HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-09 - Agendas - Final AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday, September 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:
Approval of minutes from the August 26,2002 meeting
ConsentAgenda:
1. VAC 02-8.00: Vacation (Belden,pp 486) was submitted by Carole Jones of McClelland
Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Ted Belden for property located at 485 Vinson
Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 0.02 acres. The request is to vacate a utility easement.
2. VAC 02-9.00 & 10.00: Vacation (Calloway,pp 571)was submitted by Dave Jorgensen
of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Chuck Calloway for property located at 1429 &
1430 Deerfield Way which are lots 2 and 34.of Deerfield Subdivision. The request is to
vacate two sections of utility easements. See the attached maps and legal descriptions for
the exact locations of the requested easement vacations.
8. ADM 02-31.00: Administrative Item (Nickle,pp 440)was submitted by Charles Nickle
and Robert Nickle for property located between Marvin Avenue&Betty Jo Drive south of
Wedington Drive. The requirement is for a 55' street right of way dedication from
Wedington's street centerline and 35' dedication on Betty Jo Drive. The request is to
reduce the required right-of-way dedication to 40' on Wedington Drive (15' reduction)
and 23' on Betty Jo Drive (a 12' reduction).
New Business:
3. RZN 02-26.00: Rezoning(Calloway, pp 571)was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Chuck Calloway for property located at 1429 and
1430 Deerfield Way. The property is zoned R-O, Residential Office and contains
approximately 0.45 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential.
4. RZN 02-27.00: Rezoning(Edens, pp 436)was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Lenwyn Edens for property located southeast of
Wedington Drive and Brook Lane. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains
approximately 6.10 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-6, Low Density Multi-Family
Residential.
H.IOSERSICOMMONIPLANNING12002 AGENDAIPC19-9-02.DOC
5. ADM 02-28.00: Administrative Item (City Council Resolution-Zoning Study)A
rezoning study and zoning map amendment to consider changing the zoning classification
of areas shown as R-2,Medium Density Residential to R-1,Low Density Residential for
those areas that have 15 percent or greater slope as depicted on the slope analysis map in
General Plan 2020 and including other areas zoned R-2 where recorded platted
subdivisions exist with substandard infrastructure.
6. ADM 02-29.00: Administrative Item (Large Scale Development
Ordinance/Expiration) To amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require the
development of any lot(s) in a previously approved and recorded subdivision,where
required infrastructure such as sewer,sidewalks, streets, street lighting, or water is
lacking or incomplete, or in the judgment of the City Planner is otherwise inadequate to
serve the proposed development, shall be processed in accordance with the requirements
for a large-scale development, regardless of the size or number of lots.
To amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require all approved undeveloped or
discontinued large scale developments,planned unit developments, conditional uses, and
lot splits that have not received all required permits to begin construction,have not begun
construction, have not been established, or recorded to meet all current Unified
Development Ordinances.
To amend the Unified Development Ordinance to set time limits for
application/plan/project approvals by staff, Planning Commission, and City Council.
7. ADM 02-30.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Music Establishments)to approve an
ordinance creating Use Unit 35 (Outdoor Music Establishments in Chapter 162 Use
Conditions) and adding Use Unit 35 to C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 zoning districts in Chapter
161 Zoning Regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance.
9. PKW 02-1.00: Parking Waiver(Fennel, pp 484)was submitted Joe Fennel for property
located at 310 W. Dickson. The request is for a parking waiver of all parking (58 spaces)
for an 11,500 sq.ft. proposed restaurant.
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 USERSIC0MMONPLANNJNG12002 AGENDAIPCI9-9-02.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
t FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIRE,ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS,CITY ATTORNEY —.-
DAVID WIIITAKER,ASST.CITY ATTORNEY ---------- --
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Dan Coody, Mayor
City Council
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: August 16, 2002
RE: Down zoning land without request or consent of owner
In response to Alderman Thiel's Resolution to have our Planning
Department study land on 15% or greater slopes in Fayetteville with the
possibility of rezoning any multifamily zoned property to R-1, low
density residential,Alderman Bechard asked me about legal risks. My
general advice is that the legal risk that Fayetteville would be determined
to have "taken' someone's property (who preferred to remain R-2) is low.
Justice Oliver Wendell Homes stated-in-a-1922 Supreme Court case,
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon:
"(T)he general rule at least is that while property
may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation
goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking."
260 U.S. 393 (1922)
This statement was reaffirmed in 1987 by Chief Justice Rehnquist in
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of
Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 316 (1987). The Supreme Court also held in
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-28 CC Resolution-Zoning Study
Page 5.13
r �
that case that if a property owner proves his property has been "taken' by
land use regulation, the property owner may collect monetary damages to
compensate for the "taking.
