Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 5420
liiliiflliilliiliiill►Illilillllliiildfiiiililllilliillilillllllllllllllllll` Doc''ID: 014157920003Type: REL Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 08/15/2011 at 03:51:27 PM Fee Amt: $25.00 Peas 1 of 3 Washington Countv. AR Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk File2011-00022954 ORDINANCE NO. 5420 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 11-3831, FOR APPROXIMATELY 2.64 ACRES LOCATED AT 209 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD FROM RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE TO C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS: Section l: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, 24 units per acre to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this Wh day of July, 2011. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: ' ®O 00-V/e-' By: ���y IO ELD J , Mayor SONDRA E. SNUTH, City Clerk/Treasurer TReq"'. ;FAYETTEVILLE; �''9sL'.9;QkANSPSJ�'F.� e �Oie"NGTONep pa`°• EXHIBIT "A" RZN11-3831 KUM & GO Close Up view —ra �} qk` 1� � aslTrav r:_ � - r�'. r 'i;N7 I lF f� t •r I ~- PRAIRPE ST SUBJECT PROPERTY 19 PRJVATE421 $ g 6 1L ,.T7.7 ' 1 I� elm,_ .e...... ............`''•N9i ONEDR •• . r• y1{ ALLEY 189 i I i MW RW44 • Op { •,'Mutt-Use Trail (EMIS j Pueuceel :r o Future Trails >°y • NnnoNnLsr 11' f „Footprints 2010 - Hillside-Hilltop Ovi rlay, District Design Overlay D€strict Design Overlay Of strict ------ Planning Area Fayetteville 0 M25 soo 750 Looep EXHIBIT `B" RZN 11-3831 TRACT 2 OF PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT FILED FOR RECORD AT PLAT 23A-000132 AT THE CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, BEING DESCRIBED ON SAID PLAT AS FOLLOWS: PART OF THE SOUTH ''/OF THE SW'/. OF SECTION 16, AND A PART OF THE NORTH '/: OF THE NW'% OF SECTION 21, T-16-N, R-30-W, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST '% OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SAID SECTION21, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE S 87004'09" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST '% OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 5.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 87004'09" E 418.49 FEET: THENCE N 02°23'10"E 299.42 FEET, TO AN EXISTING ARKANSAS HIGHWAY COMMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 180 (WEST 6T" STREET); THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY N89003'47"W 173.03 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N89°52'30'1W 17.36 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE S00°06'16"W 5.02 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N89°40'59"W 45.74 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N 89°29'27"W 62.28 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE S81°41'17"W 30.03 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N77°25'50"W 25.70 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT: THENCE N88°18'00"W 42.21 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY S01 044'50"W 153.30 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 315.50 FEET AND A DISTANCE OF 81.06 FEET; THENCE S16028'01"W 8.54 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 215.50 FEET A DISTANCE OF 40.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.64 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 2.64 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF HILL AVENUE AND ALL EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. LESS AND EXCEPT, SIXTH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY: PART OF TRACTS 1 & 2 OF PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT FILED FOR RECORD AT PLAT 23A- 000132 AT THE CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, BEING DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE#2006-9895,AS FOLLOWS: PART OF THE SOUTH '/ OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 16, T-16-N, R-30-W, WASHINGTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF SAID SECTION 16, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE N86°14'53"W, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF SECTION 16 A DISTANCE OF 46.00 FEET; THENCE DUE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 268.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 88°18'00"E, A DISTANCE OF 482.55 FEET; THENCE NO2°23'10"E,A DISTANCE OF 20.58 FEET; THENCE N 89°03'47"W, A DISTANCE OF 173.03 FEET; THENCE N89°52'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 17.35 FEET; THENCE S00°06'16"W,A DISTANCE OF 5.02 FEET; THENCE N 89°40'59"W,A DISTANCE OF 46.74 FEET; THENCE N89°29'27"W, A DISTANCE OF 62.28 FEET; THENCE S81°41'17'W,A DISTANCE OF 30.03 FEET; THENCE N77°25'50"W,A DISTANCE OF 26.70 FEET; THENCE N88°18'00"W,A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE N87°40'49"W,A DISTANCE OF 26.16 FEET; THENCE N87°41'42"W,A DISTANCE OF 40.98 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1381.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°50'34", A DISTANCE OF 20.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS. I certify thisinstrument was filed on 08/15/2011 03:51:27 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2011-00022954 Bette stamps-Circuit Clerk ENGINEERS ■ SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 3108 SW Regency Parkway,Suite 2 Bentonville,AR 72712 (479)273-9472 Fax(479)273-0844 www.ceieng.com RECEIVED JUN 02 2011 June 2, 2011 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ms. Sondra Smith City Clerk 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: RZN 11-3831: Rezone (209 W. Martin Luther King Blvd.) Letter of Appeal for the June 21, 2011 City Council meeting agenda Dear Ms. Smith: We respectfully appeal the May 23, 2011 Planning Commission's recommendation that the referenced property be rezoned to Community Services - CS (Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations, Section 161.19 Community Services). Pursuant to Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 155: Appeals, Section 155.02 Form/Time/Place) we appeal the Planning Commission's recommendation and request the property be rezoned, Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)for the following reasons: 1. The existing zoning in the immediate area (intersection of Hill and Martin Luther King Blvd.) supports C-1: a. Applicant's property is located in the SW corner of the intersection. b. The NW corner of the intersection is zoned C-1. c. The NE corner of the intersection is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. d. The SE corner of the intersection is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. 2. Requesting C-1 is in compliance with City Plan 2025. 