Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-09 - Agendas - Final AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday,December 9,2002 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: Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the November 25,2002 meeting 1. ADM 02-39.00: Administrative Item (Graham) was submitted by James Graham for property located at 1245 N. 51" Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a refund of sidewalk funds put in escrow. New Business: 2. RZN 02-41.00: Rezoning(Moulden,pp 599/638)was submitted by Norman Moulden for property owned by Saw Nail Construction and located at 1504 Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2,Medium Density Residential. 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.I USERSICOMMONIPLANN1NG12002 AGENDAW012-10-02.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 Aviles - Chairman Bob Estes- Vice Chairman Lee Ward - Secretary Nancy Allen Don Bunch Sharon Hoover Alice Church Loren Shackelford Alan Ostner LSP 01-30.00 Page 1 PC Meeting of December 9.2002 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Dramis Hardwoods Administrative Item 113 W. Mountain St. .Fayetteville,AR 72701 _ TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner,A.I.C.P. FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner DATE: December 5,2002 Project: ADM 02-39.00: Administrative Item (Graham)was submitted by James Graham for property located at 1245 N. 51sc Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a refund of sidewalk funds put in escrow. Findings: On August 16,2001 the Subdivision Committee approved a lot split at 1245 N. 515`which created an additional single family home lot. One of the newly created lots was vacant and one was occupied by a single family home. Mr. Graham purchased the single family home from the owner at the time, Mr Robinson. This tract with the existing home was assessed $1,130.62 for sidewalks, which was paid by Mr. Graham prior to closing on the property. The sidewalk ordinance has since been amended and would not require the payment or construction of a sidewalk on the lot on which the existing home is located as a requirement for lot split approval. Mr.Graham is now requesting the $1,130.62 be refunded due to the ordinance being amended. Recommendation: Refund $1,130.62 to the applicant due to the current sidewalk ordinance not requiring sidewalks at the time of lot split. Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page LI Wednesday,November 20, 2002 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission RECEIVED 113 West Mountain NOV 2 2 2002 Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIV. Re: Side Walk Fund Dear Commissioners, I would like to petition the planning commission to review funds I was required to pay to the Sidewalk Fund during the purchase of my residence. During the purchase of.my.home I was required to pay an additional amount of$1130..0 m to the Sidewalk Fund. The home was purchased from the prevw,wownerAuring September 01. My check to pay this amount was issued op,September 11, 2001 check# 10958. The home is sitting on a lot that was split by the previous owner; as a result there is not a physical need for-a side walk. I would like you to review this situation at your earliest convenience and issue a check in the full amount as a refund to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. R , ,, � e ands, OL- (� • o James W. Graham Homeowner 1245.North SN.I�.Ave. , Fayetteville, AR 72,704 Cc Kif Wilhams„Fayettevi, e.City Attorney , Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.2 ORDINANCE NO. 4387 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 171.12 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE,PROPERTY OWNER TO CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK OR CONTRIBUTE COST OF SIDEWALK AND ADOPTING A REPLACEMENT SECTION 171.12 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS: Section 1. That§171.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance, Property Owner to Construct Sidewalk or Contribute Cost of Sidewalk; Subsection A. Requirement;Subsection B. Application of Provisions shall be deleted and the following inserted in its stead: " §171.12 Property Owner to Construction Sidewalk or Contribute Money In Lieu of Construction" A. Requirement I � The owner of any property abutting a public street or highway for which a sidewalk is required by City's Master Street Plan shall construct a sidewalk along said street or highway upon receipt of notice issued at the time a building or parking lot permit is issued. 1. The property owner shall construct the sidewalk in accordance with section 171.13 Sidewalk and Driveway Specifications. 