The key issue is always when has a regulation gone "too far" so
that a city would be exposed to liability. Prior to Fayetteville's first
zoning in 1951, property owners could use their property basically as they
chose. The zoning placed many new restrictions on how the property
could be used, but no constitutional takings challenges were made to my
knowledge. Again in 1970, the Fayetteville City Government
reconsidered the zoning throughout Fayetteville and made significant
zoning changes without the express agreement of all affected property
owners. Some"down zoned" property owners (such as the owner of
Nick's DX Service Station) attempted to regain their previous zonings
politically, but no constitutional takings challenges in Court were made to
my knowledge. No suit was forthcoming when residential density in
flood plains was reduced by city ordinance in the 90's to one house per
acre.
Fayetteville's history does not guarantee the City would not be sued
by unhappy, down zoned property owners if the City Councildecides to
lessen the allowed density on hillsides of at least a 15% grade.
It is clear that Fayetteville's common zoning requirements and
development regulations are constitutional and do not constitute
„tags„
(T)he common zoning regulations requiring
subdividers to observe lot-size and setback
restrictions, and to dedicate certain areas to
public streets, are in accord with our constitutional
traditions because the proposed property use
would otherwise be the cause of excessive
congestion." Pennell v. ON of San Tose 485 U.S.
1, 20 (1988).
2
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-28 CC Resolution-Zoning Study
Page 5.14
In Agins v. City of Tiburon; 447 U.S. 255 (1980), a zoning ordinance limited
development on a five acre parcel to five houses. The Supreme Court held:
"(t)he application of a general zoning law to
particular property effects a taking if the
ordinance does not substantially advance
legitimate state interests or denies an owner
economically viable use of his land." Id. at 260.
The Supreme Court held that the open space policies of Tiburon was a
legitimate state interest and did not deprive the owner of an economically viable use
of his property. The property owner's 'takings' claim was denied.
The Arkansas Supreme Court threw out an inverse condemnation claim by
property owners who were about to sell their property to the Northeast Arkansas
Regional Solid Waste Disposal Authority to be used as a landfill for a price of
$750,000.00. Before the sale could go through, the Poinsett County Quorum Court
passed a zoning ordinance preventing the land from being used as a landfill. The
owners (Barretts) sued Poinsett County for inverse condemnation and then the
legislature passed a statute prohibiting one county from placing a landfill in an
adjoining county without consent of the other county.
The Arkansas Supreme Court held "it is clear that any injuries sustained were
not sufficient to support an action for inverse condemnation." Barrett v. Poinsett
CouM 306 Ark 270, 811 S.W. 2d 324, 325 (1991).
The Arkansas Supreme Court cited the United States Supreme Court's most
important case on regulatory takings, Pennsylvania Central Transportation Co v
City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (hereinafter Penn Central).
"(R)egulations affecting less than all of the use or all
of the value of property, remain to be considered on
the particular circumstances of each case." Id.
3
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-28 CC Resolution-Zoning Study
Page 5.15
!i
1
The Arkansas Supreme Court summarized the Penn Central holding and
found:
"In similar cases, we have held that a much greater
reduction in value or use of the property than is
present here would not constitute a regulatory
taking." Barrett v. Poinsett County, supra.
When the state required destruction of a horse valued at $1,000.00 which
would be worth only $200.00 for slaughter, the owner appealed and claimed her
property (the horse) had been taken without just compensation (a "taking"). The
Arkansas Supreme Court held this 80%reduction in value was not a taking.
"Here, as already noted, the regulation is a valid
exercise of the police power and there has been
no total diminution of the value of the appellant's
horse, but only a reduction in its value. .And
while there is no set formula to determine where
regulation ends and taking begins ... when comparing
this to similar cases, we conclude the reduction in
value does not equate to a taking." Winters v. State,
301 Ark. 127, 782 S.W. 2d 566, 569 (1990).
In a regulatory takings case involving pollution control costs estimated by the
owner to be$500,000 to $1,000,000, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a takings
claim holding that "the company has not shown compliance with the regulation
would be commensurate to a taking of its property." T.W. Black Lumber v.
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology, 290 Ark. 170, 717 S.W. 2d 807, 811.
"The mere fact that a partial use of one's property
is burdened by regulation does not amount to a
taking. In Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, N.W.,
369 U.S. 590, (1962), the court said: There is no
set formula to determine where regulation ends
and taking begins. Although a comparison of values
before and after is relevant ... it is by no means
4
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-28 CC Resolution-Zoning Study
Page 5.16
t
conclusive, see Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S.