3. Staff forced the use of the recently adopted form-based zoning. Neither one of the form-based zoning districts (Urban Thoroughfare, UT or Community Services, CS) are appropriate for the proposed land use. Either form-based zoning district would require the applicant to request a variance. This very fact is completely in violation of the criteria for requesting a variance, specifically, Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 156: Variances, Subsection 156.02: Zoning Regulations, Item "(3) Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant." It is obvious that the variance request would be a direct result of the actions of the applicant, as forced by staff. Thank-you for placing our appeal on the June 21, 2011 City Council agenda. Sincerely, \ Dennis Blind Providing Consolidated Land Development Services /. rJ�l// CALIFORNIA • TEXAS • AR ANSA a LIINNESOTA • G O GIA PENN Y � IA CC tvt7�1, �ef�6y1. �ycrlar�/�glat7�c�. a��YYC �7��11 'Y 0--11 J (6/2/2011) Sondra Smith - RZN 11_3831: Rezone(209 W. Martin Luther King Blvd.) Seile 1 From: <DBlind@ceieng.com> To: <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> Date: 6/2/2011 11:05 AM Subject: RZN 11-3831: Rezone (209 W. Martin Luther King Blvd.) Attachments: Kum & Go- Letter of Appeal 6-2-11.pdf Ms. Smith Attached is our letter of Appeal for the June 21, 2011 City Council meeting. We will also submit an original of our letter to your office. Thanks Dennis Blind Project Manager CEI Phone: 479-273-9472 "We will continually set the national standard for land development services, and we are committed to the growth and success of each other." Arizona I Arkansas I California I Florida I Georgia I Minnesota Pennsylvania I Texas This message could contain confidential information. Unless you are the addressee(or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, or distribute this information. If you have received this message in error, please advise Dennis Blind immediately at 1-479-273-9472 or return it promptly by mail. • 1 F � I A THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS �` DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE Aflfl ANShS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor Jordan, City Council Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director From: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner Date: May 30, 2011 Subject: RZN 11-3831 (Kum and Go)—Appeal of Planning Commission decision RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of an ordinance to rezone the subject property from RMF- 24, Residential Multi-family 24 dwelling units/acre to CS, Community Services. Staff and the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the applicant's original request to rezone the property to UT, Urban Thoroughfare. BACKGROUND The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Hill Avenue, and is undeveloped, containing approximately 2.64 acres. The applicant originally requested to rezone the property from RMF- 24, Residential Multi-family 24 dwelling units/acre, to UT, Urban Thoroughfare. The applicant has stated that the intent is to develop a portion of the subject property for a Kum and Go gas station. Planning staff did not meet with the representative that presented the application at the Planning Commission meeting, and feel that statements made at the Planning Commission by the applicant were either mis-communicated or inaccurate. However, staff did communicate with others at CEI Engineering about the proposal. A number of zoning districts would allow a fueling station: UT, CS, C-1, C-2, I-1 and I-2, to name a few. However,just because any one of these districts allow for the use that the applicant is pursuing does not make it necessarily appropriate for that area. The existing zone (RMF-24) is a form-based district, requiring buildings to be placed along the street with parking hidden behind. After a review of the location of this property and following the City Council's adopted policy of "making traditional town form the standard," staff recommended that the applicant maintain one of the form-based codes for their future development plan, so that the development plan would be more in keeping with the current districts form-based requirements. In this case, Community Services is the most appropriate for this location, due to the surrounding land use, intensity, and compatibility. Planning staff did not support the applicant's ultimate rezoning request for Urban Thoroughfare, finding that the Community Services district is more compatible and appropriate at this location. The Community Services district will also allow for the development of a gas station and a wide variety of uses that serve the nearby areas.The Urban Thoroughfare district is intended to serve a wider range of population, generally regional in nature. This particular location does not seem to support a regional development pattern, and there are some uses within the Urban Thoroughfare district that may not be appropriate for this location. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Pursuant to Chapter 155.05(A)(1), the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's recommendation and is now requesting that the subject property be rezoned to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The C-1 district is similar in purpose and contains uses allowed in the Community Services district. However, the differences are readily apparent in the purpose statement of the Community Services district that requires "traditional urban form with buildings addressing the streets." The C-1 zoning district is much more of a conventional suburban development model that is no longer encouraged in a location such as this; if this form is acceptable to the City Council at this location, then the C-1 district would be an appropriate request. Staff does not believe this is the direction we have been asked to take in implementing City Plan 2025. In fact, over the last several years, the City Council has denied applications for rezoning to C-I and C-2 along Martin Luther King Boulevard. There was also much discussion about the need for variances related to a development within the Community Services district. As the Council is aware, a specific development proposal may not be considered as part of a rezoning request; while the intent has been stated that a fueling station is planned for this property, there is no guarantee that will occur. Any commercial development would be required to be constructed in compliance with the underlying zoning district, including architectural and site design standards. All form-based zoning districts, which are important to ensuring a traditional town form is accomplished, require buildings to be placed along the street. When there are conditions unique to a property that makes it impracticle to meet all of these requirements, a variance may be requested. In this case, staff discussed with the applicant representatives the topography of the site could make it difficult to place buildings along certain adjacent streets. In addition, the property is made up of many different parcels, not all of which will necessarily be used for the proposed development. Currently, no commercial development is allowed on this property within the RMF-24 zoning, thus the change to Community Services would certainly increase the allowed uses on the property to include commercial, and likely thereby increase the value of the property, as well. Staff would work with the applicant, as we do with all development applications, to get project approval that meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the Unified Development Code. DISCUSSION On May 23, 2011 the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the CS, Community Services zoning district with a vote of 7-2-0 (Commissioners Honchell and Hoskins voted "no"). The applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation for Community Services. The Planning Commission did not consider the current request for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The staff report and meeting minutes are attached. BUDGETIMPACT None. JAa%- kJ Wlt(ta%4d Ta ' leDepartmental