2. A property owner may request a waiver to subsection 171.12 A.1.requiring sidewalk construction. The Sidewalk Administrator shall review the following factors to determine, whether or not to grant the waiver: A. pedestrian traffic generators such as parks and schools in the area; Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.3 Ord. 4'387 B. the existence of a sidewalk network in the area; C. the density of current and future development in the area; D. the amount of pedestrian traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development; E. whether the terrain is such that a sidewalk is physically practical and feasible, and the extent to which trees, ground cover and natural areas would be adversely impacted by the construction of the sidewalk; and F. the overall need for a sidewalk to be constructed on the lot. 3. If the Sidewalk Administrator grants the waiver to construct a sidewalk, the owner shall have an option to construct the sidewalk or to contribute money in lieu of construction as set forth below: A. The amount of money in lieu of construction to be dedicated shall be determined based upon the rough proportionality of the impact of the development upon the sidewalk infrastructure needs near the development including consideration of the persons served by the development and approximate pedestriantrip generation rates of the development. B. To facilitate administration of this ordinance for certain recurrent types of development, the City Council has determined that the City will accept, as the roughly proportionate impact,the amount shown below: 1. Single family house $630.00 2. Duplex $720.00 C. Unless the developer presents evidence that the number of persons served by the development and the pedestrian trip generation rates of the development justify a reduced Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.4 Ord... 4387 contribution in lieu of the construction of sidewalks, all industrial,commercial, and multi-family developments shall make a cash contribution in lieu of the construction of the sidewalk at a rate of Three Dollars$3.00'per square foot of the sidewalk that normally would have been . required. The amount per square foot and amounts for a single family house and a duplex shall be reviewed by the City Council at least every five years. D. Contribution in lieu of construction of sidewalks shall be paid or construction of the sidewalks shall be completed before receiving final plat approval, or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. E. Contributions must be expended within one (1) year to build a sidewalk close enough to serve the project being constructed. F. If the owner voluntarily consents in writing, the contributions may be used to construct sidewalk projects where most needed as determined by the Sidewalk Administrator. 4. An owner/builder may appeal the Sidewalk Administrator's refusal to grant a waiver or the Administrator's determination of the amount of contribution in lieu of construction to the Planning Commission pursuant to §155.06 D. B. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS The provisions of this section shall only apply to the following property: 1. New Structure. On which a new structure is build built. 2. Existing Residential Structure. On which an existing residential structure is being modified so as to increase the number of Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.5 Ord.. 4387 dwelling units located therein or to change the use to a nonresidential use. 3. Parking Lot/Garage. On which a parking lot or parking garage, having a minimum capacity of five automobiles, is constructed or enlarged. 4. Additions. Additions of 2,500 square feet or larger. 5. Conditional Use. Any development which requires conditional use approval. PASSED and APPROVED this the 16th day of April, 2002. APPROVED: Tr By: f'j� y. DAN COODY, May Ut "^a�the Woodruff,City k Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.6 LSP 01-28.00 Page I FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. - Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:501-575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Subdivision Committee Members FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, Planning Director Ron Petrie, Staff Engineer DATE: August 16,2001 Project: LSP 01-28.00: Lot Split(Robinson, pp 398)was submitted by Donna Treat of Coldwell Banker Faucette on behalf of James &April Robinson for property located at 1245 N. 51St Street. The property is zoned A-1,Agricultural and the northern 50' is in the Planning Growth Area containing approximately 3.02 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.29 acres and 0.73 acres. Findings: This property is located primarily in the City. The northern 50 feet of tract 1 is in Washington County. Recommendation: Approval at the Subdivision Committee subject to conditions below. Conditions to Address/Discuss: 1. Council approval of rezoning from A-1 to R-1. This item was heard and recommended for approval to the City Council on August 13, 2001. 