394 where a diminution in value from$800,000 to
$60,000 was upheld. Id. at 810-811 (citations omitted)
The United States Supreme Court's landmark Penn Central case laid out
several factors that should be considered in a regulatory takings case:
(1) Interference/reduction with the owners reasonable investment backed
expectations of how the property could be used;
(2) Economic impact of the regulation upon the property's value;
(3) Character/importance of the governmental interest in the regulation.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that each case must be considered
on its own individual merits and factual difference. A one-size fits all test is not
constitutionally possible in this area of constitutional law.
The most recent holding by the United States Supreme Court in this area was
the Tahoe development moratorium case. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v.
Tahoe Regional Planning Commission, 535 U.S. _ (2002).
The Supreme Court reviewed the history of takings law.
"(C)ompensation is required when a regulation
deprives an owner of 'all economically beneficial
uses' of his land. ... But our holding was limited
to 'the extraordinary circumstance when no
productive or economically beneficial use of land
is permitted: " Id. (citations omitted)
"The Penn Central analysis involves 'a complex of
factors including the regulations economic effect
on the landowner, the extent to which the
regulation interferes with reasonable investment-
5
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-28 CC Resolution-Zoning Study
Page 5.17
backed expectations, and the character of the
government action." Palazzo v. Rhode Island,
533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001).
The Supreme Court held that the years long moratorium on development of
private land within the Lake Tahoe basin while the regional planning commission
formulated development restrictions to protect Lake Tahoe from degradation did
NOT constitute a constitutional taking requiring compensation.
The Supreme Court held that "a governmental regulation ... that bans certain
private uses of a portion of an owner's property ... does not constitute a categorical
taking." Id. Thus the Penn Central analysis would be necessary for that regulation
and for the proposed rezoning of 15% degree slopes in Fayetteville from multi-
family to a lesser density such as R-1.
CONCLUSION
Although a property owner might legitimately claim that his or her land is
worth more zoned R-2 rather than R-1, the United States Supreme Court cases and
Arkansas Supreme Court cases indicate that such a reduction in value would not
be significant enough to cause a regulatory taking. Accordingly,even though
there is always some risk, a well reasoned and factually supported decision by the
City Council to rezone land on steep slopes to lesser densities should be
constitutional and should not result in a constitutional takings or inverse -
condemnation of the down zoned land.
6
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-28 CC Resolution-Zoning Study
Page 5.18
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE, TO PROVIDE A
DATE CERTAIN FOR THE EXPIRATION OF APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PERMITS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That Chapter 166, Development of the Unified Development Ordinance,
Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amended by inserting the following:
§166.18 EXPIRATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS. All
approved large scale developments, planned unit developments, conditional uses, and lot
splits approved prior to July 1, 2002, which have not received all required permits to begin
construction, have not begun construction, have not been established, or in the case of lot
splits, have not been recorded within ninety (90) days from the date of the passage of this
ordinance, shall be required to comply with all current ordinances. The City Planner is
authorized to approve minor plat modifications and/or design changes necessitated by
compliance with this section.
§166.19 EXPIRATION OF APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS.
A. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to all of the following plans and
permits:
1. Preliminary plats;
2. Planned unit developments;
3. Conditional uses;
4. Large-scale developments;
5. Lot splits;
6. Physica ratio land pe
nage, and sion crmits;
8. pr ati s;
9. pe sa nd,
10. loodplain development permits.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-29 LSD Ordinance/Expiration
Page6.3a
B. One-year Time Limit.
1. All of the above-enumerated plans and permits are conditioned upon the
applicant accomplishing the following tasks within one (1)year from the date of approval:
a. For any renovation or new construction,receive a Building Permit; and/or,
b. For a lot split, record a deed or survey at the Washington County Circuit
Clerk's Office, stamped for recordation by the City Planning Division; and/or,
c. Receive a Certificate of Zoning Compliance; and/or,
d. Receive all permits and approvals required by City, State, and Federal
regulations to start construction of the development or project.
2. If the required task(s) are not completed within one (1) year from the date of
approval, all of the above-enumerated plans and permits shall be rendered null and void. The
City Planner shall not grant extensions.
C. Three-year Time Limit.
1. All of the above-enumerated plans and permits are also conditioned upon the
applicant completing the project and receiving final inspection approval and a final
Certificate of Occupancy permit within three (3) years from the date of issuance of a
Building Permit.
2. If the applicant fails to meet the requirements of subsection C.1. wi e
(3) years from the date of issuance of a Building Permit, all of the above-en pl s
and permits shall be rendered null and void. The City Planner shall not n S.
