future city codes. In this changing
neighborhood the rezoning from Residential Agricultural (R -A) to Residential -Office (R -O) is
needed. Owner hopes to make "best use" of his land under the requested R -O rezoning and come
into compliance. Owner will and can supply any additional information requested. Thank you for
your consideration of this rezoning request.
Millard Goff
845 N. 46th Ave.
Fayetteville AR 72704
Re: Rezoning of Lot 765-16257-000 From A -R to O -R
Address: 95646th Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72704
4/18/07
Dear City Planners and City Officials,
This is my letter in support of the proposed zoning change for Cyrus Kooshesh's property.
I am the owner of lot 756-16264-000. My lot is across the street and just south of Mr.
Kooshesh's Lot 765-16257-000.1 understand that Mr. Kooshesh's property is currently
Zoned A -R (Agricultural Residential) and he is requesting that it be changed to R -O
(Residential -Office).
As far as my knowledge, Mr. Kooshesh's property has always had a single family, home
in one building and operated a small business in the other separate building. This area
currently has a variety of use properties and zonings. I think the R -O property would be
more appropriate considering the past use, and firture use. I have spoken to Mr.
Kooshesh about his plans with the property and I am supporting the change of zoning to
R -O that he is requesting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Millard Goff
Dr. Mary Alice Kenny
846 N. 46"' Ave.
Fayetteville AR 72704
Re: Rezoning of Lot 765-16257-000 From A -R to O -R
Address: 956 46'h Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72704
4/18/07
Dear City Planners and City Officials,
This is my letter in support of the proposed zoning change for Cyrus Kooshesh's property_
I am the owner of lot 765-07662-000. My lots northern border contacts Mr. Kooshesh's
Lot 765-16257-000.1 understand that Mr. Kooshesh's property is currently Zoned A -R
(Agricultural Residential) and he is requesting that it be changed to R -O (Residential -
Office).
As far as my knowledge, Mr. Kooshesh's property has always had a single family home
in one building and operated a small business in the other separate building. This area
currently has a variety of use properties and zonings. I think the R -O property would be
more appropriate considering the past use, and future use. I have spoken to Mr.
Kooshesh about his plans with the property and I am supporting the change of zoning to
R -O that he is requesting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. MA Kenney
Covenant Presbyterian Church of NWA
4511 W. Weddington Dr.
Fayetteville AR 72704-5853
Re: Rezoning of Lot 765-16257-000 From A -R to O -R
Address: 956 466 Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72704
4/18/07
Dear City Planners and City Officials,
This is our letter supporting the proposed zoning change for Cyrus Kooshesh's property.
We are owners of lot 756-16255-001. My lot borders Mr. Kooshesh's Lot 765-16257-000
to the east. We understand that Mr. Kooshesh's property is currently Zoned A -R
(Agricultural Residential) and he is requesting that it be changed to R -O (Residential -
Office).
As far as our knowledge, Mr. Kooshesh's property has always had a single family home
in one building and operated a small business in the other separate building. This area
currently has a variety of use properties and zonings. We think the R -O property would
be more appropriate considering the past use, and future use. We have spoken to Mr.
Kooshesh about his plans with the property and we are supporting the change of zoning
to R -O that he is requesting. Thank you.
,.ti 1 cte: load !„�L
Date 5/30/07
Jeremy Pate
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether rezoning RZN
07-2603: (KOOSHESI-I, 438): Submitted by CARMEN CUBILLO for property located
at 956 AND 918 N. 46TH AVENUE would substantially alter the population density
and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services and create an appreciable
increase in traffic danger and congestion.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this PZD will not substantially
alter the population density or create an undesirable increase in police services. It will
not create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area.
Sincerely,
Captain William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
Fayetteville Fire
Department
To: Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher
Thru: Chief Tony Johnson
Assistant Chief Bud Thompson
From: Captain Dale Riggins
Date: May 24, 2007
rt=
Re: May 23, Zoning Review -tire Department Comments
R-PZD 07-2578 (Bailey Meadows)
These 4.73 acres are covered by Engine 6 l ted at 900 S. Hollywood.