2. Prior to filing lot split, approval must be obtained from Washington County. Standard Conditions of Approval: 3. 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) 4. 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. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of$470.00(1 unit @ $470) X.-WERSICOMMOMSARA W COMRAPOM0947 MMNSM 4PD December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.7 LSP 01-28.00 Page 2 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace.Staff recommendation is for a cash contribution in lieu of sidewalk construction. Tract 2 fees are $1,130.62 due prior to lot split being filed. Tract 1 fees are $702 due prior to final Certificate of Occupancy for new home. 7. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. 8. Additional conditions: a. b. C. Subdivision Committee Action: O Approval O Porwarded to P.C. Meeting Date: August 16, 2001 Comments: The "Conditions of Approval' listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature Date H.IUSERSICOMMOMSARAWB_COM.AIMTIXVkJ8 COPICWi$A*N 4PD Decemher 9. 2002 - ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.8 Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 8 LSP 01-28.00: Lot Split (Robinson, pp 398)was submitted by Donna Treat of Coldwell Banker Faucette on behalf of James& April Robinson for property located at 1245 N. 5151 Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and the northern 50' is in the Planning Growth Area containing approximately 3.02 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.29 acres and 0.73 acres. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is also a lot split 01-28.00 submitted by Donna Treat of Coldwell Banker Faucette on behalf of James & April Robinson for property located at 1245 N. 511 Street. The property is zoned A-1,Agricultural and the northern 50'is in the Planning Growth Area containing approximately 3.02 acres. The request is to split into twotracts of 2.29 acres and 0.73 acres. Treat: I represent James and April Robinson. Sara Edwards -Associate Planner Edwards: If will remember last Monday we heard a rezoning to rezone this property to R-1 which will permit this lot split based on the minimum square footage and frontage. The number one condition that needs to be placed on this is that Council approve the rezoning from A-1 to R-1 so this lot split will meet our zoning requirements. Other than that, they have met all of staff s requirements. They do need to get approval from Washington County for that north 50 feet prior to finaling this lot split. We are recommending approval subject to those conditions. Keith Shreve- Sidewalk Division Shreve: In this location we are recommending money in lieu of construction for the sidewalk. Mr. Robinson, at one point,he may want to construct the sidewalk rather than contribute money. I would just like to advise that that ordinance is under review at this point and we are recommending to go ahead and pay the money and; at some point, it might be refunded, it might not. Treat: I think they are willing to do that, at what point do I need to give the money? Shreve: For tract 2,the lot split, that needs to be paid before it can be filed. Ron Petrie -Staff Engineer Petrie: I would like to clarify the easements along the street there. You call that a 25 foot setback and utility easement and there is a 10 foot from the sewer psennmmg. &h et�t whic aon December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.9 Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16,2001 Page 9 overlaps part of that 25. It just needs to be labeled whatever it is, a 30 foot utility easement the whole width, you can have Glen Carter do that. You have it called out as a 25 foot utility easement along the frontage and then you also call out 10 feet for the sewer line. Just call it out as a 30 foot utility easement or whatever it is. Kim Hesse-Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. Kim Rogers -Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: There will be fees assessed in the amount of$470 for the additional dwelling unit. They will not be due until the next house is being built. Treat: That will be the owner's I guess,not the buyer of this property. Rogers: The seller, $470. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: Is there anyone in the public that has a comment on this item? Blakemore: James Blakemore. I own the property next door to the Robinson's. I really hate to see a lot split and have houses built everywhere. I know these are.large lots but, right now it is a housing addition. If we just start building houses everywhere,the property value will go down and I'm just opposed to it. Celia Scott-Silkwood -Washington County Planning Director Scott-Silkwood: This will need to go through the Planning Board. You need to call our office and get that scheduled. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Bunch: I'll bring it back to the Committee. MOTION: Estes: I would move approval of lot split 01-28.00 contingent upon rezoning from A-1 to R-1 by the Fayetteville City Council, Washington County appr0#anang96mMsion December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.10 Subdivision Committee Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 10 foot utility easement, as requested by City Engineering. Hoover: I'll second. Bunch: For clarification, on this 108 feet on the frontage for tract 1,how does that deal in relation to the City's requirement for 70 feet of frontage? I know that quite a bit of that is actually in the County, does that have any impact on our City regulation for requiring frontage? Conklin: The lot is partially in the City and part in the County. Our ordinance requires 70 feet of lot width for R-1, in the.County it's 75 feet, it meets both standards. Bunch: It does not matter that part of it is in the County and is actually not zoned R-1? Conklin: No, not in my opinion. Bunch: I will concur. Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.11 LSP 01-28.00 ROBINSON Close Up View Wm Subject Property ------------------ AN A-1 El a amA-1 A-1 Overview Legend ......... Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan N ®.LSP01-28.00 I-,,, Planning Area FreewaY/Expressway Streets oo g Overlay District Principal Arterial 1 City Limits Minor Arterial z Existing L__ +----L Outside City %i Collector 1 Planned eeeee Historic Collector fanning Commission " 0 80 160 320 480 640 December 9- 2002 feet ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.12 11 "� �- Yid 1� ��•��iYl�/�: nrrnrrF innnq pann �� � p/11►��I �..i.umm.� - 1�r "}\ 1 �I �i1, a■�l.ILS■Ji+It�icc- . IN FEE prom w"Im //���', ]_•,..,.�a n-r■unn 1 cn n lU■illn Q i.� ■■--■/�■ r C.n■ ■ ■...■ n tl/tW f■L7 ? ■1==-- . t�.JZJ0.JlZJ■■�■J LIIIOI I� !I_ �i■���In■} ■nn■n� Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan �■f Si.:U f, § —� � r ra i I�[iYi'1 a ilk �, d�, r 111111 i 3� 'I IiuV•{ �LJL Jed. .��..-.••i;;l: �■ Own-. 'Ss�' u1�'�, �, „■ v1,;��lil�®mlL �'��_ ...� n■A mei.■�i• .■►�� I T_ Overlaystreets : :..... I City Limits Minor Arterial Existing % Collector Planned ® , IV/It, 90%, Historic Collector 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 .1 Miles Planning Commission December 9. 2002 ADM02-39 Graham Page 1.14 FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of Dec. 9, 2002 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Shelli Rushing,A.I.C.P.,Associate Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: Dec. 5, 2002 RZN 02-41.00:Rezoning(Moulden,pp 599/638)was submitted by Norman Moulden for property owned by Saw Nail Construction and located at 1504 Cato Springs Road.The property is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately .33 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2 Medium Density Residential. 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: Dec. 9 2002 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: Jan. 7,2002 Comments: HIUSE,WCOMMOI"LANNINGVtEPORTSIPQtEPORTS20021DECEMBER112-91MOULDEN_RZN02-47.DWlanning Commission December 9, 2002 RZIV02-41 Moulden Page 2.1 BACKGROUND: Property Description: The subject property is located north of Cato Spring Road and east of Razorback Road.There are two lots and the total area is.33 acres.A condemned house is located on the property.The property to the west is vacant and the properties to the east and along the north side of Cato Springs Road are single-family residential. The property to the south across Cato Springs Road is a public utility facility. Proposal:The applicant has a contract for sale of the property contingent upon rezoning.The buyer is proposing to construct an eight unit apartment building. Request:The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to R-2 to permit the eight-unit apartment building. Public Comment: None received. Recommendation: Staff is recommending denial of the requested rezoning. • The proposal is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan which shows this area as mixed use. The proposed project is multifamily residential and is not a