Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-12 - Agendas - Final AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday,August 12,2002 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,Room 219, Fayetteville,Arkansas. Roll Call The following items will be considered: Approval of minutes from the July 22,2002 meeting New Business: I. CCP 01-01.00 Concurrent Plat(Watkins, pp 650)was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. 2. LSD 02-20.00: Large Scale Development (Bristol Park,pp 134) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Bristol Development Group, LLC for property located west of Steele Blvd. and north of Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned RMF-12, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential and contains approximately 32.6 acres with 272 units and a club house proposed. 3. RZN 02-8.00: Rezoning(Nickell, pp 445/446)was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of J.C. &Alma Nickell for property located at 867 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R-O,Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 4. RZN 02-23.00: Rezoning(Lindsey,pp 519) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull &Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Co. for property located north of Old Farmington Road and east of Futrall Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 19.39 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF- 18, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential. 5. RZN 02-24.00: Rezoning(Nelms,pp 209)was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull &Associates on behalf of Nelms LLP for property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 27.81 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial H'1USFRSICOWONIPLANNINGI2002 AGFNDAIPCI8-12-02.DOC 6. RZN 02-25.00: Rezoning(Sage House, pp 564)was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Sage House, Inc. for property owned by the City of Fayetteville and located at 1033 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.22 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-12, Moderate Density Residential. 7. CUP 02-23.00: Conditional Use (NE United Pentecostal Church,pp 251)was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company for property located at 533 E. Appleby Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1 acre. The request is for an addition to an existing building. S. CUP 02-25.00: Conditional Use (Callahan Tower, pp 404)was submitted by CF Hull on behalf of Callahan Tower Joint Venture for property owned by Linda Kay Hinkle and located north of Wedington Drive and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a wireless communication facility. 9. ADM 02-24.00:Administrative Item (Master Street Plan Setback Ordinance)to adopt an ordinance to establish setback lines on such streets and highways as are designated on the Master Street Plan and prohibiting the establishment of any new structure or other improvements within the setback lines. All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning(575-8264),City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville,Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call Hugh Earnest at 575-8330. H.9 USE"COMMO"LANN]W2002 AGENDAT08-/2-02.DOC ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item - Chairman B. Presentation of request-Applicant C. Public Comment D. Response by Applicant/Questions &Answer with Commission E. Action of Planning Commission(Discussion and vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item,raise your hand when the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please keep your comments brief,to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy,refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2002 Planning Commissioners: Lorel Hoffman- Chairman Bob Estes - Vice Chairman Lee Ward- Secretary Nancy Allen Don Bunch Sharon Hoover Alice Church Loren Shackelford Alan Ostner CCP 01-6.00 Page I PC Meeting of August 12.2002 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Watkins,CCP 113 W. Mountan St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner, A.I.C.P. FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner Matt Casey P.E. , Staff Engineer DATE: August 8,2002 Project: CCP 01-1.00 Concurrent Plat (Watkins,pp 650)was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. Findings: This subdivision is being processed as a concurrent plat, which is the simultaneous approval of the preliminary and final plat. This is done only in instances where no public improvements are being required. This property is located in the County. The City's subdivision regulations which govern development in the Planning Area require that streets meet Washington County standards. Therefore,the City is not requesting any street improvements as part of this subdivision,but deferring any street improvements to the discretion of Washington County. Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of the proposed$5,000 contribution to install and eight inch water line along Mally Wagnon Road from Highway 16 southward approximately 1,700 feet to complete a waterline loop. If required, it shall be paid prior to filing the Final Plat 2. The cemetery shall be labeled as lot 11 and labeled unbuildable. 3. A note shall be added to the plat which states that no lot splits will be allowed until such time the waterline along Van Hoose is upgraded to an 8 inch line and all City of Fayetteville and Washington County requirements are met. 4. Washington County approval shall be obtained for this subdivision. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives -AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) Planning Commission August 12, 2002 CCP01-1 Watkins Page 1.1 CCP 01-6.00 Page 2 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage,water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private),sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The.infonnation submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Background: This concurrent plat was reviewed at the May 29, 2002 and at the June 13, 2002 Subdivision Committee. The item was tabled at that time so additional information could be obtained concerning the water pressure problems in the area. The item was again reviewed at the August 1, 2002 Subdivision Committee. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included the effects of the lots on the water pressure in the area. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments. Infrastructure: a.) Water. Existing b) Sanitary Sewer is not available in this area. c.) Streets. Existing d.) Grading and Drainage. Not applicable PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: Comments: August 12, 2002 CCP01-1 Watkins Page 1.2 CCP 01-6.00 Page 3 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required Approved Denied Date: The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date Planning Commission August 12, 2002 CCP01-1 Watkins Page 1.3 l NICKLE-HILL GROUP, INC. Commercial Real Estate Services 202 Sunbridge Drive,Fayetteville,Arkansas 72703 Bus:501-571-1111 Fax:501-571.2931 July 8, 2002 Planning Commission CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72703 RE: Watkins Subdivision Dear Commissioners; I fust appeared before the Subdivision Committee with this project on November 15, 2001. At that time a neighbor, Mr. Larry Nixon, voiced concerns about the water pressure on the hill where this property is located. The project was tabled until a water pressure test could be conducted by the City of Fayetteville. The test showed that at times the line did not have a desirable level of pressure. The City Engineering Office, spearheaded by the efforts of Ron Petrie, determined that there was a valve problem near the tank on the east side of Van Hoose Road. The city repaired the valve and the water department conducted another pressure test. The results of that test showed that the water pressure in the line doubled after the valve was repaired. Mr. Petrie informed me that the pressure in the line was adequate and that we had satisfied the engineering office's concern about water pressure. We have also received a letter from the Engineer Supervisor with the Arkansas Department of Health that the water line and pressure is acceptable by Health Department standards. On June 13, 2002, we again appeared before the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Nixon continued to voice his concern about the water pressure on the hill. The only other people who voiced a concern about water were residents who live at the bottom of the hill, close to Highway 16, who don't have city water. Back in the early part of 2000, the city agreed to do a cost share in installing a water line on Mally Wagnon Road from Highway 16 to a point approximately one quarter of a mile north of Highway 16, and at that point connect to an existing water line. The process ended when the residents who would benefit from the water line realized that they would have to bore under Highway 16 at a cost of approximately $5,000 to connect with the city main on the north side of the highway. Someone suggested that if the water line loop from Highway 16, up Ed Edwards Road, across to Mally Wagnon Road and then back to Highway 16 were completed, it might stabilize the water pressure. It was my understanding that if the appIicp&u)*t�9%n August 12, 2002 CCP01-1 Watkins Brokerage • Leasing • Consulting • Management Office • Retail - Industrial • Multifamily • Land r t Watkins, would agreed to contribute funds to help complete that loop,this gesture would be sufficient to gain the committee's approval. Mrs. Watkins has agreed that upon approval of the Watkins Subdivision, she will pay the city $5,000 to go toward the completion of the loop. However, her approval should not be subject to the completion of the loop because neither she nor the city can force the other neighbors to contribute their portion of the improvements for the water line. We have done everything that the City Engineering office has asked us to do and have agreed to contribute funds to the completion of a loop at the bottom of the hill. Our subdivision has been approved by the professionals that understand the engineering aspects of water lines and how they work. Thank you for considering our proposal. I trust we have met with all requirements. Best regards, QkA A� Robert H. Hill Planning Commission August 12, 2002 CCP01-1 Watkins Page 1.5 M01-06.00 WA TK/NS One Mile View C? R X^Y R q ._ i A — • " r R? AttE SEQUOA ? ' .