Section 2. That §163.02, Authority; Condition cedu of Unified
Development Ordinance, Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amen y in rting the owing:
E. Expiration if Discontinued. All existi nditional a disco ued for
more than one (1) year shall be dered null and sh of be establis khout
Planning Commission a ew con n e permi
yv.
V
O this da .2002.
PR
By:
DAN COODY,Mayor
ODRUFF, City Clerk
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-29 LSD Ordinance/Expiration
Page6.4a
§166.05 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT.
A. Requirement. The development of a lot or parcel larger than one acre must be
processed in accordance with the requirements for a large-scale development.
(Code 1991, §160.120; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 8(11); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 1999,
5-7-74)
B. Review and Approval. All large scale developments, not hereinafter excluded, must
be reviewed by the Plat Review Committee and the Subdivision Committee and must be approved
by the Planning Commission, after having afforded the opportunity for public comment, before a
building permit may be issued. Approval by the City Council shall not be required unless an appeal
is taken and heard.
Cross Reference:Appeals, Chapter 155.
C. Building Permit/Large Scale Development. Before a building permit for a large scale
development may be issued, the developer shall:
1. Development Plan. Submit a development plan to the City Planner for review
by the Plat Review Committee. The development plan shall consist of a black line site location
map drawn to scale and not to exceed 14 inches by 18 inches, and an accurate black line vicinity
map not to exceed 14 inches by 18 inches. The vicinity map need not be drawn to scale.
2. Site Location Map. The site location map shall depict the following:
a. The size and shape of the property on which the development is to be
located.
b. The location, size and arrangement of existing buildings, signs, outdoor
advertising, and other improvements, water courses, ponds and streams, and any other distinctive
or unusual features that will remain after the development is completed.
c. The location, size and arrangement of proposed buildings or additions,
parking and loading areas and the type of surfacing proposed for such areas, streets, driveways,
curb cuts, community facilities, pedestrian ways, and open spaces.
3. Legal Description. A correct legal description of the property located within
the large scale development, and a correct legal description, certified by an abstractor or surveyor,
of street right-of-way dedications and vacations and utility and drainage easements.
4. Vicinity Map. The vicinity map shall depict the following:
a. The location and name of any street which abuts or intersects the large
scale development.
b. The location and name of any other street building or landmark
necessary to clearly indicate the location of the large scale development.
5. Preliminary Street and Drainage Plans. (Required only where the developer
proposes new streets or an alteration in the existing street plan.) Submit to the City Planner for
Planning Commission
September 9,2002
ADM02-29 LSD Ordinance/Expiration
Page 65 .
review by the Plat Review Committee preliminary street and drainage plans, showing alignment of
streets and direction of flow of storm and sanitary sewers in relation to topography. Where an
official street and drainage plan exists, it shall be submitted for purposes of comparison.
6. Dedication of Right-of-Way. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way to bring those
streets which the Master Street Plan shows to abut or intersect the large scale development into
conformance with the right-of-way requirements of the master street plan for said streets;
provided, the Planning Commission may recommend a lesser dedication in the event of undue
hardship or practical difficulties. Such lesser dedication shall be subject to approval by the City
Council.
7. Miscellaneous Require-ments.
a. Comply with those requirements of§§ 166.03 through 166.04 of the
Development regulations pertaining to streets, surface drainage system, water system, sanitary
sewer systems; and, if the development is multifamily housing, said requirements pertaining to
public parks; and install a sidewalk adjacent to all abutting streets or highways in accordance with
City specifications for sidewalk construction.
b. The developer may be required to install off-site improvements, where
the need for such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed large scale
development. For purposes of this section, an off-site improvement shall mean all, or any part of,
a street, surface drainage system, water system, or sanitary sewer system, which is to be installed
on property located outside the proposed large scale development.
c. Any required off-site improvements shall be installed according to City
standards. The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off-site
improvements which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the large scale development.
d. The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may refuse to
approve a large scale development for any of the following reasons:
(1). The development plan is not submitted in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
(2). The proposed development would violate a City ordinance, a
State statute, or a Federal statute.
(3). The developer refuses to dedicate the street right-of-way,
utility easements or drainage easements required by this chapter.
(4). The proposed development would create or compound a
dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this section, a "dangerous" traffic condition shall
be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is
significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the
nature of the traffic pattern.
(5). City water and sewer is not readily available to the property
within the large scale development and the developer has made no provision for extending such
service to the development.
(6). The developer refuses to comply with subsection 7. b. and c.
pertaining to required on-site and off-site improvements.
Cross Reference: Notifications and Public Hearings, Chapter 157;Appeals. Chapter 155.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-29 LSD Ordinance/Expiration
Page 66
D. Certificate of Occupancy. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the
improvements required by subsection 7. a., b. and c. are installed to City specifications.