CorrespondenceLEGAL hN5R5 www.accessfayetteville.org DEPARTMENT Kit willinms TO: Mayor Jordan City A11orney .lasun R.Kcllcl City Council t.xsi.stanl(ily ll/nrnei CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, Senior Planner -Current Planning Jesse Fulcher, Planner - Current Planning FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney— DATE: ttorney DATE: June 14, 2011 RE: Appeal of RZN 11-3831 (Kum & Go) DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Normally, the City Attorney's Office will take no position in a City Council rezoning decision which almost always rests within the sound discretion and judgment of the City Council. Indeed, I have successfully defended the few court challenges to the City Council's zoning decisions during my decade as Fayetteville City Attorney. Your rezoning decisions have never been overturned in Circuit Court. However, the current appeal ({RZN 11-3831 Kum & Go)) requesting Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) involves a unique situation and potential legal issues for the City. Therefore, I think I need to call your attention to these issues before you decide on the rezoning. The City Council is granted wide discretion by the Courts when deciding zoning issues. Only if a zoning was "arbitrary, capricious, or wholly inequitable," City of Conway v. Housing Authority of Conway, 266 Ark. 40, 584 S.W. 2d 10, 13 (1979), would such a zoning decision be overturned by the Circuit Court. The Arkansas Supreme Court defined "arbitrary" in that case as meaning "arising from unrestrained exercise of ... personal preference; based on random or convenient choice, rather than on reason or nature." The major legal concern I have is that denying the applicant's request for a Neighborhood Commercial zoning in favor of a Community Service zoning might be deemed a "spot zoning" based upon the preference of the City Council for a "form based" rather than "traditional" zoning district. C-1 AND CS: IDENTICAL PURPOSES; SIMILAR USES It is important to note that Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), a very old traditional zoning district has almost the identical express purpose of Community Services (CS) as stated in.the Unified Development Code. The express purpose for Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) is: "(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas." §161.18 of the UDC. This is the identical language used for the newer Community Services (CS) district: "(A) Purpose. The Community Services district is designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas ...." §161.19 of the U.D.C. The Purpose section of §161.19 Community Service (CS) adds further language because it allows uses not allowed in Neighborhood Commercial, primarily residential uses. Indeed, every permitted use in Neighborhood Commercial is also permitted in Community Service and every conditional use allowed in Neighborhood Commercial is also allowed in Community Services. Therefore, it would not seem reasonable for the City Council to deny on applicant its requested Neighborhood Commercial zoning district by rezoning to Community Services because Community Services has additional permitted uses the applicant clearly does not desire. Since the purpose and uses of these zoning districts cannot justify denial of the rezoning to the more restrictive zoning district, C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, I believe there remains a single justification for a forced rezoning to Community Services instead of Neighborhood Commercial, that is Community Service's new "build-to zones" and the required 65% street frontage coverage by a developer's building (making it "form based"). 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Recognizing that this 65% street frontage requirement could cause real development problems for many "permitted uses" in Community Service (CS), such as Unit 18 Gasoline service stations, Unit 15 Neighbor Shopping, etc., Planning staff informed the Planning Commission that an applicant/developer for the Kum & Go rezoning could go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance of this 65% street frontage building coverage for this parcel. At this point the Planning Commission believed and was not otherwise informed that this 2.5 acre rezoning request was for a single parcel with over 900 feet of street frontage. To comply with the Community Services street frontage requirements, the developer would have had to build a building along 200 yards of street frontage, a difficult obligation for a developer wanting to build a gas station, eating place, or convenience store. I expressed my doubts that the Board of Adjustment would or could grant such a substantial reduction in street frontage requirements to make anticipated permitted uses developable. I also pointed out the only appeal from the Board of Adjustment is to Circuit Court. If the City Council wants to facilitate this potential development, it can do so only with its rezoning decision. My review of the four requirements that the Board of Adjustment must find to exist before it can grant any relief shows any variance approval would be almost impossible to legally grant. Thus, the applicant can probably get no relief from the Board of Adjustment. Fortunately, Community Services Director Jeremy Pate has informed me that this 2.5 acre parcel is actually composed of several existing lots. Attached is the map of the property to be rezoned showing the internal lot lines. If the developer wishes to develop only about an acre or so on the corner of MLK and Hill using existing lots, then he would not need to build an "L" shaped building a football field in length along both Hill and MLK. However, if zoned to Community Services a developer would still have to cover two-thirds of the street frontage of this corner lot with his building, an odd configuration for a gas station or convenience store, both of which are allowed by right in both Community Services (CS) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). ZONING COMPATIBILITY Zoning ordinances were developed many decades ago primarily to ensure compatibility between differing land uses. The current zoning of all three adjacent corners of the intersection of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Hill Avenue are all of the City's traditional commercial zoning districts. Immediately east across Hill Avenue is zoned Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (1-1), catty-corner is zoned 3 Thoroughfare Commercial (C-2) and immediately across MLK is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). I have attached a GIS map showing these zones. South and West of this property to the railroad tracks is a Residential Planned Zoning District with no building within 25 feet of Martin Luther King Boulevard. Attached is another GIS map which shows the zoning, plus photos of structures, etc. A Community Services rezoning would be the only form based commercial zoning at this intersection. Indeed, the whole block along Martin Luther King Boulevard east of the Hill Avenue intersection is Thoroughfare Commercial or Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial with existing warehousing and retail set back far off MLK. The block of Hill Avenue south from the intersection is zoned Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial with substantial existing warehousing. It could certainly be argued that dropping