mixed use development. Further any use proposed should compliment adjacent uses and multifamily does not compliment single family. • The surrounding land uses are all one-story single-family structures or vacant property. Rezoning this property would significantly change the character of this neighborhood. • The property should remain as C-1 zoning at this time. The zoning map shows only three small areas classified as C-1 zoning south of 15u St.and west of School Ave.The first is the subject property,the second is located east of School and south of 19th St.,and the third is south of 18 Street.The area south of the subject property is shown as Regional Commercial and development of this corner as commercial is practical and reasonable. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Direction Land Use Zoning North Vacant R-2,Medium Density Residential South Industrial(public utility) I-1,Heavy Commercial Light Industrial East Single familresidential C-1,Neighborhood Commercial West Vacant C-1,Neighborhood Commercial H.I USERSICOMMONIPLANNINGIREPOR7SIPCREPORTS20021DECEMBERII2-91MOULDEN_RZN02-41.DoPlanning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: North: 15th Street(Principal Arterial) -not adjacent to property South: Cato Springs Road(Minor Arterial) East: School Avenue (Principal Arterial)-not adjacent to property West: Razorback Road(Principal Arterial) Water: Water line to the south of the property along Cato Springs Road. Sewer: Sewer line to the south of the property along Cato Springs Road. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Mixed Use. 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 Future Land Use Plan shows this area as Mixed Use. Mixed Use is described in General Plan 2020 as being able to accommodate a variety of land uses, including residential. It is designed to promote redevelopment of deteriorating areas.The proposal is for one eight unit apartment buildingwhich is not mixed use and is not of significant size to promote redevelopment. The City of Fayetteville zoning ordinance is designed to help encourage compatible land uses. Land uses to the east of the subject property are primarily single-family. Multifamily is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and does not meet the intent of the zoning ordinance. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: Staff finds that this rezoning is not justified at this time. Rezoning the subject property could seta precedent for the development of this corridor. A more significant redevelopment plan is needed to determine the future of this area. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Planning.. Trip Generation for an eight unit apartment complex results in an average weekday two-way volume of 53 and a Saturday two-way volume of 51. HIUSERSICOMMONIPLANNINGVtEPORT3IPCREPORTS20021DECEMBER112-91MOULDEN RZN02-4LDOdanning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.3 2001 Traffic Volume at this location on Cato Springs Road shows 2,000 average daily trips.Cato Springs Road is a Minor Arterial which is designed for trips of 12,200 to 14,800 with left turn bays.The addition of 53 additional trips should not have a significant impact on the transportation system at this location. Public Works: The proposed rezoning is located on the north side of Cato Springs Road and east of Razorback Road. At this location Cato Springs Rd.is a two lane street. The proposed rezoning from C-1 to R-2 may or may not result in additional traffic danger and congestion for this area. The access to the developed site and the circulation network within the development shall be reviewed in detail as part of the subdivision or large scale development process. The layout, connectivity,circulation plan,ingress and egress provisions will be reviewed in detail as information becomes available. Police:Will not have a significant impact on police services. 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: Planning: An eight unit apartment complex could result in a population of approximately eighteen persons (2.21 persons per occupied unit). Fire: Fire hydrants and adequate access would be required at the time of development review.Response time is approximately four minutes. Public Works: The site has access to an existing 2 1/4" water line on the south side of the property. There is also a 12" water line nearby to the east of the property. A 6" sewer main is located along the north side of the property and an 8" sewer main is located along the south side of the property. The proposed rezoning and ultimate development may increase the loading on the existing infrastructure systems. During the development's review and approval process, the