-cU77 a r t AJ,, I°� r r } _ _ — — i R9 � I a \ 4 \ 3r Subject Property t�-- A? s e Grr x t t f , yC s r ; i -- `� '"" "' *"Srr 't**r•Fe+. .i.,,;,w_..a rd. ,�,,, `� - Y`fy r €s s y e" - z t x- OverviewLegend _. ._. Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan PPL01-06.00 "'N-, Planning Area Freeway/Expressway L OvedaY District *ailaoPrincipal Arterial Streets IocooI Ci Limits Minor Arterial Pic nin Commission Existing —— H g / Planned Outside City Collector August 12, 2002 .••• Historic Collector CCP01-1 Watkins 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 015 1 Page 1.6 Miles 0 PPL01-06.00 WA TK/NS Close Up View ©N , , © r � D ( 3'. �f QIio t ❑0�. ;4 1I N to £ ryi ®` l; a II .a ' ,j 4t,,"0S i El �i t _• 7 a .. ' AFI I� EM Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan " SME PPL01-06 00 ��'. , Planning Area Freeway/Expressway Overlay District Principal Arterial ' - Streets treets U ,1 i r�� - Minor Arterial �-. �` \., Existing L ICity Limits PI nnin Commission 'w-�,/�, 1 ♦ Collector g \�*.4 Plannetl Outside City •�• August 12, 2002 Histodc Collector CCP01-1 Watkins 0 250 ew 1,000 1,500 2,000 Page 1.7 Feet Planning Commission August 12, 2002 CCP01-1 Watkins Page 1.8 LSD 02-20.00 Page I PC Meeting of August 12,2002 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Bristol Park LSD 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members TIIRU: Tim Conklin,City Planner,A.I.C.P. FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer DATE: August 8,2002 Project: LSD 02-20.00: Large Scale Development(Bristol Park, pp 134)was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Bristol Development Group,LLC for property located west of Steele Blvd. and north of Joyce Blvd. The property is zone RMF-12,Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential and contains approximately 32.6 acres with 272 units and a club house proposed. Findings: Proposal. The proposal is for a multi-family housing development. Square footage/Number of units.272 units Parking Required: 514 spaces(1 space per bedroom for 504 bedrooms plus 1 space per 500 square feet of clubhouse for a 5000 square foot clubhouse) Maximum Parking Allowed: 514 plus 20%=616 Parking Provided. 549 spaces Density: 12 units per acre(272 units/32.6 acres) Existing Development.vacant History:The final plat for CMN Phase H was approved on May 14,2001. This is part of Lot 1 which was split on May 16,2002 into a 32.6 acre tract and an3.2 acre tract. This property, the 32.6 acre tract,was rezoned to RMF- 12 on June 4,2002. Surrounding Zoning. Property to the north and west is in Johnson.Property to the south and east is zoned C-2. Surrounding Land Use. Commercial to the south and east,vacant to north Right-of-way being dedicated:Not Applicable Street Improvements Proposed:None. Steele is constructed to current city standards Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets:None Planning Commission August 12, 2002 LSD02-20 Bristol Park Page 2.1 LSD 02-20.00 Page 1 Tree Preservation: 33% of the site exists in tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 32.7%of the site in canopy. The requirement in an R-2 district is 20%. Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to allow for a curb cut wider than 39 feet. The applicant is proposing a 24 foot wide entrance and a 24 foot wide exit which will be separated by a landscaped island. The standard is a 15 foot wide entrance with a 24 foot wide exit. This is considered a waiver of 9 feet.Staff is in support of this request. 3. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver for retaining walls greater than 10 , feet in height. The applicant is requesting a maximum retaining wall height of 15 feet. Staff is in support of this request. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments(to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives-AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations(where applicable)for grading, drainage,water, sewer, fire protection, streets(public and private), sidewalks,parking lot(s)and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6. Payment of parks fees in the amount of$102,000(272 units @$375 each). 7. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. C. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City(letter of credit, bond,escrow)as required by§158.01 a Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed,not just guaranteed,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Background: The project was reviewed at the July 17,2002 Technical Plat Review and the August 1, 2002 Subdivision Committee Meeting. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included tree preservation,retaining wall heights, and the driveway width. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission Planning Commission August 12, 2002 LSD02-20 Bristol Park Page 2.2 LSD 02-20.00 Page 3 subject to all staff comments. Infrastructure: 1. Water. Existing 2. Sanitary Sewer: Existing 3. Streets. Existing 4. Grading and Drainage. A preliminary grading plan and drainage report have been submitted and reviewed for general compliance. A final review and approval will be necessary before construction can begin. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: Comments: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required Approved Denied Date: The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL",beginning on page one of this report,are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date Planning Commission August 12, 2002 LSD02-20 Bristol Park Page 2.3 `S002-20BRISTOL PARK Close Up Viewew ED M ED d G7 ED 9 �n o®G ® a q ED Q O aQ > a� D a:vrvswrino < a dCd0Q O a O ❑" fi u [5a © � 0" SUBJECTPROPERTY OOOoo MGBiL°HJptfQ PRIVAIT OR O b O O f 0 D � J W N P0.IVATE OR 4�QQq{S�Ip�7G7r�- q .rl�Q r , .� �, Tp a d a naoaaor o o a 0> aaaaaaaaa Overview Legend Q^ Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan ®LSD02-20.00 Planning Area �"� Freeway/Expressway o o°°o Overlay District `"k, Principal Arterial Streets °O°°° r I Minor Arterial ' t > City Limits .oF' l- .__ < {',:__`•.� �� Existing L__ Collector Manning Commission 5 )F':�• i Planned Outside City •�• August 12, 2002 e. Historic Collector L 02-20 Bristol Park 0 175 350 700 1,050 1,400 Page 2.4 Feet Ls002-20.00 BRISTOL PARK One Mile View p � K s .OPV, CVfNH OREgrNOOS. NEWIT, K .1f=TTEVIL SPgINDS RU 6� £ MAIN ST MAIN ST P < m 2ND sr 5 SUBJECT PROPERTY %�. s F W �n... i PRIVAS O N R )y 2 ~ RVL PRIVATE DR I�Fi Y441i 'P>•E DR RRII VIII PRIVATE R T°o I R_T r VN4 H R O U ! O O O °°o° Q F O MY 0o F 0 F ° °oc0o Im o°° ° °000 °Op OpOp P ° 0o0 0 0 0 0 °Opo °Op° Overview Legend `.•:'- —SPCay Streets Master Street Plan r__.]Zoning Ls002-20.00 —Existing =Freeway/Expressway —- -. 11111111 Planned --- Prindpel Model I_ city is _. Lakes O OOlside City Ll o0coo°Oveday DlSa1G x�wma Minor Anerial "-t r Collector - "'' as a•Historic C011WOr tanning Commission --� — Planning Area August 12, 2002 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 L D02-20 Bristol Park files Page 2.5 Planning Commission August 12, 2002 LSD02-20 Bristol Park Page 2.6 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATION DATE: 8-9-02 TO: Planning Commission COPY: Sara Edwards, Plannin� FROM: Kim J. Hesse, RLA 1i SUBJECT Bristol Park—Waiver for Retaining Walls As Landscape Administrator I am in.favor of the waiver request to increase the allowed height of retaining walls in order to preserve additional significant trees existing on site. With the approval of this waiver, the following trees can be preserved: (4) Oaks ranging from 33" to 36" DBH (1) 24" Oak (1) 36" Sycamore would appreciate your favorable review of this request. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 LSD02-20 Bristol Park Page 2.7 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dawn T.Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: August 12, 2002 RZN 02-8.00: Rezoning(Nickell,pp 445/446) was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of J.C. &Alma Nickell for property located at 867 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R-O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: August'12,2002 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O'Denied Date: September 3,2002 Wt reading—if recommended) Comments: Planning Commission H..-IUSERSICOMMOMREPORTSIPCREPORTS20021augustlnickelI =02-8toc August 12, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.1 i • BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Cleburn St. and College Ave. It is at the northeast edge of the Wilson Park Neighborhood and is within a strip of businesses which are between College Ave. and Pollard St. The majority of these businesses are offices or clinics in addition to a couple of retail outlets. The property being considered in this application was developed for an auto repair business many decades ago,prior to the zoning being established as R-O, Residential Office, which occurred in 1970 when the City adopted a new zoning map and ordinance. The auto repair business continued to operate as a legal non-conforming use under the original ownership and later with a different business owner until relatively recently. When the most recent tenant ceased to utilize the property for an automotive repair business for more than six months, the non-conforming status of the property prevented the same type of business from using the site. At this time, the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to a C-2 designation in order to allow for a new tenant to operate a similar auto related business on the site, making use of the existing building. Staff cannot recommend the requested rezoning because of the potential detrimental impact of this type of business activity on the adjoining residential neighborhood. This property is not conducive to high traffic