a form-based commercial district within this established traditional commercial and warehousing district would be "spot zoning." SPOT ZONING As I have informed the City Council for the last decade in numerous memos about what can be considered in zoning decisions, I have warned that spot zoning should be avoided. I have quoted this case most recently in my December 15, 2010 memo. " `Spot zoning, by definition, is invalid because it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable treatment of a limited area within a particular district. As such, it departs from the comprehensive treatment or privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment. Spot zoning almost invariably involves a single parcel or at least a limited area.' R. Wright and S. Webber, Land Use (1978)." Riddell v. .City of Brinkley, 612 S.W. 2d 116, 117 (1981). (emphasis added) What concerns me from a legal point of view is that all of the other corner lots at this intersection are traditional commercial zones with setbacks rather than the opposite "form based" zones with build-to frontage requirements. None of these other commercial zones must build close to the street right-of-way for any part of the street 4 frontage, much less two-thirds of the entire street frontage. The applicant could argue that a form -based commercial zoning constitutes "unreasonable treatment of a limited area" within this commercial node "without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment." Riddle v. City of Brinkley. The City Council's preference to force commercial buildings to be constructed near the street right-of-way and to extend the building for two-thirds of the total street frontage might be determined to be unreasonable in the context of surrounding commercial zones and currently constructed warehouses and commercial buildings (including a former convenience store catty -corner from the proposed rezoning). When the Downtown Master Plan was implemented with new "form based" zoning districts, this master planned area was treated comprehensively, and thus could withstand a "spot zoning" charge. Dropping a "form based" commercial zoning district into the midst of traditional commercial district when the applicant desires a traditional commercial district (with the identical purposes and uses as the "form based" district) creates a potential legal challenge of spot zoning. The personal preference of aldermen who wish to force "form based" zoning districts into the midst of existing traditional commercial zones may not be enough to withstand a Circuit Court challenge. CONCLUSION Other "form based" commercial rezonings for parcels outside a Master Planned Area have been approved by this City Council without a problem. A current request for rezoning to Community Services by a land owner along MLK should be granted by the City Council because there is no opposition and water problems at the rear of his lot make it much easier to develop with the 10 foot build -to line of CS rather than the 50 foot setback of C-1. Only if an applicant or citizens object to a rezoning (which would make litigation possible) will I normally make any comment. Because of this appeal from a land owner/developer who requests a traditional commercial zoning, the issue of whether to force a developer to accept "form based" commercial district with almost identical purpose and uses provisions is squarely before the City Council. This is purely a setback v. a "build -to" zone requiring a building on 65% of right-of-way street frontage issue. I am concerned about defending the reasonableness of such a requirement for this parcel in Circuit Court. In addition to language in our Long Term Plan (2025 or 2030 Plan) and any personal preference for a "form based" zoning district, the City Council should have and express reasoned analysis of why the applicant's requested Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zoning should be denied. 5 RZN 11-3831 Kum & Go Zoning Districts RZN 11-3831 Kum & Go Zoning Districts Pm t� J P-1 10444 ,. 7. R1lF-24 C-1 T 3 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVDMARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD RPZD b ,. '' 'r Subject Property RMF-24 10%4v DR 1-1 Ui a RM �• RpI AIU N 1 inch = 160 feet ` +E. s f _.4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 11-3831, FOR APPROXIMATELY 2.64 ACRES LOCATED AT 209 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD FROM RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE TO C- 1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, as shown on Exhibits "A" and `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this " ' GIN"D By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor day of 2011. ATTEST: SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer RZN 11-3831 close Up Vlsw P•1 EXHIBIT "A" 74 332Q6 1 KUM & GO SUBJECT PROPERTY 1 z r PRIVATE 421 r Kil.T TY AVE PRAIRIE ST •�, r'�i In �, • _ 4- e .... ' . .,.,,.. N$pNE DR ALLEY 79B ..-,. RPZD o ; a oo "4 Mutl-Use Trail Future Trails _ Hillside -Hilltop Ovi May District r Design Overlay Di trict Design Overlay Di trict ----- Planning Area Fayetteville 0 126 2"� Soo M R-A PUBLIC 987 NATIONAL ST EXHIBIT "B" RZN 11-3831 TRACT 2 OF PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT FILED FOR RECORD AT PLAT 23A-000132 AT THE CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, BEING DESCRIBED ON SAID PLAT AS FOLLOWS: PART OF THE SOUTH '/a OF THE SW '% OF SECTION 16, AND A PART OF THE NORTH % OF THE NW '/a OF SECTION 21, T-16-N, R-30-W, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST '% OF THE NORTHWEST '% OF SAID SECTION21, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE S 87°04'09" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ''% OF THE NORTHWEST ''% OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 5.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 87°04'09" E 418.49 FEET: THENCE N 02°23'10"E 299.42 FEET, TO AN EXISTING ARKANSAS HIGHWAY COMMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 180 (WEST 6T" STREET); THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY N89003'47"W 173.03 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N89°52'30"W 17.36 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE S00°06'16"W 5.02 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N89°40'59"W 45.74 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N 89'29'27"W 62.28 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE S81041'17"W 30.03 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT; THENCE N77'25'50"W 25.70 FEET TO AN EXISTING AHC MONUMENT: THENCE N88018'00"W 42.21 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY S01 °44'50"W 153.30 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 315.50 FEET AND A DISTANCE OF 81.06 FEET; THENCE S16'28'01"W 8.54 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 215.50 FEET A DISTANCE OF 40.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.64 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 2.64 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF HILL AVENUE AND ALL EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF RECORD. LESS AND EXCEPT, SIXTH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY: PART OF TRACTS 1 & 2 OF PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT FILED FOR RECORD AT PLAT 23A- 000132 AT THE CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, BEING DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE #2006-9895, AS FOLLOWS: PART OF THE SOUTH '/ OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF SECTION 16, T-16-N, R-30-W, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST Ya OF SAID SECTION 16. SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE N86'14'53"W, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF SECTION 16 A DISTANCE OF 46.00 FEET; THENCE DUE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 268.