adequacy of the existing infrastructure to accommodate the service requirements will be assessed by the developer's consultant and reviewed by city staff. Any inadequacies, lack of availability, need for improvements and determination of responsibility for the infrastructure improvements shall be resolved during the development's review/approval process. HIUSERSICOMMONIPLANNINGiREPORTSIPCREPORTS20021DECEMBER112-91MOULDEN_RZN02-41-DOPlanning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.4 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A H:IUSERSICOMMONIPLANNINGIREPORTSIPCREPORTS20020ECEMBER111-91MOULDEN RZN0241.DOTlanning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.5 From Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations City of Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance Old � ra Y'tic ' . Cpm 1#B P Unit 34 Liquor Store C. Bulk and Area Regulations/Setbacks. A.Purpose. The Neighborhood Setback lines shall meet the following minimum Commercial District is designed primarily to provide re uirements: convenience goods and personal services for persons From Street ROW 50 ft. living in the surrounding residential areas. From Side Property Line None B.Uses. From Side Property Line When 10 ft. Contiguous to a Residential 1. Permitted Uses. District Unit 1 City-Wide Uses by Right From Back Property Line 20 ft. Unit 12 Offices,Studios and Related Services Unit 13 Eating Places D. Building Area. On any lot the area Unit 15 Neighborhood Shopping occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40%of the Unit 18 Gasoline Service Stations and Drive- total area of such lot. In Restaurants E. Height Regulations. There shall be no Unit 25 Professional Offices maximum height limits in C-1 District,provided, however,that any building which exceeds the height 2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to of ten feet shall be set back from any boundary line of the Planning Commission. any residential district a distance of one foot for each Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use foot of height in excess of ten feet. Permit Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities (Code 1991, §160.035;Code 1965;App.A,Art. 5(V);Ord.No. 1747,6-29-89;Ord.No.2603,2-19- Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities 80) H.,I USERSICOMMONIPLANNINGIREPORTSIPCREPORTS20021DECEMBERII2-91MOULDEN_RZN02-41.DCC'lanning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.6 From Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations City of Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance tt 2. Lot Area Minimum. Mobile Home Park 3 Acres Lot Within a Mobile 4,200 Sq.Ft. A.Purpose. The High Density Residential Home Park District is designed to permit and encourage the Row House: developing of a variety of dwelling types in suitable Development 10,000 Sq.Ft. environments in a variety of densities. Individual Lot 2,500 Sq.Ft. Single-Family 6,000 Sq.Ft. B.Uses. Two-Family 7,000 Sq.Ft. 1. Uses Permitted. Unit 1 City-Wide Uses by Right Three or More 9,000 Sq.Ft. Unit 8 Single-Family Dwellings Fraternity or Sorority 2 Acres Unit 9 Multifamily Dwellings-Medium Professional Offices 1 Acre Density 3. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. 2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to Mobile Home 3,000 Sq.Ft. the Plannin g Commission. Apartments: Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use Two or More 2,000 Sq.Ft: Permit Bedrooms Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities One Bedroom 1,700 Sq.Ft. Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities No Bedroom 1,700 Sq.Ft. Fraternity or Sorority 1,000 Sq.Ft.per Unit 11 Mobile Home Park I Resident Unit 25 Professional Offices E.Yard Requirements(feet). FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD C. Densi Families Per Acre 4 to 24 25 8 25 D.Bulk and Area Regulations. Cross Reference: Variances Chapter 156. 1. Lot Width Minimum. Mobile Home Park 100 Feet F. Height Regulations.Any building Lot within a Mobile 50 Feet which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back Home Park from any side boundary line an additional distance of One Family 60 Feet one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. Two Family 60 Feet (Code 1991, § 160.033;Code 1965,App.A,Art. 5 1 );Ord.No.2320,4-5-77;Ord.No.2700,2-2-81) Three or More 90 Feet Professional Offices 100 Feet H.IUSERSICOMMONIPLANNINGIREPORTSIPCREPORTS20021DECEMBERII2-91MOULDEN RZN02-41.DOPlanning Commission - December 9, 2002 PZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.7 From Fayetteville General Plan 2020—2001 Revision KNOW The areas indicated as mixed use on the future land use map are areas where