E. Completion of Development/As Built Plot Plan.Upon completion of the
development, the developer shall file with the City Planner an "as built" plot plan for the large
scale development showing:
1. The location of all buildings and the setback distance for said buildings from
street right-of-way and adjoining property lines;
2. The location of any free-standing signs and the setback distance of said signs
from street right-of-way and adjoining property lines;
3. The location, number, dimensions and surfacing of all parking spaces and.of all
screens or fences.
- 4. The location and size of all water, sewer,gas;electric;telephone and television
cable lines.
F. Minor Modifications. The City Planner may authorize minor modifications in an
approved large scale development. Minor modifications shall include, but not be limited to,
substitutions of one approved structural type for another or minor variations in placement of
buildings in such a way that the overall limits of approved floor area, open space or rooms per
-acre are not increased. In the event that a developer wishes to make major modifications to an
approved development, such modifications shall be submitted to the Subdivision Committee in a
form which compares the approved submission with the desired changes. After submission, the
Subdivision Committee shall approve or disapprove the requested modifications at its next
meeting.
G. Excluded developments. The following large scale developments shall be excluded
from the requirements of this section:
1,A single-family,residence, an addition to a single-family residence, or an
accessory structure for a single=family residence;
2.An addition to an existing strucfure if the addition will not:
a.Exceed 10,000 square feet; or
b.Require-more than 25 additional parking spaces under the provisions of
Chapter 172,Parking and Loading or
c. 'Require a'-change in existing ingress or egress;
3. An additional structure when erected as part of an existing development;
subject to the limitations of G.2. above.
4.A prefabricated, movable accessory building.
Cross Reference: Notification and Public Hearings, Chapter 157.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-29 LSD Ordinance/Expiration
Page 6.7
H. Building and Moving Permits. If a large scale development (LSD)which is
excluded from the requirements of this section meets the requirements of a building and moving
permit, the Building Inspector shall issue such permit immediately upon determination that the
development will not conflict with the City's Master Street Plan, provided, if the City water and
sewer service is not available to the development, no building or moving permit shall be issued
until the water supply and waste disposal system proposed for the development has been
approved by the City Engineer.
Cross Reference: Committees and Boards,
Chapter 33; Appeals, Chapter 155;Fees, Chapter 159.
(Code 1991, §159.54; Code 1965, App. C, Art. IV; Ord. No. 1750, 7-6-70;Ord. No. 3925, §6,
10-3-95.)
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-29 LSD Ordinance/Expiration
Page 6.8
From Austin, TX
When is a project exempt from the site plan process?
On sites where the City of Austin does not have a site plan already on fi
development are not required to go through the formal site plan process. This includes single
family, duplex, and other types of development that are in most cases limited to new construction
of 1000 square feet or less. This development must obtain a Site Development Determination
(formerly called an Exemption). The city Site Development Determination application lists what
development qualifies for the exemption. Examples can be found below. However, an official
determination form must be submitted and approved in order to qualify. There may be a charge
for a Site Development Determination.
Types of site plan exemptions Section 25-5-2
Construction, alteration, or an addition to a single family attached or duplex residential
structure or an accessory use to any such structure, where one structure is constructed per
legal lot, no proposed improvement is located in the 100 year floodplain, or the Director
has determined that the proposed improvement would have an insignificant effect on the
waterway.
Removal of a tree not protected by the LDC.
Interior alteration of an existing building when the alteration does not increase the square
footage or the height of the building.
Application for a certificate of occupancy for a change to another permitted use which does
not increase off-street parking requirements from the existing use or all required parking is
existing and in compliance with current codes.
Construction of a fence, but no exemption is granted by this subsection for construction of
retaining wall or for a fence that may obstruct the flow of water.
Clearing an area no greater than 15 feet in width for surveying and testing where no tree
greater than eight inches in diameter is removed.
Substantial restoration within a period of 12 months of a building damaged by fire, explosion,
flood, tornado, riot, act of the public enemy or accident of any kind.
Relocation or demolition of a structure or foundation covering no more than 10,000 square
feet of site area pursuant to a demolition permit, issued in accordance with the LDC, with
no disturbance of a tree greater than eight inches in diameter and no site clearing.
Any development located outside the city's zoning jurisdiction and exempt from all watershed
protection requirements of the LDC.