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 88018'00"E, A DISTANCE OF 482.55 FEET; THENCE NO2'23'10"E, A DISTANCE OF 20.58 FEET; THENCE N 89003'47"W, A DISTANCE OF 173.03 FEET; THENCE N89°52'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 17.35 FEET; THENCE S00°06'16"W, A DISTANCE OF 5.02 FEET; THENCE N 89040'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 46.74 FEET; THENCE N89-29'27"W, A DISTANCE OF 62.28 FEET; THENCE S81041'17'W, A DISTANCE OF 30.03 FEET; THENCE N77-25'50"W, A DISTANCE OF 26.70 FEET; THENCE N88°18'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE N87°40'49"W, A DISTANCE OF 26.16 FEET; THENCE N87°41'42"W, A DISTANCE OF 40.98 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1381.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°50'34", A DISTANCE OF 20.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. ENGINEERS ■ SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 3108 SW Regency Parkway, Suite 2 Bentonville, AR 72712 (479)273-9472 Fax (479) 273-0844 www.ceieng.com June 2, 2011 Ms. Sondra Smith City Clerk 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: RZN 11-3831: Rezone (209 W. Martin Luther King Blvd.) Letter of Appeal for the June 21, 2011 City Council meeting agenda Dear Ms. Smith We respectfully appeal the May 23, 2011 Planning Commission's recommendation that the referenced property be rezoned to Community Services - CS (Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations, Section 161.19 Community Services). Pursuant to Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 155: Appeals, Section 155.02 Form/Time/Place) we appeal the Planning Commission's recommendation and request the property be rezoned, Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) for the following reasons: 1. The existing zoning in the immediate area (intersection of Hill and Martin Luther King Blvd.) supports C-1: a. Applicant's property is located in the SW corner of the intersection. b. The NW corner of the intersection is zoned C-1. c. The NE corner of the intersection is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. d. The SE corner of the intersection is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. 2. Requesting C-1 is in compliance with City Plan 2025. 3. Staff forced the use of the recently adopted form -based zoning. Neither one of the form -based zoning districts (Urban Thoroughfare, UT or Community Services, CS) are appropriate for the proposed land use. Either form -based zoning district would require the applicant to request a variance. This very fact is completely in violation of the criteria for requesting a variance, specifically, Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 156: Variances, Subsection 156.02: Zoning Regulations, Item `(3) Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant." It is obvious that the variance request would be a direct result of the actions of the applicant, as forced by staff. Thank -you for placing our appeal on the June 21, 2011 City Council agenda. Sincerely, 1 Dennis Blind Providing Consolidated Land Development Services CALIPORNIA R 1FXAS • ARKANSAS 0 MINNFSOTA a GFORGIA • PENNSIiI AMA TayeV PC Meeting of May 23, 2011 s THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telenhone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: r - r ,, , Updated May 31, 2011 RZN 11-3831: Rezone (209 W. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD./KUM & GO, 522): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at 209 WEST MARTING LUTHER KING BOULEVARD. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.64 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE. Planner: Jesse Fulcher BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the southwest comer of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Hill Avenue, and is undeveloped. Surrounding land uses and zoning are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Singlefamily residential/undeveloped C-1, Neighborhood Commercial/RMF-24 South Multi -family residential R-PZD Hill Place East Commercial/Industrial 1-1, Heavy Commercial Light Industrial West Multi -family residential R-PZD Hill Place Proposal: The applicant has submitted an application to rezone the property from RMF-24, Residential Multi -family 24 units per acre to UT, Urban Thoroughfare. Public Comment: Staff has not received public comment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the applicants request to rezone the property to UT, Urban Thoroughfare. However, staff does support rezoning the property to CS, Community Services, which will also allow for the proposed gas station. G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2011\Development Review\11-3831 RZN (Kum & Go @ MLK)\08 Planning Commission\05-23-11\Comments and Redlines COMMISSION ACTION Required YES 65-23-11 g Tabled q Forwarded O Denied ion: Cook Second: Earnest Vote: 6-3-0 (Honcheil, Hoskins, Kennedy CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES Date: 6-21-Ii O Approved O Denied INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The site has frontage on Martin Luther King Boulevard and Hill Avenue. Martin Luther King Bouleveard is an improved four -lane arterial and Hill Avenue is an improved 2-lane collector with a dedicated left turn -lane for north bound traffic. Street improvements and access to the property will be evaluated at the time of development. Water: Public water is available to the property. There is 12" main on Martin Luther King Boulevard, an 8" main on the west and south property lines, and a 6" main on Hill Avenue. Water main improvements will be evaluated at the time of development. Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There is an 8" main on Martin Luther King Boulevard, along the west and south property lines, and a 6" main on Hill Avenue. Sewer main improvements will be evaluated at the time of development. Drainage: Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for any development. Police: The Fayetteville Police Department has not objected to this request. Fire: The Fayetteville Fire Department has not objected to this request. CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as City Neighborhood Area, which is a denser and primarily residential urban fabric where mixed and low -intensity nonresidential uses are usually confined to corner locations. City Neighborhood Areas recognize conventional strip commercial developments, but encourages complete, compact, connected neighborhoods. G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2011\Development Review\11-3831 RZN (Kum & Go @ MLK)\08 Planning Commission\05-23-11\Comments and Redlines 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 applicant's request to rezone the property to Urban Thoroughfare is in staff's opinion, inconsistent with land use planning objectives, principles and policies. The Urban Thoroughfare district is intended to provide goods and services for persons living in