residential,commercial,office, agricultural,and some industrial uses would be appropriate. Much of south Fayetteville is shown as a mixed use area because it is in need of redevelopment and can accommodate future development.Designation of mixed use areas will allow developers a great deal of flexibility in terms of uses,while City regulations will maintain standards for quality mixed development. This part of the plan recognizes that development is market driven and therefore doesn't attempt to designate specific future land uses within these areas. Mixed Use Areas: Guiding Policies 9.14.a Allow mixing of uses and integration of design through the planning process. Mixed Use Areas: Implementation Strategies Strategies specific to each mixed use area will need to be developed to properly manage and encourage mixing of uses within these areas. 9.14.b Develop a planned unit development ordinance which allows mixing of uses and integration of design through the planning process. 9.14.c Continue to implement the overlay district. The Bypass Design Overlay District regulations should ensure that most of the areas along the 71 Bypass designated for mixed use develop into attractive developments which increase the value of nearby property and encourage further development. 9.14A Complete construction of the Razorback Road extension and the rail-trail to attract investment in the area bounded by U. S.71 Bypass,6th Street,and U. S. 71 Business. 9.14.e Implement the Corridors and Gateways Plan as funding becomes available to further improve the appearance of south Fayetteville. 9.14.f Concurrently develop strategies with the University of Arkansas to encourage students to live in the area,perhaps providing densities sufficient to support public transit. This corridor should also be considered for pedestrian enhancement through future ISTEA,CDBG,and recreational grants. H I USERSICOMMOMPL INNINGIREPORTSIPCREPORTS20021DECEMBER112-91MOULDEN RZM2-4I.DOfllanning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.8 Moulden Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 8 Dwelling Units of Apartments December 02, 2002 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 6.63 2.98 1.00 53 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.08 0.00 1.00 1 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.43 0.00 1.00 3 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.51 0.73 1.00 4 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.42 0.00 1.00 3 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.20 0.00 1.00 2 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.62 0.82 1.00 5 Saturday 2-Way Volume 6.39 2.99 1.00 51 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0,52 0.74 1.00 4 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS HIUSERMCOMMOMPUNNNGIREPORTSIP(REPORTS20021DECEMBERII2-91MOULDEN_RZN02-41.DO93Ianning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.9 {fF 4 L t S From subject property, looking at properties to the east. i W 4' ff V At Cato Springs Road,looking north at subject property. H IUSERSICOMMONIPLANNINGIREPOR7SIPCREPORTS20021DECEMBERI/2-9LNOULDEN RZN02-4i.DOP7anning Commission December 9, 2002 RZV02-41 Moulden Page 2.10 Property to east is owned by John Fields, (582-1307) . 14545 CH S6')Q"�.5 claw Yncu c.K Z � 1t Mr. Fields is the seller of the property that is being Requested For Rezoning. Purpose of rezoning is to put 8 unit apartment building on lots. Landon Cato Springs Road would probably not be feasible for commercial. Proximity to 4 lane Razorback Road would make traffic flow no problem. There is a partially burned house on one of the lots. Property on the westside is vacant, owned by Eoff&Co. (521-5636) 38© W • 2'I T Irf �201'�fl � io AcIP(I 4�tiY( ?jt3`Z �l L. I.tAT[S dt� UALFL . �Ft ?Z?�� CR�� �RbQ�(LT� 1 o S©v fl{ cWaJ�b fS� UTy Oq I fI`jL IC<Uf<C�. Q1�d�t �UQL(� GJCY��S \ Planning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.11 lV o l/ . �e ? eel 7YlAT 2ot/,NS r 7 -7L� c� / S p 1-6 of ftrkivs-,+z Q-,Ua� /1aAW /VT O{-oper7 4, 4iilG1 Lfle, Arm Sia 11 >f►,vdf�� ds / /�,vdN�f+.�a9 fDko eyY,`cs DUVS e lveS f �u4kti� � ro/o f 43 c.' � of ' e u. x 4-ole f Planning Commission December 9, 2002 RZN02-41 Moulden Page 2.12 Building Sketch (side elevation) r O ? r I1 II III�I I W F ri IF ji - --- - I I I T rF 1 I I� � I i o m ' ice: o_ � iPLI I I - Planning C mmission --------- — Decembir 9, 2002 RZN02-4 1 Moulden Page 2.13 Building Sketch (end view) NOaTd 1 L--, Z L O.O R P L A H (TYPICAL). . SCALE - : FIC.ST FLOof+ 7500 50.FL - SECouO FLoo(+-.. 7500 ;q,� - TOTAL 5000 Sa.FT. _ _. C\ I I I I I LEFT 6LgvATJ0H 9COL0 II$II If — I Planning Commission December 9, 2002 RZIV02-41 Moulden Page 2.14