Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-12 - Agendas - FinalPlanning Commission Planning Commissioners Officers Audy Lack, Chair Matthew Cabe, Vice -Chair Craig Honchell, Secretary aye evtlle ARKANSAS Draft Agenda City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 2010 Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Jeremy Kennedy Porter Winston A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held on July 12, 2010 at 5:30 PM in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Call to Order Roll Call Agenda Session Presentations, Reports and Discussion Items: 1. City Plan 2030 Update Consent: 1. Approval of the minutes from the Monday, June 28, 2010 meeting. Old Business: 2. ADM 10-3611 Administrative Item (2035 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE, 368): Submitted by KIM FUGITT for property at 2035 N. COLLEGE AVENUE. The property contains approximately 3.2 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is for a variance of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 166.14(C) (7) to permit a chain link fence in front of the building. Planner: Andrew Garner New Business: 3. RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE, and contains approximately 0.74 acre. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Planner: Dara Sanders 4. ADM 10-3618: Administrative Item: (UDC AMENDMENT USE UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION FACILITY): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF. The proposal is to amend Fayetteville Unified Development Code Chapter 162: Use Units to eliminate "Construction facility" from Use Unit 2, City-wide uses by conditional use permit. Planner: Dara Sanders 5. ADM 10-3619: Administrative Item: (UDC AMENDMENTS CHAPTERS 151, 161, 162, AND 164): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF. The proposal is to amend references of "Drive -In Facilities" to "Drive-Thru Facilities" for consistency in the Unified Development Code. Planner: Dara Sanders 6. ADM 10-3609: Administrative Item: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 166.08 STREET DESIGN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to Fayetteville Unified Development Code, Section 166.08 Street Design and Access Management Standards. The proposed code changes will clarify the access management requirements for different types of development and include a minimum curb cut distance from intersections for single family residences. Planner: Andrew Garner CITY PLANNING STAFF HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED INDEFINITELY. The following items have been approved administratively by City staff: LSP 10-3615: Lot Split (JACOBS-NEWELL COMPANY/ 37 S.GREGG AVE., 522): Submitted by JACOBS-NEWELL COMPANY for property located at 37 S. GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is to divide the subject project into two tracts of .09 and .23 acres. Planner: Andrew Garner NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official, staff 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. Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers. A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: July 7, 2010 PC Meeting of July 12, 2010 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 ADM 10-3611 Administrative Item (2035 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE, 368): Submitted by KIM FUGITT for property at 2035 N. COLLEGE AVENUE. The property contains approximately 3.2 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is for a variance of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 166.14(C) (7) to permit a chain link fence in front of the building Planner Andrew Garner Findings: June 28, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting: This request was tabled at the June 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Some of the Planning Commissioners requested that the a licant .rovide a landsca e lan showing the width of the .lantinbed around the .ro.osed chain link fence, barriers to protect the landscape area from vehicles, and proposed plants. Staff has been in discussion with the applicant about several different screening options over the past two weeks, however, at the time of publication of this report a formal revised proposal was not submitted. . . . Background and property description: The subject property is located at 2035 N. College Avenue and contains approximately 3.2 acres. The site contains a building and parking lot that was previously used for the Razorback Theatre, and is under renovation for World Gym. The Commercial Design and Development Standards, Fayetteville Unified Development Code (UDC) Chapter 166.14(C), prohibit chain link fence if closer to the street than the front of the building. Proposal: The applicant has requested a variance to permit a 10 -foot high, black, vinyl -coated chain link fence adjacent to the east side of the building The fence is proposed between the building and College Avenue. The fence is proposed around an outdoor basketball court and general exercise area for World Gym. A site plan indicates the location of the fence. Discussion: The chain link fence is needed to accommodate the unique sports and exercise use proposed for World Gym on the property. The main factors discussed by the applicant as a need for the fence include safety to the users and security for the facility after hours. A 10 -foot fence is desired to contain basketballs and other objects that may be used in the exercise/court area, and to provide user safety from vehicles. The chain link material is proposed over other materials as it has a certain amount of "give" or flexibility which is desired by the users of such an area. G:IETCWevelopmenl Services Review120101Development Review110-3611 ADM World Gym 2035 K College Avenue103-Planning Commission106-28-101Commems & Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 1 of 10 The only other fence that would be permitted by City code in this location is a wrought -iron fence which is not appropriate given the unique nature of this use. The applicant's letter also discussed that there is precedent for chain link fence in public settings where athletic events take place such as schools, parks, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends in favor of the variance finding that it would be an undue hardship pursuant to Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 156.03(A)(1) to place the chain link fence behind the building or to require a different type of fence. If this were a new development staff would recommend that the fenced court be located behind or internal to the building away from the street, however, as this is a retro -fit of an old movie theatre site with a large parking lot, there is not space for a basketball court behind the building. Staff also recommends the variance given the unique nature of the business and finding agreement with the reasons stated by the applicant. The proposed use of the site for a gym/health club is a unique use where an outdoor basketball court may be expected. The proposed chain link fence is the most reasonable, safe, and functional solution for the court on this existing site. As indicated by the applicant, the use of chain link fence around outdoor athletic courts is common in the City. However, because the variance is requested for a commercial health club on a commercially - zoned property, staff recommends that vegetative screening be required to soften the appearance of the chain link fence from the public right-of-way, and to meet the intent of the Commercial Design Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of ADM 10-3611 based on the findings herein and subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of appropriate buffer/screening. The proposed basketball court is in a very visible location along the College Avenue commercial corridor. In order to soften the appearance of the chain link fence around the 64 -foot by 60 -foot basketball court staff recommends landscaping around the eastern and southern perimeter of the fence. Specifically, staff recommends the following: • Plant type: minimum 50% evergreen plantings. • Plant spacing: minimum five feet on center (5'). • Planting details: The plantings may be placed in a standard mulched bed, large planters/pots or a raised landscape bed to provide additional height for plantings, and to reduce the cost of pavement removal. • Plant size: At planting, shrubs shall be a minimum 5 gallon size and ornamental plantings shall be a minimum of three feet height measured from existing grade to the top of the plant. Prior to installation the proposed plantings shall be submitted to the Planning Division and Urban Forester for review and approval. G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120101Development Review110-361 / ADM World Gym 2035 N. College Avenue103- Planning Commission106-28-101Comments & Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 . Page 2 of 10 2. Should the property ever develop for a different use, in contrast to the applicant's proposed gym/health club use, the chain link fence will be evaluated by staff for compliance with UDC Chapter 166.14, which may require removal of the fence. Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied X Tabled Meeting Date: June 28, 2010 Motion: Winston Second: Earnest Vote: 6-2-0 (commissioners Kennedy and Honchell voting 'no') Planning Commission Action: Meeting Date: July 12, 2010 Motion: Second: Vote: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled G: IETCIDevelopment Services Review120101Development Review110-361 / ADM World Gym 2035 N. College Avenue103- Planning Commission106-28-101Commenis & Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 3 of 10 FAYETTEVILLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 156.03 Development Certain variances of the development regulations may be applied for as follows: (A) General requirements. (1) Undue hardship. If the provisions of Development, Chapter 166, are shown by the developer to cause undue hardship as they apply to this proposed development (including, but not limited to financial, environmental, or regulatory) and that the situation is unique to the subject property, the city Planning Commission may grant a variance, on a temporary or permanent basis, to the development from such provision, so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided that the variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the development regulations. No variance shall be granted for any property which does not have access to an improved street. (2) Conditions and safeguards. In granting variances, the Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to secure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements so vaned. 166.14 Commercial Design And Development Standards (7) Fences. The following types, height, and location of fences shall be prohibited: (a) Razor and/or barbed wire. Razor and/or barbed wire fences are prohibited if visible from the street right-of-way or a residence, unless and except barbed wire fences are used for agricultural purposes. (b)' Chain, link. Chain link fence is prohibited if closer to' the street than. the front of the building. Residential uses are exempt from this requirement. (c) Height of fences in front buildings. Fences located in front of the primary structure may be solid up to 30 inches in height. Any part of a fence which exceeds 30 inches in height shall not obstruct the view of the primary structure from the right-of-way: G: IETCIDevelopment Services Review120101Developmeni Review110-361 / ADM World Gym 2035 K College Avenue103- Planning Commission106-28-101Comments & Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page of 10 • WILLIAM KIM FUGITT, AIA JUNE 11, 2010 AUDY LACK PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN CITY OF FAYETThVIT IF 113 W. MOUNTAIN ST. FAYEIT'EVILLE, AR. 72701 RE: FENCE VARIANCE AT PROPOSED WORLD GYM AT 2035 N. COT T.FGE AVE. CHAIRMAN LACK, ON BEHALF OF "WORLD GYM" LOCATED AT 2035 N. COLLEGE AVE. I AM REQUESTING A VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO THE COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELIOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETT'EVILLE. AS THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTDOOR BASKETBALL AND GENERAL EXERCISE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE (N. COLLEGE AVE.) A FENCE WILL BE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SAFETY TO THE USER AND SECURITY FOR THE FACILITY AFTER HOURS. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT A 10' VINYL COVERED (BLACK) CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND SAID OUTDOOR EXERCISE AREA IN LIEU OF A SOLID PRIVACY FENCE, WROUGHT -IRON OR STEEL FENCE. THE REASONS FOR SUCH A REQUEST ARE VARIED AND AS FOLLOWS: • HEIGHT: A 10' FENCE IS DESIRED IN ORDER TO CONTAIN BASKETBALLS AND OTHER OBJECTS THAT MAY BE USED IN THE EXERCISE AREA. WHILE A 10' FENCE MAY NOT RETAIN ALL BATAS AT ALL TIMES IT IS THE APPLICANT'S EXPERIENCE THAT THE 10' HEIGHT WILL RETAIN 991/4 OF THE BALLS. THE IMPORTANCE OF RETAINING THE BALLS IS NOT ONLY THE OBVIOUS INCONVENIENCE ISSUES BUT ALSO, WITH THE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO COLLEGE AVE., A VEHICULAR SAFETY CONCERN. A 10' HIGH FENCE OF A SOLID MATERIAL MAY BE A GREATER DETRIMENT TO THE AESTHETIC THAN THE CHAIN LINK IN MANY PEOPLES OPINION. • FLEXIBILITY: A CHAIN LINK FENCE HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF "GIVE" OR FLEXIBILITY WHICH IS DESIRED BY THE USERS OF SUCH AN AREA. July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 5 of 10 June 10, 2010 • PRECEDENT: IN THE CITY OF FAYEIILVILLE, THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF CHAIN LINK FENCE USED IN PUBLIC SETTINGS WHERE ATHLETIC EVENTS TAKE PLACE SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PARKS, TENNIS COURTS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST. PLEASE REFER TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW TO COMMUNICATE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. RESPECTFULLY, 1200 E. JOYCE BLVD., FAYE 1 1EVILLE AR 72703 479-466-8079, 479-521-6686, kim.fugitt©fugittarccom duly -12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 6 of 10 Image of Black Vinyl-Coated Chain Link Fence July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 7 of 10 linage of Black Vinyl-Coated Chain Link Fence July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 8 of 10 ADM10-3611 Land Use 2035 N. COLLEGE • SUBJECT PROPERTY r a II ootprints 2010 Hillside -Hilltop Ov Design Overlay Di Design Overlay Di Planning Area Fayetteville .clay District . trict • trict 0 75 150 300 450 800 Feet Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 9 of 10 July 12, 2010 Planning Commission ADM 10-3611 2035 N College Ave Agenda Item 2 Page 10 of 10 ayeeLeville y AISANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE PC Meeting of July 12, 2010 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: FROM: THRU: DATE: Fayetteville Planning Commission Dara Sanders, Current Planner Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director July 1, 2010 RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET. RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1. to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. BACKGROUND: Submitted by BLEW & The property is zoned 67 acres. The request is Planner: Dara Sanders Property Description: The subject property is located at 101 East Alice Street in the northwest corner of the Maple Crest Subdivision. The overall property contains 1.67 acres and was developed in 1975 for a single-family residence. As indicated in Table 1, the site is adjacent to a car dealer to the west, a mixed commercial strip center, and a residence to the south. The legal description for the rezoning request contains the western 0.74 acre backyard of the subject property. History: In 2007, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request to rezone the subject property from RSF-4 to C-2 (RSN 07-2436) in order to allow for the expansion of the adjacent car dealership, finding that the request was not consistent with the City's land use planning objectives, principles, and policies to encourage compatible and livable neighborhoods and mixed-use development, as indicated in the Urban Center Area future land use designation, and finding that the request would introduce some potentially objectionable uses, nuisances, and heavy commercial traffic into the primarily single-family neighborhood to the east and south. The complete staff report is included in this packet. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Commercial, office, and Masonic Lodge C-2, R -O, RSF-4 South Mixed Commercial, Single-family residential C-2, RSF-4 West Car Dealership C-2 East Single-family residential RSF-4 Proposal: Similar to the request in 2007, the applicant has submitted a new application to rezone a portion of the property to the east of the car dealership from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 du/acre, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, stating that the reason for the rezoning request is to make G: IETODevelopment Services Review120101Development Review110-3578 RZN 1130 Garland103- Planning Commission106-14-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 1 of 28 the property's zoning consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Nissan car dealership at the southeast comer of the College Avenue/Masonic Drive intersection. Public Comment: Staff has not received public comment RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of RZN 10-3608 (10-3608) based on findings stated herein. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required Date: July 12, 2010 Motion: Second: CITYCOUNCIL ACTION: Date: ❑ Tabled Vote: Forwarded ❑ Denied: Required . ❑ Approved YES. 9 Denied INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The site has access to Masonic Drive. Masonic Drive is an improved two-lane city street in this location. Street improvements will be evaluated with development submittal Water: Public water is not directly available to the property. Public water main improvements will need to be constructed to provide domestic and fire flow for any proposed development. Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There is a 6" public mair located along the south side of Masonic Drive. The existing sanitary sewer may need to be analyzed to ensure that it has adequate capacity to serve a future development on this lot. Drainage: Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for any development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain. Police: The City Planning Division has not received comments from the Fayetteville Police Department. Fire: The City Planning Division has not received comments from the Fayetteville Fire Department. G: IETCIDevelopment Services Review120101Development Review1l0-3578 RZN 1130 Garland03- Planning Commission106-14-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 2 of 28 CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as Urban Center Area, which encourages complete, compact and connected neighborhoods including building types that accommodate retail, offices, rowhouses and apartments. These areas contain taller buildings and have the most intense and dense development patterns within the City, as well as the greatest variety of buildings. These areas recognize conventional strip development, but encourage the redevelopment of these existing properties for more efficient use of the land. 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: As stated in the findings for the previous application in 2007 to extend the C-2 zoning district to the subject property, staff finds that the request is not consistent with land use planning objectives, principals and policies of the City to protect adjoining properties from potential adverse impacts associated with a nonresidential use adjacent to residential areas. Land use planning principles and policies should not only consider the way in which the property will develop in tbe near future but also the way in which tbe property and the entire area could redevelop in the long-term. The Future Land Use designation of the subject property, Urban Center Area, is intended to provide a mixture of uses that are compatible with, adjacent properties and uses, to encourage future redevelopment for more efficient use of land, and to utilize principals of traditional neighborhood development. Staff finds that tbe C-2 zoning is not consistent with the Future Land Use designation of Urban Center Area, as this district requires a 50 -foot front building setback off of all street frontages and requires development in a conventional suburban sprawling pattern, which is discouraged by City Plan 2025. Staff also finds that the proposed zoning would introduce some potentially objectionable uses and nuisances, including commercial light, noise, and odor further into the existing single-family neighborhood to the south and east. In addition, heavy commercial traffic would be encouraged down Masonic Drive, a Local Street. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The applicant has stated that the rezoning request is necessary to "match" the existing zoning designation for the adjacent car dealership. Staff finds that the rezoning request is not justified or needed at this time, as the subject property G: IETCIDevelopment Services Review120101Development Review110-3578 RZN 1130 Garland103- Planning Commissianl06-14-101Camments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 3 of 28 has been successfully utilized as a single-family residence for over 30 years and could reasonably be expected to continue as a residence in the future. The large backyard of the property provides an effective natural buffer between the adjacent commercial corridor and the single-family residence at 101 East Alice and the overall Maple Crest Neighborhood. Further the request would permit strip commercial and transportation -oriented uses along Masonic Drive, which is discouraged by the City's planning objectives and policies. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Access to the residential street, East Alice Street, is not proposed at this time. Masonic Drive is adjacent to the subject property and is designated as a Local Street in the Master Street Plan. Staff finds that this rezoning would increase traffic danger or congestion in this primarily residential neighborhood. 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 increase population density. Increased load on public services were taken into consideration and recommendations from the Engineering Departmentis included in this report. The proposed zoning change from RSF-4 to C-2 should have no major impact on public services due to the existing infrastructure. However, water, sewer, and the surrounding street system would likely need to be improved to support commercial development on this site. 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; Finding: As discussed previously in Finding 2, staff finds that it would be practical to continue the single-family use of the subject property. Staff does acknowledge that the western portion of the property included in this rezoning application may be justified for a more intense zoning as a transition between the C-2 to the west and the single-family neighborhood to the east. 