the surrounding communities. However, the City Neighborhood Area, the land use designation for this property, recommends that uses should primarily serve residents of Fayetteville rather than a regional population. Martin Luther King Boulevard is an arterial street with high traffic volumes, but not all of it is in a regional context. A string of fast food restaurants, hotels, car lots and big -box retailers begin at Razorback Road and continue west, past the I-540 interchange and into Farmington. However, this regional commercial development pattern is not reflected east of Razorback. This area transitions into an older portion of Fayetteville, with short blocks, and a wide variety of nonresidential and residential land uses. This pattern is most apparent east of School Avenue. Therefore, the zoning for this property should provide for uses that serve the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in order to promote development patterns consistent with the City Plan 2025. The City Plan 2025 identifies some Guiding Policies for City Neighborhood Areas that are applicable to the proposed rezoning as follows: Guiding Policies: • Provide non-residential uses that are accessible for the convenience of individuals living in residential districts and where compatibility with existing desirable development patterns occurs. ■ Reduce the length and number of vehicle trips generated by residential development by enhancing the accessibility to these areas... • Encourage developers to designate and plan for mixed -use corners at the time of approval to properly plan for accessibility to these areas. The proposed use would be compatible to adjacent land uses and would encourage continued growth of this identified mixed use area. The non-residential use would serve the existing and future population of the surrounding areas and would not create a nuisance or adversely affect the public interest. G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2011\Development Review\l 1-3831 RZN (Kum & Go @ MLK)\08 Planning Commission\05-23-11\Comments and Redlines 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning district will allow certain uses that could generate a greater volume of traffic than that which would be created by the existing RMF-24 zoning. However, not to a degree that would appreciably increase traffic danger. Provided that the requirements of the access management ordinance are followed, and additional left hand turning movements are not created along Martin Luther King Boulevard. 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: It is unlikely that the proposed zoning would increase the population density over the existing density allowance of 24 units per acre. Public service providers have reviewed this request and do not anticipate that this rezoning would 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; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: Not applicable. G:\ETC\Development Services Review\20110evelopment Review\11-3831 RZN (Kum & Go @ MLK)\08 Planning Commission\05-23-11\Comments and Redlines 161.14 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family — Twenty -Four Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RMF-24 Multi -family Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the developing of a variety of dwelling types in suitable environments in a variety of densities. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellin s Unit 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 26 Multi -family 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 Units Government facilities Unit 11 Manufactured home park Unit 12 Limited business Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. 11 Units per acre 1 24 or less (D) Bulk and area regulations. (1) Lot width minimum. Manufactured home park 100 ft. Lot within a Manufactured home park 50 ft. Single-family 60 ft. Two-family 60 ft. Three or more 90 ft. Professional offices 100 ft. (2) Lot area minimum. Manufactured home park 3 acres Lot within a mobile home ark 4,200 sq. ft. Townhouses: Development Individual lot 10,000 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. Single-family 6,000 sq. ft. Two-family 7,000 sq. ft. Three or more 9.000 sq. ft. Fraternit or Sorodt 2 acres Professional offices 1 acres (3) Land area per dwelling unit. Manufactured home 3,000 sq. ft. Apartments: No bedroom 12,000 1,700 sq. ft. One bedroom 1,700 sq. ft. Two bedroom sq. ft. F7Fra-ternityor Sorority 1,000 s . ft. per resident (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear The principal 8 ft. 25 ft. facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between 10 feet and a line 25 feet from the front property line. HHOD Front HHOD Side HHOD Rear 15ft. 8ft. 15ft. Cross reference(s)--Variance, Ch. 156. (F) Building height regulations. Buildfng Height Maximum 1 60ft. .11 Height regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line of an adjacent single family district, an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. (G) Building area. None. (H) Minimum buildable street frontage. 50% of the lot width. 161.18 District C-1, Neighborhood Commercial (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 Cit -wide uses by right Unit 5 Government Facilities Unit 13 Eating laces Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping Unit 18 Gasoline service stations and drive- in/drive through restaurants Unit 25 Offices, studios, and related services (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 16 Shopping oods Unit34 Liquor stores Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments' Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities' Unit 40 Sidewalk Cafes Unit 42 Clean technologies (C) Density. None. (D) Bulk and area regulations. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front 50 ft. Side None Side, when contiguous to a residential district 10 ft. Rear 20 ft. (F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits in C-1 District, provided, however, that any building which exceeds the height of 10 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 10 feet. (G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. (Code 1965, App. A., Art. 5(V); Ord. No. 2603. 2-19-80; Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.035; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5195, 11-6-08; Ord. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5339, 8-3-10) 161.19 Community Services (A) Purpose. The Community Services district is designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas and is intended to provide for adaptable mixed use centers located along commercial corridors that connect denser development nodes. There is a mixture of residential and commercial uses in a traditional urban form with buildings addressing the street. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Community Services district is a commercial zone. The intent of this zoning district is to provide standards that enable development to be approved administratively. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 Ci -wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-familydwellin s Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 13 Eating aces Unit 15 Neighborhood Shopping oods Unit 18 Gasoline service stations and drive- in/drive through restaurants Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Offices, studios and related services Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined with pre -approved uses. (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 14 Hotel, motel and amusement services Unit 16 Shopping oods Unit 17 Transportation, trades and services Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 34 1 Liquor stores Unit 35 1 Outdoor music establishments Unit 36 1 Wireless communication facilities' Unit 40 Sidewalk Cafes Unit 42 Clean technologies (C) Density. None (D) Bulk and area regulations. (1) Lot width minimum. Dwelling 18 ft. All others None (2) Lot area minimum. None (E) Setback regulations. Front: The principal fapade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between 10 feet and a line 25 feet from the front proeer[y line. Side and rear: None Side or rear, when contiguous to a residential district: 15 feet (F) Height regulations. Maximum height is 4 stories or 56 feet which ever Is less. (G) Minimum buildable street frontage. 65% of the lot width. 161.21 Urban Thoroughfare (A) Purpose. The Urban Thoroughfare District is designed to provide goods and services for persons living in the surrounding communities. This district encourages a concentration of commercial and mixed use development that enhances function and appearance along major thoroughfares. Automobile -oriented development is prevalent within this district and a wide range of commercial uses is permitted. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Urban Thoroughfare district is a commercial zone. The intent of this zoning district is to provide standards that enable development to be approved administratively. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 10 Three-family dwellings Unit 13 Eating laces Unit 14 Hotel, motel and amusement services Unit 16 Shopping oods Unit 17 Transportation trades and services Unit 18 Gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive through restaurants Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 25 Offices, studios, and related services Unit 26 Multi-familv dwellings Unit34 Li uorstore Unit 41 Accessory Dwellings Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined with pre -approved uses. (2) Conditional uses Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 21 Warehousing and wholesale Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 29 Dance halls Unit 33 Adult live entertainment club or bar Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments Unit 36 Wireless communication facilities Unit 38 Mini -storage units Unit 40 Sidewalk cafes Unit 42 Clean technologies Unit 43 Animal boarding and training (C) Density. None (D) Bulk and area regulations. (1) Lot width minimum Single-family dwelling 18 feet All other dwellin s I None Non-residential I None (2) Lot area minimum None (E) Setback regulations. Front: I The principal fa ade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between 10 feet and a line 25 feet from the front property line. Side and rear: None Side or rear, when contiguous 15 feet to a residential district: (F) Height regulations. A building or a portion of a building that is closer than 15 feet from the front property line shall have a maximum height of 4 stories or 56 feet, whichever is less. A building or portion of a building that is located 15 feet or greater from the front property line or the Master Street Plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of 6 stories or 84 feet, whichever is less. Any building that exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any boundary line of a single-family residential district, an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. (G) Minimum buildable street frontage. 50% of the lot width. RZN 11-3835: Rezone (3710 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. /ZAIFI, 556/595): Submitted by Submitted by MEHDI ZAIFI for property located at 3710 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.20 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE. Planner: Dara Sanders Public water is available to the property. There is 1" water main stubbed across Martin Luther King to this property Public water main improvements will be necessary to provide adequate fire flow for a future development. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There is a 6" and 10" public main located through this property. A capacity analysis of the existing 6" sewer main may be necessary if a connection is proposed at the time of development. The site has access to Martin Luther King Blvd. Martin Luther King Blvd is a fully improved five lane state highway in this location. Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for any development. This property is largely affected by the 100-year floodplain and the Streamside Protection Zones. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS FIRE DEPARTMENT :n...; 303 West Center Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 P 1479} 575-HMS F (479)575.0471 Zoning Review To: Jesse Fulcher From: Terry Lawson, Fire Marshal Date: May 17, 2011 Tie: RZN 11-3831: Rezone (209 W. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. /KUM & 60, 522): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at 209 WEST MARTING LUTHER KING BOULEVARD. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS/ACRE and Contains approximately 2.64 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE. Planner: Jesse Fulcher This development will be protected by Engine 6 located at 900 Hollywood Ave. It Is 1.2 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 3 minutes to the beginning of the development. The Fayetteville Fire Department does not feel this development will affect our calls for service or our response times. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Terry Lawson, Fire Marshal Fayetteville Fire Department Telecommunications Oeviceforthe Deaf TDD(479)521-1316 113 West Mountain- Fayetteville, AR 72701 April 14, 2011 Development Services Department City of Fayetteville 125 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Request for Rezoning for parcels located at 209 W. Martin Luther King Blvd. Dear Development Services: Pursuant to the City of Fayetteville's Rezoning Application, the following information satisfies Item 5, sub -items a through i of the Rezoning Checklist. 5a. Current ownership information and any proposed or pending property sales. The current owner of the land is Chambers Bank, P.O. Box 609, Danville, AR 72833. The land is under contract by Kum & Go, 6400 Westown Parkway, West Des Moines, Iowa 50266. Rezoning the land is included in the buyer's due diligence and a successful rezoning is a contract contingency. 5b. Reason (need) for requesting the zoning change. The current zoning (RMF- 24) is inappropriate for the buyer's land use — a Kum & Go gas and convenience store. An Urban Thoroughfare zoning district is requested to accommodate the applicant's land use. 5c. Statement of how the proposed zoning will relate to surrounding properties in terms of land use, traffic, appearance, and signage. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the established land use patterns along the Martin Luther King Blvd. corridor. Hill Place Apartments are located to the south of the property and the proposed Kum & Go will provide convenience goods for the residents. Relative to traffic, the proposed Kum & Go is not a "destination" land use so as such, it will not generate negative traffic impacts to the corridor. The site has adequate frontage on Martin Luther King Blvd. and Hill Street to safely accommodate ingress and egress. Kum & Go has developed an aesthetic brand for both the appearance and signage for their gas and convenience stores and their brand will not be a visual distraction along the Martin Luther King Blvd. corridor. 