A commercial portable building located on existing impervious cover for permanent use, or
for temporary use in accordance with Section 25-2-921, which is placed on supports and
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
ADM02-29 LSD OrdinancdExpiration
Page 6.9
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CrTY OF FAYETTEV11,LE,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: September 5, 2002
PKW 02-1.00: Parking Waiver(Fennel, pp 484)was submitted Joe Fennel for property
located at 310 W. Dickson. The request is for a parking waiver of all parking (58 spaces)
for 11,500 sq.ft. proposed restaurant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends preliminary approval of the parking waiver of 52 spaces with the
conditions listed below. Staff is not prepared to make a recommendation of which
option should be approved until further information is provided, including a signed
shared parking agreement or plan for proposed new parking lot. Staff is supportive
of a fee-in-lieu of the 52 parking spaces for$62,400 ($1,200 per parking space).
1. If the shared parking option is used,the applicant shall request Planning
Commission approval of a shared parking agreement pursuant to
§174.01(E)4 of the UDO.
2. If the new parking lot option is used,the applicant shall request Planning
Commission approval of a Parking Lot Permit.
3. A minimum of 52 parking spaces identified for use by the subject property.
4. Shared parking or new parking lot located within 600 feet of the subject
property.
BACKGROUND
Property Description. The subject property is located at 310 W. Dickson St. It is in an
area that is a dense commercial area with restaurants and night clubs. A 1,200 sq. ft.
existing building includes offices and a catering kitchen.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
PKW02-1 Fennel
Page 9.1 a
PKW 02-1 .00 FENNEL
LU
4
u
O
LAFAYETTE'ST zi
w
d
LU ua
S' }
Lu } tro'
Q < a.' 6OLES.S7
z
< _
I 0
WATSOMST--�4
w
z.
O'
Subject Property ]
s'
r
DICKSON:ST
w
> 4
.3
z° f
u -J v
us �
r.5
SPRING ST
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
PKW02-1 Fennel
Page 9.17
a!4 t( rnyg
, 1 w•."�: ..E-' �ri d '';w g� y"1 g t . -• e ,qz: .,"
d et; e I
.•4 � �Y :G }. f
d
Y C f c x: O $ - • - a
^M2
a1y£n - S Sr
wi.4{F •'�1•f"GY�c ��ttM�e��d. .�.+sa yM^^^^R�+r..,�£ "� � � i
jJ
3� is a�s� p "_�'L�/ Y'a Y` t• � \�
IJi�
� C
s r _
a.
4• . � f €,. � tin f��'� w
All
lk
1 101
Vn
It
{. w
x'h
;.
,.�! �..•�Wf.rlf�1 y, � ) a 4 4 .ate, w
i�
1d 'rte S
IT,
s Ww rs s
ti
4 41k,
f ¢ r c
71
ty
�Ir 1
VAC 02-08.00
Page 1
PC Meeting of September 9, 2002
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Utility Easement Vacation
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701 -
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
FROM: Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
DATE: September 5, 2002
Project: VAC 02-08: Vacation (Belden, pp 486) was submitted by Carole Jones of
McClelland Consulting Engineers,Inc. on behalf of Ted Belden for property located at 485 Vinson
Avenue. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement. See the attached maps and legal
descriptions for the exact locations of the requested easement vacation.
No objections from the adjacent property owners have been submitted to the City.
The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the
City. The results are as follows:
Ozarks Electric -No objections
Southwestern Electric Power Company-No objections
Arkansas Western Gas -No objections
SW Bell—No objections.
Cox Communications -No objections. "Any damage to or relocation of existing Cox facilities
will be at owner's expense."
City of Fayetteville:
Water/Sewer—No objections. "Approval contingent upon completion of relocation of water and
sewer mains as described on attached letter."
Street Department-No objections.
Solid Waste-No objections.
Engineering—No objections.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed utility easement vacation 02-08.00 with the
following conditions:
1. Any relocation of existing utility lines and facilities will beat the property owner's
expense.