volumes that can accompany auto related businesses. The building is very close to College Ave. and visibility at the intersection of Clebum and Collegeis compromised by a turn in College Ave.as well as the siting of buildings on this and nearby lots. In addition,the City's adopted General Plan 2020 and Future Land Use Plan have both identified appropriate areas (nodes at the intersections of higher level streets for example) for development of commercial businesses which are designed to serve the city as a whole and not just the immediate neighborhoods. The applicant's representative has proposed site improvements to include the installation of landscaping as well as several parking spaces. The proposal would aid in some traffic control by limiting the number of curb cuts and would provide some greenspace around the structure. Currently there are continuous curb cuts along both Cleburn St. and N. College Ave. with no real measures to control traffic or parking on the site. Because of the location of the building on this site,most of the improvements, if constructed, will be located within City street right-of-way and not on the subject property. Variances as well as City Council approval would be necessary for the proposed improvements. The history of rezoning requests in this immediate area indicates the need to maintain compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Since 1970, several attempts to have been made to have these properties zoned commercially, either C-1 or C-2, which have resulted in withdrawn petitions,consistent opposition from residential neighbors and denials from the Planning Commission. The following list and accompanying documentation(see attached) reflect several historical rezoning requests on property in this general location: June 1970- City wide rezoning changed designation of property from Commercial to RO, Residential Office Planning Commission H..-IUSERSICOMMONDAWNTIREPORTSIPC12001_reportslnickell_mn02-&oc August 12, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.2 July 1971 - 700 Block N. College(SW Corner of Trenton & College) Request rezoning from R-O to C-2 Staff recommendation for denial PC voted to deny Applicant requested appeal No record of pursuit of appeal to City Board July 1971 - 701 N. College(Lot 5,pt Lot 4 Trent's Revised Addition) Request rezoning from R-O to C-2 Staff recommendation for denial PC voted to deny August 1971 -Board of Directors directed City attorney to prepare a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to rezone the property on the west side of College from North Street to Trenton Street from R-O to C-2 Dec. 1971 — Staff processed a rezoning application reflecting the action directed by the City Board in August 1971 Staff recommendation for denial PC voted to deny the rezoning Decision upheld by Board of Directors Nov. 1972— Same request denied (701 N. College Ave.) August 1975—Same request denied Dec. 1983— Same request processed Staff recommended denial PC recommended denial City Board voted to approve rezoning to C-2 with Bill of Assurance to allow only limited uses (April 1985 - Bill of Assurance amended to permit only a pizza delivery service) Jan. 1984- SW Corner of North & College(Lots 1-4,Block 13) Request rezoning from R-O to C-2 Request denied by PC June 1990—901 N. College (NW Corner Cleburn & College) Planning Commission H.IUSERSICOMMONDAW71REPORTSIPC12002_reportslnickell_rzn02-Noc August 12, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.3 Request rezoning from R-O to C-2 PC recommended approval of C-1 City Board approved C-1 zoning On several other occasions, rezoning requests were submitted and then withdrawn based upon opposition from surrounding residential neighbors and/or staff recommendations for denial. Staff believes that consistency with previous Planning Division recommendations is the way to ensure that this area maintains compliance with the adopted policies and principles of the City. Conditions in this area have not changed significantly since the City determined that the appropriate uses for this area should be those allowed within the R-O zoning district except that there is more traffic congestion along College Ave. Traffic volume maps produced by the Arkansas Highway&Transportation Dept. indicate 27,000 vehicle trips per day in the year 2000. This was an increase from the 23,000 vpd reported in 1999.(no volume was listed for this location on the 1998 map). The applicant has provided a Bill of Assurance that would limit the uses on the subject property to those uses permitted in the C-1 district and including automotive service and repair. A proposed tenant has indicated a desire to utilize the building for a lube and oil/tune up type operation, similar to the auto repair business that was previously located on this site. Staff is concerned with the proposal due to the high traffic nature of this type of business and the very limited amount of space on this site to accommodate a large number of vehicles. The existing building is non-conforming and there is no formal parking lot on the site. Should vehicles line up behind the service bays, visibility up and down College Ave. at the site as well as at the intersection of College Ave. and Clebum St. would be compromised. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Cleburn St. /Retail. R-O South: Vacant, R-O East: College Ave. /Retail, C-2 West: Residential,R-1 Planning Commission H IUSERSICOMMOMDA WVTIREPORTSIPCI2002_reportslnickell_rzn02-8ioc August 12, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.4 Subject property from across Cleburn St. Residential neighborhood to the west Planning Commission H:IUSERSICOMMOMDA VYIREPORTSIPC12002_reportslnickell_mn02-Woc August 12, 2002 RZIV02-8 Nickell Page 3.5 INFRASTRUCTURE: , The subject property is located at the southwest corner of College Ave. (a principal arterial) and Cleburn Street (a residential street). Access is also available from Pollard Street(a residential street)which runs along the western boundary of the site. Water and sewer are both available to the property. . LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Community Commercial. Rezoning this property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial is not consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF L A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives,principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: The proposed zoning is not consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies. The requested C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial zoning designation is more suited for areas called out for Regional Commercial development or at nodes of activity which are commonly found at intersections of collector or arterial streets. The potential traffic generated by typical C-2 uses as well as other nuisances would negatively impact the established residential neighborhood which borders this site. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is not justified at this time. The reason for the request is to make the existing building available to a potential user, however, the entire site has potential for redevelopment under the current zoning regulations for R-O,Residential Office property,or for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial property which would be much more in keeping with the " General Plan 2020 designation of Community Commercial for this site. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning and the uses permitted within the C-2 zoning district would create traffic danger at this intersection. This property is situated in an area where access and traffic volume must be controlled in order to prevent very dangerous conditions. Development or redevelopment of this site must be strictly monitored in order to correct problems currently located on the site with regard to vehicular circulation and parking areas. Planning Commission H:IUSERSICOMMONID,4WVnREPORTS1PC12002_reporlslnickell_rzn02-Noc August 12, 2002 - RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.6 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 not alter population density. 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: The existing zoning classification of.R-O, Residential Office does provide development options for this property. While the structure was originally built to house an automotive repair business,it could be reused or replaced allowing for an office or similar use which is permitted under the current zoning classification. Planning Commission H.IUSERSICOMMOMDAWVTREPORTSIPC12002_reportslnickell_rzn02-Bloc August 12, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.7 • • §164.07 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES. A. Intent. 1. Within the districts established by this chapter or amendments that may later be adopted,if there exist lots,structure,uses of land and structures,and characteristics of use which are lawful before this chapter was passed or amended,but which would be prohibited,regulated,or restricted under the terms of this chapter or future amendment; it is the intent of this chapter to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed,but not to encourage their survival. It is further the intent of this chapter that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, or extended,nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. 2. It is not the intent of this section to prohibit the improvement of nonconforming residences by adding bath facilities or connecting to utilities as long as the bulk and area requirements of the R-3 District are met. 3. Nonconforming uses are declared by this chapter to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. 4. A nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land, or a nonconforming use of a structure and land in combination shall not be extended or enlarged after passage of this chapter by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved. (Code 1991,§160.135;Code 1965,App.A,Art 4(1);Ord.No. 1747,6-29-70;Ord.No. 1918,5-15-83;Ord.No.2126, 7-14-75) B. Nonconforming Lots of Record. 1. In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwellings and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this chapter. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width,or both,that are generally applicable in the district,provided that yard dimensions and requirements other than these applying to area or width,of both, of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. In a previously developed subdivision,platted prior to June 29, 1970,and with the approval of the subdivision committee,a new single-family dwelling or an addition or repair to an existing single-family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standard in the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback is no less than five feet.Variance of yard requirements shall be obtained only through action of the board of adjustment. 2. If two or more or combination of lots and portion of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of passage or amendment of this chapter,and if all parts of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and area,the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for parcel the purposes of this chapter, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this chapter,nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this chapter. The prohibition prescribed hereby shall not apply to a nonconforming lot on which a principal structure existed on the effective date of adoption of this chapter and which adjoins a nonconforming lot on which a principal structure existed on the effective date of the adoption of this chapter. (Code 1991,§160.136;Code 1965,App.A,Art.4(2);Ord.No. 1747,6-29-70;Ord.No.2505,2-20-79;Ord.No.3114, 9-3-85;Ord.No.3124,9-17-85) C. Nonconforming Uses of Land(or Land with Minor Structures Only). Whereat the time of passage of this chapter lawful use of land exists which would not be permitted by the regulations imposed by this chapter,and where Planning Commission H,IUSERSICOMMONIDAWVnREPORTSIPC11001_reporlslnickell_mn01-Noc August 12, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.8 such use involves no individual structure with a replacement cost exceeding$1,000,the use maybe continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful,provided: 1. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased,nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter. 2. No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter. 3. If any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than 120 days, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations in which such land is located;and 4.No additional structure not conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be erected in connection with such nonconforming use of land. (Code 1991,§160.137;Code 1965,App.A,Art.4(4);Ord.No. 1747,6-29-70) D. Nonconforming structures. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter that could not be built under the terms of this chapter by reason of restriction on areas, lot coverage, height,yards,its location in the lot,or other requirements concerning the structure,such structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful,subject to the following provisions: 1. No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity but any structure or portion thereofmay be altered to decrease its nonconformity,provided;the following structures may be enlarged or altered as hereinafter provided: a. Nonconforming residential structures may be enlarged or altered by increasing the height of said structures. b. Carports in residential zones may extend into the required yard setbacks if: the carport is set back at least ten feet from the street right-of-way; the carport is set back at least five feet from any interior side property line;the carport is set back at least ten feet from the rear property line;the area below the roof is open on the sides;and the carport does not materially obstruct vision. c. In residential zones,detachable awnings which are not structurally a part of the building may be erected in any required front yard or rear yard if the awning does not project more than six feet. Detachable awnings which are not structurally a part of the building and which project no more than four feet maybe erected in any required interior side yard. d. In residential zones,porch roofs and open porches may extend into required yards by one foot on each side of the entry door to a maximum depth of six feet in required front yards and rear yards and to a maximum depth of four feet in required interior side yards. 2. Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50%of its replacement cost at time of destruction,it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. 3. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever,it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved. (Code 1991,§160.138;Code 1965,App.A,Art.4(4); Ord.No. 1747, 6-29-70;Ord.No. 3130, 10-1-85) E. Nonconforming Uses of Structures or of Structures and Premises in Combination. If lawful use involving individual structures with a replacement cost of$1,000 or more,or of structure and premises in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter,that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this chapter the lawful use may be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful,subject to the following Planning Commission H:IUSERSICOMMONIDAWN7IREPORTSIPC12002_reporislnickell_mn02-81oc August l2, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.9 provisions: 1. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this'chapter in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged,extended,constructed,reconstructed,moved or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located or as required by other ordinances; 2.Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of building which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment of this chapter,but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building. 3.If no structural alterations are made,any nonconforming use of a structure,or structure and premises, may as a conditional use be changed to another nonconforming use provided that the Planning Commission,either by general rule or by making findings in the specific case,shall find that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district that the existing nonconforming use. In permitting such change,the Planning Commission may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in accord with the provisions of this chapter. 4. Any structure, or structure and land in combination, in or on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use,shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district,and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed; 5. When a nonconforming use of a structure,or structure and premises in combination,is discontinued or abandoned for six consecutive months or for 18 months during any three-year period(except where government action impedes access to the premises), the structure or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located; 6. Where nonconforming use status applies to a structure and premises in combination,removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the land. Destruction for the purpose of this division is defined as damage to an extent of more than 50% (or other figure) of the replacement cost of time of destruction; 7.All outdoor advertising signs(billboards)not conforming with the provisions of this chapter shall be removed within the period prescribed by§174.06. (Code 1991,§160.139;Code 1965,App.A,Art.4(5);Ord.No. 1747,6-29-70;Ord.No. 1806,7-19-71;Ord.No.2126, 7-15-75) F. Repairs and Maintenance. 1. On any nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a nonconforming use,work may be done in any period of 12 consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of non-bearing walls,fixtures,wiring,or plumbing,to an extent not exceeding 10%of the current replacement cost ofthe nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of the structure as the case may be,provided that the cubic content existing when it became nonconforming shall not be increased. 2. If a nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a nonconforming use becomes physically unsafe,or unlawful due to lack or repairs and maintenance,and is declared by any duly authorized official to be unsafe or unlawful by reason ofphysical condition,it shall not thereafter be restored,repaired,or rebuilt,except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located or as required by other ordinances. (Code 1991,§160.140;Code 1965,App.A,Art.4(6);Ord.No. 1747,6-29-70) G. Conditional Use Provisions Not Nonconforming Uses. Any use which is permitted as a conditional use in a district under the terms of this chapter(other than a change through Planning Commission action from a nonconforming Planning Commission H.IUSERSICOMMOMDAHNTWPOR7SIPCI2001_reporislnickell rzn02-Noc August 12, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.10 use to another use not generally permitted in the district)shall not be deemed a nonconforming use in such district,but shall be without further action considered a conforming use. (Code 1991,§160.141;Code 1965,App.A,Art.4(7);Ord.No. 1747,6-29-70) H. Owner-occupied Nonconforming Residences. Notwithstanding any other provision in this subchapter, any owner-occupied nonconforming residence may be enlarged, extended, constructed,reconstructed, or structurally altered to permit expansion up to 25% of the square footage of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming, and customary accessory structures may be located on property where an owner-occupied nonconforming residence is located subject to the following conditions: An owner-occupied nonconforming residence so expanded or any accessory structure so located may be enlarged,extended,constructed,reconstructed,structurally altered,or located in conformity with the bulk and area regulations,yard requirements,and building area requirements in the R-1,low density residential district. (Code 1991,§160.42;Code 1965,App.A,Art. 5(8);Ord.No. 1747, 6-29-70;Ord.No. 1891, 12-5-72) Planning Commission H:IUSEIMCOMMONIDA WN7IREPOR7IPC120022eportsWickel!_rzn02-Woe - August IZ, 2002 RZN02-8 Nickell Page 3.11