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. G: IElCIDevelopment Services Review120101Development Reviewll 0-3578 RZN 1130 GarlandiO3- Planning Commission106-14-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 4 of 28 Finding: Staff finds that there are not extenuating circumstances that justify the rezoning and recommends denial of the request. G:IETCIDevelopment Services Reviewl20101Development Review1/0-3578 R7_1111130 Garbndl03- Planning Commission106-14-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 5 of 28 161.07 District RSF-4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 12 Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. (D) Bulk and area regulations. Single-family dwellings Two-family dwellings Units per acre 4 or less 7 or less (D) Bulk and area regulations. G: IETC1Development Services Review120101Development Review110-3578 RZN 1130 Garlandl03- Planning Commission106-14-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 6 of 28 Single-family dwellings Two-family dwellings Lot minimum width 70 ft. 80 ft. Lot area minimum 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. -ft. Land area per dwelling unit 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Hillside Overlay District Lot minimum width 60 ft. 70 ft. Hillside Overlay District Lot area minimum 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. -ft. Land area per dwelling unit 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. G: IETC1Development Services Review120101Development Review110-3578 RZN 1130 Garlandl03- Planning Commission106-14-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 6 of 28 (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 15 ft. 5ft. 15 ft. (F) Building height regulations. Building Height Maximum 45 ft. Height regulations. Structures in this District are limited to a building height of 45 feet. Existing structures that exceed 45 feet in height shall be grandfathered in, and not considered nonconforming uses, (ord. # 4858). (G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. 161.20 District C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial (A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial District is designed especially to encourage the functional grouping of these commercial enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers. (B) Uses. 1) Permitted uses Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government Facilities Unit 13 Eating places Unit 14 Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities Unit 16 Shopping goods Unit 17 Transportation trades and services Unit 18 Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit25 Offices, studios, and related services Unit 33 Adult live entertainment club or bar Unit 34 Liquor store (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit21 Warehousing and wholesale Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 29 Dance Halls Unit 32 Sexually oriented business Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 38 Mini -storage units Unit40 Sidewalk Cafes Unit42 Clean technologies G:1ETCIDevelopment Services Review120101Development Review110-3578 RZN 1130 Garbnd103- Planning Commission106-14-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 7 of 28 (C) Density. None. (D) Bulk and area regulations. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front 50 ft. Side None Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Rear 20 ft. (F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. No building shall exceed six stories or 75 feet in height. (G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120101Development Review1/0-3578 RZN 1130 Garland103- Planning Commission106-/4-101Comments and Redlines July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 8 of 28 RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.74 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Planner: Dara Sanders Public water is not directly available to the property. Public water main improvements will need to be constructed to provide domestic and fire flow for any proposed development. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There is a 6" public main located along the south side of Masonic Drive. The existing sanitary sewer may need to be analyzed to ensure that it has adequate capacity to serve a future development on this lot. The site has access to Masonic Drive. Masonic Drive is an improved two-lane city street in this location. Street improvements will be evaluated with development submittal. Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for any development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain. July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 9 of 28 •`'- triBlew 9 P.A.ssociates y _ `.T Professional Land Surveyors RE: Parker to Avis Auto Property LLC To Whom It May Concern: 524 W. Sycamore Street Suite 4, Fayetteville, AR 72703 PH: 479-443-4506 * FAX: 479-582-1883 http://www.blewinc.com June 3, 2010 Our client's Richard & Vikki Parker and Avis Auto Property LLC are requesting a property line adjustment between their two adjoining properties. Avis Auto Property LLC would be acquiring approximately 0.74 acres from the Parkers. Avis Auto Property LLC would need to rezone the acquired property from RSF-4 to match their current zoning of C-2. Our client's would like to do both the property line adjustment and the rezoning concurrently with this one submittal. We feel that since this rezoning request will match the Avis Auto Properties current zoning it will not have any negative affects on the surrounding properties, it will not increase traffic, and it will not increase the load on public services. We also feel that if the property line adjustment is approved the rezoning request is justified to match the Avis Auto Properties current use. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Buckley Blew July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 10 of 28 _n ms e1 lI Y ]lJNR�n �< AArno/II' S o• vOD SS:g' • •GpoWx Oo ori0r• k 8.dgo 000000000= r un® n O 00000000 Y00000 600000 m ®ee 0,00.0 000000, mn O•Yn...nem uu! Ise I.s,...iI x1. e. 1J000 ;px� da u�p II II rY..Eo io`-m- RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 11 of 28 x Yieu a�xep ve ilar July1ft— 0 A RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 11 of 28 • Fiat E. EE • 22. • 4.14 July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 12 of 28 Urban Center Areas: Urban Center Areas are the equivalent of a main street, including building types that accommodate retail, offices, rowhouses and apartments. They are usually a tight network of streets, with wide sidewalks, steady street planting and buildings set dose to lot frontages. These areas contain taller buildings and have the most intense and dense development patterns within the City, as well as the greatest variety of buildings, with unique civic buildings in particular. Urban Center Areas recognize conventional strip development, but encourage:the redevelopment of these existing properties for more efficient use of the land. Guiding Policies: a. Encourage mixed-use development to allow for shared parking and day and night utilization of available parking. b. Encourage intensive mixed-use development within one-quarter mile of public transit routes. c. Provide enough retail business and service space to enable Fayetteville to realize its full potential as a regional market. d. Encourage continuing improvements and expansion of regional shopping and entertainment attractions. e. Require that large commercial sites be designed and landscaped in a manner that preserves the aesthetic character of their surroundings. f. Direct new regional development into designated regional commercial centers. g. Approve new regional commercial development as Planned Zoning Districts (e.g. shopping centers, business parks, medical parks, industrial parks and mixed-use developments) or complete neighborhood plans in order to assure the overall integration of design and use. h. Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable and accessible neighborhoods. The Square [p;JJcitYPIan2025.accessfayetteville org July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 13 of 28 i. Protect and restore Fayettevitle's outstanding residential architecture of all periods and styles. j. Utilize the Master Street Plan and incorporate bike Lanes, parkways and landscaped medians to preserve the character of the City and enhance the utilization of alternative modes of transportation. k. Utilize open space by providing pocket parks and community green space, creating connectivity of natural areas across the community. 1. Encourage the integration of modern "green" industrial uses with residential and commercial uses. Dickson Street http:i/cityplan2025.accessfayettevffle.org July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 14 of 28 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE PC Meeting of February 12, 2007 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Gamer, Senior Planner Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: February 6, 2007 RZN 07-2436: (E.W. JONES, 213): Submitted by HUGH JARRATT & LINDSEY MANAGEMENT for property located at THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH MARTIN AVENUE AND EAST ALICE STREET, WEST OF 71B ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MASONIC DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.24 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Property Owner: E.W. Jones Planner: Andrew Garner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings herein. 1 BACKGROUND: Property:: The subject property is located approximately 400 feet east of College Avenue on the south side of Masonic Drive. The north side of the property fronts Masonic Drive, and the southeast corner of the property is located at the corner of Martin Avenue and Alice Street within the Maple Crest Subdivision. The property consists of approximately 1.24 acres developed for one single K:IReports120077PC Reportsl02-12-071RZN 07-2136 (EW Janes).doc July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 15 of 28 family residence. The property is on the eastern edge of the commercial corridor associated with College Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4. As depicted in Table 1, surrounding properties to the north, west, and south are generally developed for commercial or non-residential use. Properties to the east and southeast are residential. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zonin Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Office Use/Masonic Lodge R -O; RSF-4 South Mixed use commercial/Single Family Residential C-2; RSF-4 East Single Family Residential RSF-4 West Nissan Car Dealer C-2* There is a thin sliver of RSF-4 adjacent to the western border of this property on the car dealer property. Request. The applicant requests to rezone the property from RSF-4 to C-2. The applicant has indicated to staff they anticipate the property would be used to expand the Nissan Car lot into this property. Public Comment: Staff has not received any public comment regarding this rezoning request. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning based on findings stated herein. While a use more intense than single family residential might be appropriate in the area, based on the Future Land Use Plan, staff does not find in favor of zoning the site to C-2. The proposed zoning would be not be compatible with adjacent zoning and established single-family neighborhood land uses to the east and south. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The site has access to Masonic Drive and Alice Lane. Masonic Drive and Alice Street are improved two lane roadways in this location. Improvements to the adjacent streets will be evaluated at the time of development. Water: Public water is not located adjacent to the site. There is an 8" waterline along College Avenue. Water service will need to be extended to the property at the time of development. Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available adjacent to the site. There is a 6" sewer main along Masonic Drive. Improvements to the sewer system may be required dependent upon the demand placed by the development. The capacity of the existing main may need to be studied at the time of development Drainage: Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for development on this property. Fire: These 1.24 acres are covered by Engine 4 at Ladder 4 located at 3385 North Plainview Street. It is 0.5 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of K IReporal20071PC Repora102-J2.071R2N 07-2436 (EW Jones).doc July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 16 of 28 2.5 minutes. The Fire Department does not figure calls for service on properties being zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial, although typically this type of zoning will not affect call volume or response times. Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density or create an undesirable increase in the load on police services. It will not create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. LAND USE PLAN: The City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as Urban Center Area. Staff finds that due to the established single-family neighborhood adjacent to the south and east, a C-2 zoning on the subject property could result in some objectionable uses and nuisances. It may be possible to utilize the site for additional development, but at this time staff cannot support the C-2 zoning request. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF: 1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: The property is designated as an Urban Center Area in the City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan. The proposed C-2 zoning is not consistent with the City's land use planning objectives, principles and policies to encourage compatible and livable neighborhoods and mixed-use development indicated by the Urban Center Area designation.. The surrounding property to the south and east is an established single-family neighborhood. The subject property is a relatively large lot with a Large open yard and trees along the western portion, and a house in the eastern portion of the lot, and currently serves as a buffer and transition between the College Avenue commercial corridor and the Maple Crest Subdivision. A more transitional zoning between C-2 and RSF-4 may be appropriate. However staff finds that rezoning the property to C-2would introduce some potentially objectionable uses, nuisances, and heavy commercial traffic into the Maple Crest Subdivision. The proposed zoning would, not be compatible with all surrounding existing land uses. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: Staff finds the proposed zoning is not justified or nceded. There is a Large amount of underdeveloped commercial property along College Avenue that - could be developed or redeveloped. Rezoning this entire 1.24 acre parcel east of the College Avenue commercial corridor would expand the potential for strip commercial uses along Masonic Drive, which is discouraged by City policy. K. I Reports120071PC Repors102-I2-O7 RZN 07-2436 (EW. Jones). doc July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 17 of 28 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Rezoning this property to C-2 would allow commercial traffic from the existing car lot, or future commercial uses, to access Alice Street in the Maple Crest Subdivision further to the east. While City policy encourages vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, this rezoning would allow for heavy commercial uses to directly access residential neighborhood streets and would not allow for an additional connection for the neighborhood, thereby providing increased impact with no subsequent increase in connectivity for the neighborhood. Staff finds that this would increase traffic danger and congestion into this neighborhood unnecessarily. C-2 zoning is generally intended to be limited to major street thoroughfares. The streets adjacent to the subject parcel include Masonic Drive and Alice Street, both designated as Local Streets in the Master Street Plan. This further indicates that this rezoning would increase traffic danger or congestion. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding.:=. The proposed zoning would not increase population density from thatzoning currently in place. This change in zoning would not substantially increase the possible number of residents in this area creating adverse impacts to public services. Increased load on public services were taken into consideration and recommendations from Engineering, Fire, and Police Departments: are included in this report. The recommendation from these departments is that the proposed rezoning would not undesirably increase the load on public services. 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; Finding: This parcel has been developed and utilized for a single-family residence as part of the Maple Crest Subdivision for many years. It would be reasonable and practical to continue to use the land for single-family use. Staff does acknowledge that the property is a relatively large parcel, and that the undeveloped western portion may be justified for a more intense zoning, especially as a transition from the thoroughfare commercial to the west into the K:IRepons120071PC Reports102-12-07 RZN 07-2436 (EW Jones).doc July 12, 2010 Planning Commission RZN 10-3608 Parker Agenda Item 3 Page 18 of 28