2. Relocation of the water and sewer mains must be completed, inspected and approved by
the City of Fayetteville staff prior to vacating the easement.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
VACO2-8 Belden
Page l:1
VA 02-08.00
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Yes Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments•
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
VACO2-8 Belden
Page 1.2
PETITION
PETITION TO VACATE AN EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOT 12,EAST MOUNTAIN ADDITION AND
LOTS 1,2 AND 3,BLOCK 9,MOUNTAIN VIEW ADDITION,OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
TO: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and
The Fayetteville City Council
We,the undersigned,being all the owners of the real estate abutting the easement hereinafter sought to be
abandoned and vacated,lying in Lot 12,East Mountain Addition and Lots 1,2,and 3,Block 9,Mountain View
Addition,City of Fayetteville,Arkansas,a municipal corporation,petition to vacate an easement which is described
as follows:
A part of Lot 12 in the East Mountain Addition to the City of Fayetteville and a part of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the
Mountain View Addition to the City of Fayetteville and a part of Maple Street as vacated by the City of Fayetteville
as recorded in the records of the Circuit Clerk,Washington County,Arkansas,and being more particularly described
as follows:
From the NE comer of the NW '/4 of the NE '/a of Section 15, T-16-N,R30-W,thence West 551.78 feet to a point
on the West Right-of-Way line of Vinson Avenue, said point being the NE comer of said Lot 12 as originally
platted, thence South 2'09'10"East along said Right-of-Way line a distance of 7.07 feet, thence leaving said Right-
of-Way line North 48°52'12" West— 18.66 feet to a point on the South line of an existing 20 foot utility easement
for the Point of Beginning;thence West along said South line a distance of 86.95 feet;thence leaving said South line
North 43050'11" West— 13.86 feet to a point on the centerline of said existing 20 foot easement; thence along said
centerline East - 36.01 feet; thence leaving centerline North— 5.00 feet; thence East— 16.15 feet ; thence South
36016'59" East— 4.96 feet; thence East — 28.86 feet; thence South 48'52'12" East— 16.72 feet to the Point of
Beginning,containing 979 square feet,more or less(See attached drawing).
That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of the easement are Lot 12,East Mountain Addition and
Lots 1,2,and 3,Block 9,Mountain View Addition,City of Fayetteville,used by the public for a period of many
years,and that the public interest and welfare would not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the portion of
the above described easement.
The petitioners pray that the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas,abandon and vacate the above described real estate,
subject,however,to the existing utility easements and sewer easements as required,and that the above described
real estate be used for thew respective benefit and purpose as now approved by law.
The petitioners further pray that the above-described real estate be vested in the abutting property owners as
provided by law.
WHEREFORE,the undersigned petitioners respectfully pray that the governing body of the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas,abandon and vacate the above described real estate,subject to said utility and sewer easements,and that
title to said real estate sought to be abandoned be vested in the abutting property owners as provided by law,and as
to that particular land the owners be free from the easements of the public for the use of said easement.
Date this9-�'day of A-t,,!p, ,st 2002.
mr. narnde�.,
Printed—
Signature
Printed name
Signature
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
VACO2-8 Belden
Page 1.3
J:MOA012125\13 s nient VacationTaition.doc
EASEMENT VACATION REQUEST
MR. AND MRS. TED BELDEN
485 VINSON AVENUE
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
In 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Ted Belden attempted to sell their house located at 485 Vinson
Avenue. During the closing process, they found out that a portion of the house was
located within a 20' utility easement running east/west along the northern side of their
property. The easement contains a 6" sewer main, a 1-%" water main and a 6" high-
pressure gas line. Additionally, the sewer line runs under the corner of the house, and
the water line is approximately five feet from the corner of the house at the closest point
(See attached drawing).
Per the City's request, the Owner hired a consulting engineer (McClelland Consulting
Engineers, Inc.) to design the water and sewer line relocations. The design for said
relocations has been completed. Approvals for the design have been obtained from the
Arkansas Department of Health and the City of Fayetteville. A Preconstruction
Conference was held on May 2, 2002. The Owner, Engineer, Contractor and City Staff
Engineer were present at the Preconstruction Conference. The Owner requested that
the utility easement vacation request be made before construction begins. The City
Staff Engineer stated that the easement vacation request could be made before
construction, but recommended that the easement vacation be contingent upon the
completion of the construction of the relocated water and sewer lines.
In addition, the Owner entered into a Utility Construction/Relocation Agreement with
Arkansas Western Gas Company. The agreement authorized and paid for the
conversion of the existing 6" high-pressure gas line to an intermediate pressure line.
This conversion has been completed.
Based on the above, the Owner is requesting an easement vacation as shown on the
attached drawing. This easement vacation is contingent upon the completion of the
construction of the relocated water and sewer lines.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
VACO2-8 Belden
Page 1.4
JA2001012125kEasement VacationkDescription.doc
VACO2-8.00 B E L D E N
Close Up View
TRusr s=
-- TRusrsr
N
2
F' 0
2!^
—- COMPANY ST
k h
MAPLE ST SUBJECT PROPERTY.