It is 4.1 miles from the station with an anti ted response time of 7 minutes.
The Fire Department anticipates 1 call for 4vice, per year, once the development is
completed and maximum build -out has occ ed.
There is no measured hydrant flow record in this area.
There should be no adverse effects on our41 volume to this development.
RZN 07-2602 (ArmacEngineering)
This .18 acres is covered by Engine I and Udder I located at 303 W Center.
It is .6 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 2.25 minutes.
The Fire Department anticipates 1 call for service, per year, once the development is
completed and maximum build -out has occ * ed
There is no measured hydrant flow recorde4n this area.
There should be no adverse effects on our col volume or response time to this
development.
RZN 07-2603 (Koosheh)
These 1.59 acres are covered by Engine 7 located at835 N Rupple Road.
It is .7 miles from the station with an anticipated reaponse time of 2.75 minutes.
The Fire Department anticipates 9(6 EMS B�3 Fire(Other) calls for service, per year,
once the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred. The service
impact of this type development will typically take eighteen months after the
development is started, and the units begin tp be occupied, to occur.
The measured hydrant flow in this area has been recorded at 1 520 gallon/minute.
There should be no adverse effects on our call volume or response time to this
development
(12.21.07) Clarice Pearman - Ords. 5090-5094 Page 1
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Pate, Jeremy
Date: 12.21.07 3:33 PM
Subject: Ords. 5090-5094
Attachments: 5091 RZN 07-2603 Kooshesh.pdf; 5092 VAC 07-2804 City of Fyv.pdf; 5093 VAC 0
7-2832 Timberlake Oft Park.pdf; 5094 C-PZD 05-1610 East Sq. Dvlpmt.pdf; 509
0 RZN 07-2781 Dandy.pdf
CC: Audit; GIS
Jeremy:
Attached are the above ordinances approved by the City Council on December 18th. Please let me know if there is
anything else needed for these items. Happy Holiday!
Thanks.
Clarice
RECEIVED
JAN 0 3 2008
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION
Northwest Arkansas Times
Benton County Daily Record
P.O. BOX 1607
FAYE I I EVILLE, AR 72702
PHONE: 479-571-6421
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County
Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and
reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: City of
Fayetteville Ordinance 5091
Was inserted in the Regular Editions:
December 23, 2007
Publication Charge: $79.13
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This ndday of 3av%uAyL , 2008.
Notary Pub 'c
Denson
Notary Public, State of Arkansas
Washington County
My Commission Expires: t/,�J,iJ
MyQommuwonExpba1111S/14
Do not pay from Affidavit, an invoice will be sent
RECEIVED
JAN 0 3 2008
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
i NaiMMM0. list
uT
•
e e
fl MC 918 NO ni MTM RIEIAE ROM
ptQlflapp AG. ARKANSAS
• M OFFICE -
- i Q MM= n ntoFR'a �'M.U� int a Rwwrfufast
i •Fe t Mt*.-'Yond7M 0_b�1Nwb'/d+ipaalaf
• KKK;' . A .
Fan R#. r_- _Si S jM MIMM of $. r dart an Ed atd
• 7' dadadurabow adiS9 t-fd.
o Efdatt t Tht fa dAdd ar*10 mp d its OV d Fl• MohM lit_, t_bNnaSS b
i 1f6o$71af QdtatpspoAdd MNddnitaa
: adSS 1* ISM dpdOWWdM. .
AFFROWD ATE82
: , .f/F L �CIa1NfNaNar
MM ANfMp ad nW13ln
9 vatwdn dbf dfa O2F CINfa"dait2nard p
t I_pan ID011f17'0' -•
R37O7.2W9
i A NP? OOFFyTM ORMEAST QUARTER((N�ENTHE
BOUT"00 T OUMI91 (EIYN)OF S -
PR NCIMI lllfOlAN ThE 5TH
MM9SNOTeI ON 7COl1MY�NANIANCAS. MO E MMMMAARY• c�rO�i11NE0
WT UM
TI fEO /T A►OMi 970.0 FEET SOUTH M DEOIfE9 2D M t&JTES FAST 2T277.1 It';:
t iIB10E t10UI71m.0 FEET, TBICE BOUTN
FOINT�fEOMffNO. ,TWICENORR7liOWSM320MM1TESVlEST 2I7.7iiFTO7/E
S
v � �
� � i i♦ 'l v \ \
a e'ttvtlle
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commissi
FROM: Andrew Gamer, Senior Planner
Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: November 20,2007 Undated November 29, 2007
PC Meeting of November 26, 2007
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
RZN 07-2603: (KOOSHESH, 438): Submitted by CARMEN CUBILLO for property located at
956 AND 918 N. 46TH AVENUE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL
and contains approximately 1.59 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O,
Residential Office.
Property Owner: Cyrus Kooshesh
Planner: Andrew Gamer
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings herein.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
❑ Approved X Forwarded (recommend approval) El Denied
Motion: Lack Second: Ostner Vote:• 8-0-0
Date: November 26, 2007
'ITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
❑ Approved 0 Denied
late: December 18, 2007 (1'1 reading if recommended)
BACKGROUND:
Background: This item was heard at the June 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The item
was tabled indefinitely at the applicant's request, pending the Cit Council's policy decision for the
requested rezoning of the Woodstock project directly across 46 Street from the subject property.
The Planning Commission meeting minutes from June 11, 2007 are attached with this report. On
October 2, 2007 the City Council approved the Woodstock R-PZD, rezoning the 29.63 -acre property
from R -A, Residential Agricultural to allow for a mixed use development with 342 dwelling units
and 100,390 square feet of non-residential space, an overall density of 11.5 units per acre. Based on
the results of the Woodstock rezoning the applicant has brought the subject rezoning request back to
the Planning Commission for consideration.
K: IReports120071PC Report I l-26-071RZN 07-2603 (Kooshesh).doc
� Yt..i SP r'vi xr x r.1..1 _�aSEyJ 1 • f_ ���e Yw Y9 4=[
uGA'4 � r vry '.' v Sr r r ) � � �'3 's'• .
.Yi s 3 tus xPi" <r .n
a' INS E .W aYb" •
.r
J.. r ♦:3 y .4 t t:1'1
M1
'(•�_
I ` tJ i ' � -
i}}
f r S '
£5 �w•
.I .>
�iii'i•�f � a4 '�'� �
i iii222 '�
♦� rixe''' Y i
r
Mt
J I
k
ri �` '�..4 S 3
T
ITT.
i" J •„a# -':� ' • .%I:s` 1 P V ♦ y { KT r^'._ i A. €t•ftttTc Ili
MI _
tr
{ Sa_
St
� J
yy
I �i •5"
!t M1y t}"fit • III " •Y r1 _r;j
.Y
r ' ..ate/Jh 4Y ..Y-£---
o . '.
•_tom
-
♦Pi s ,�
_ • l . �: a { ✓+ 1 v hl f.' ..l !r b'c�V a aIC+sY �C �:. a..
nJ,a. _ n ^vr. t 1. u. c -C :i2+.�'.4.v ..
TJ
\3 V
y r \'Yl
•ti
:I
k - 'j
ry •'�
9tl\j.(
K ' I� if , �
� •{�•
.
j ZC-L l
Y.a Je
•.T ts.:" :
'.kif .i
mot,
(
wnmprtiq < I
�.'�3J
�€r.
1 ♦�2Y'
�t tel: ee}/
♦ y yf,
P
it
N
"Imililidi
INi
17 �vf