MAPLE ST O
Eli
0 El
o
ff
F
a=
A �
j
'
1APAYEITE
o
Overview Legend Boundary
Subject Property r1 Master Street Plan
®VACO2-8.00 a✓Planning Area
9,000��erlaY DistrictFreeway/Expressway
d1 City Limits Principal Arterial
r—� o Streets L__
Existing 0 Outside City
Minor Arterial
t ,l' Collector P 2nning Commission
Planned Histoc Collector September 9, 2002
'-_ s• Historic
0 75 150 soo 450 soo VACO2-8 Belden
Feet Page 1.5
--■. ..-.. i'1' a7
� ��il� � ■■■■�I:a C ■: 9L4r7�i���1/11
� USE
��11� • •n I� a�a �/■■■fir
� ': �,< �� ��/I. � i��uG iii■ \\■■■■ILiI
11111
ON '- ----
1��/:C�Irl■ -nom 1 a a ��\U■�L
s � ��Da _■ �'. CI 11 �i� mil ►
�-�� ►A■■■#VI
11 _-1111.11.- � IA 1. a. a� i��� ►�■■■■■■
MEN now
11111 � 1.'•IIIIIII:!-.� � I C`� �� a....�['/��ala�� � ■
■■�■■- . �IAII 1����II� � p R�� � il\/IIII��i';��:�I:CII '�! ;■�11
iii r�-��■i .� �'®11��1-�I� ����� �■ ►� ��Q.111►��.. `'°,,.�I��h :��i�
IIIp11:■IIIb■■--��_ .11�11� �m :� n N� ��■ �I�li�i���n11 ���►�1���\
IIf1■ �n�� -- n - 11 11111 ..1-n■ .�� ����■1��■ O�
������1l `q -CJI- ■■ an ��."'Ia a _,
i1rPiJ i►��Q:--91 J I � �11�I11.. ��\■1■■II . �1_... ��
nl�a:il7iii 11111='=� _�Li ....1.■1��I ��_I:
IIPII 111.CI/�
SRI[ lyll-' :..n 11 e1■!■
� J
1 -1:CII _loan nr uW i
■ An�m���o�l nr uue ��Y�p1I
Mull In �■
�s +.I�III��ICII�I�■IL■�CiiJf i .��
.`iil"����1r1�11 iinnJ 111. �p�_
- -LIIJ IIlY1C�w.I.�u iLll ���'�Ci =HT1 � 1 +�
f■Ilil'r111111_�Irly�l IIIII - rrlJn— _ ��y�;j,D ". .. . .
,�I, I► ip I''lll ��' i ■■il■■■Or!Ir■� _' . . ---_Irk
a,�,����•'.,'�'"n I�1111■ o ■11�I I�11 ,III yy
�il �S�lli OCA 11 ri Lllllii� 111' ■■ 1� �1
1win
12m,lii-ifiilmuiiii� x11111 .Rillpll,
■ iMOn
!1 � Tn
_. rllill �111 .11lllll' 1111 Ili -- l--_ 1 -{L/m�
—
1p �C III .11 ♦ ■/1
�II�IIIHIi �In nunnnnu
��';�fl�lll� �_- ��{,��■•.� +- �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111► IIII®"J + �
�■■i■au_ it= LIll_��
I:� C/ .+ 1i►'— V� din
./1 e
== Ir 111��11 11 IEIIf:-m,•••;.�����,. ,
=- - Ii9�IIJHIiii111ii!I16' ���� �'
111 II11�1Y7If71rwl�i.w ,#!PRO
34 1 '0/���� .�111111119�_
�1 III ull uut•• •q L..�t. y ��/� �_��r_,Itl�—,_�_ ��
I�I
RE
VAC 02-09 & 10.00
Page I
PC Meeting of September 9, 2002
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Utility Easement Vacation
113 W. Mountain St. -
Fayetteville,AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin,City Planner
FROM: Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
DATE: September 5,2002
Project: VAC 02-09&10.00:Vacation(Chuck Calloway,pp 571)was submitted by Dave
Jorgensen of Jorgensen&Associates on behalf of Chuck Calloway for property located at 1429 and
1430 Deerfield Way which are lots 2 and 34 of the Deerfield Subdivision. The request is to vacate
two sections of utility easements.See the attached maps and legal descriptions for the exact locations
of the requested easement vacations.
No objections from the adjacent property owners have been submitted to the City.
The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the
City. The results are as follows:
Ozarks Electric -No objections.
Southwestern Electric Power Company-Not applicable
Arkansas Western Gas No objections
SW Bell—No objections.
Cox.Communications -No objections. "Any damage or relocate of existing Cox facilities will be
at owner's expense."
City of Fayetteville:
Water/Sewer—No objections.
Street Department-No objections.
Solid Waste -No objections.
Engineering—No objections.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed utility easement vacations 02-09 &02-10.00 with
the following conditions:
1. Any relocation of existing utility lines and facilities will be at the property owner's
expense.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
VACO2-9& 10 Calloway
Page 2.1
VA 02-09 & 10.00
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Dater
Comments•
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Date: .
Planning Commission
September 9, 2002
VACO2-9& 10 Calloway
Page 2.2