5d. Availability of water and sewer (state size of lines). Water —12" line on MLK, 8" line on the west and south side of the property, and a 6" line on Hill. Sanitary Sewer — 8" line on MLK, 8" line on the south property line and a 6" line on Hill 5e. The degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with the land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. The proposed zoning is consistent with the development patterns along the Martin Luther King Blvd. corridor and in compliance with the City Neighborhood Area land use classification as presented in the adopted, City Plan 2025. Also, the proposed zoning, in accordance to the City's zoning ordinance, Section 161.21 states "Automobile -oriented development is prevalent within this district and a wide range of commercial uses is permitted." 5f. Whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time of the request. The proposed zoning change is justified by the lack of market demand for RMF-24 zoning district and the location's viability as a Kum & Go store. Martin Luther King Blvd. is a commercial corridor and the proposed zoning is in compliance with the City's comprehensive plan and zoning. 5g. Whether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. The proposed zoning will not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion since the site has frontage on both Martin Luther King Blvd. and Hill Street. The site is also easily accessible from the south, the location of the Hill Place Apartments. This section of the corridor has good site distances and is not developed with regional, destination type of land uses. 5h. Whether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. The proposed zoning will not alter the population density. It is a commercial land use and as such will not foster any population increase, as would the existing zoning of RMF-24. 5i. Why it would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classification. Market demand for the uses permitted in RMF-24 have declined considerably and the proposed zoning and land use will fill a need in the corridor. The closest gas stations are east of the site at the intersection of Martin Luther King Blvd. and Highway 71B and to the west at the intersection of Martin Luther King Blvd. and Razorback Road. Planning Commission May 23, 2011 Page I of 8 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 23, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Consent: MINUTES: May 9, 2011 Page 3 Old Business: ACTION TAKEN Approved CUP 11-3811: Conditional Use Permit (339 WEST AVENUE/ROCK BOTTOM, 484) Page 4 Tabled New Business: CUP 11-3836: Conditional Use Permit (305 POWDERHORN DRIVE/MOUNTAIN RANCH POA, 478) Page 5 Approved RZN 11-3831: Rezone (209 W. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. /KUM & GO, 522) Page 6 Forwarded RZN 11-3835: Rezone (3710 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. /ZAIFI, 556/595) Page 7 Forwarded Craig Honchell Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Jeremy Kennedy Porter Winston Matthew Cabe Kyle Cook STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Planning Commission May 23, 2011 Page 6 of 8 RZN 11-3831: Rezone (209 W. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. /KUM & GO, 522): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at 209 WEST MARTING LUTHER KING BOULEVARD. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.64 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Dennis Blind, application, stated that theywere requesting the Urban Thoroughfare zoning district based on staff recommendation, and for the fact that the minimum buildable street frontage was less than required in the Community Services zoning district. We realize that we will need a variance, but want to request the smallest possible variance. Commissioner Cabe asked staff to describe the two zoning districts. Fulcher briefly described the differences in the two districts and directed commissioners to the zoning sheets in the staff report. Commissioner Chesser asked staff to discuss the difference in the street frontage requirements. Fulcher described why the frontage requirements for the two districts were different. Commissioner Honchell stated that a gas station was a auto -oriented development. Kit Williams, City Attorney, asked the applicant why they didn't request a conventional zoning district, as they might have a difficult time asking for a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Blind stated that staff pointed them to the form -based district. Commissioner Kennedy asked staff what happened between the initial meetings with the applicant where Urban Thoroughfare was recommended and the current recommendation for Community Services. Fulcher stated that he was not involved in the initial meetings, but that the Community Services district was the most appropriate for this location, and would still accommodate a gas station. Commissioner Winston asked the applicant if there was something they could do to increase the building width, to decrease the variance. Maybe a different building design would work better for this particular property. Blind stated that the circulation requirements for a gas station required the larger parking area and smaller building. Kum and Go doesn't typically include additional tenants on the property. Commissioner Chesser asked about the lot width requirements, and general discussion ensued about the amount of building width based on the lot frontage. Commissioner Cabe stated that a different zoning district might work best for this development model. General discussion about building frontage requirements and lot width ensued. Williams advised the commissioner of what they can consider when reviewing a rezoning request. Planning Commission May 23, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Cook stated that the most appropriate zoning for this property is Community Services, and asked the city attorney to clarify if the commission should consider the development concept presented by the applicant. Williams stated that the commissioner should not consider the proposed development during the rezoning request. Motion: Commissioner Cook made a motion to forward RZN 11 -3 831 to the City Council with a recommendation to approve a zoning district of CS, Community Services. Commissioner Earnest seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0 (Commissioners Honchell and Hoskins voting `No'). RZN 11-3831 Close Up View KUM & GO I A� s>• ^= # %�-fiRSITYAVE, � � W R' srl. c� PRAIRIE ST SUBJECT PROPERTY j } �' IW PRIVATE 421I �- ^,. �.� .,. ... I + .,..-� N SZONE DR ALLEY 799 - it RPM RMf-74 ii z Le oa z �Muti-Use Trail(Exlst� ji vuBLlesaT 0 0 Future Trails "4 N+rlohALsr 0 ootprints 2010 - Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District Design Overlay Df 5trict Design Overlay Di trict ------ Planning Area 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Fayetteville Fex �,. ., ��.-� � ram- �;. :'• _ / y v�� ..'tv:. �� �1 twrri�l f ppryy^i�''T�t • • it . � rn :� _ i'�yca� �' fp • .r t _ �cp l f" n�; f,. •_'.i.� A I � �� ram- 4Py �f I i ` y WATMETTIMMUM owl j l�I y I � NORTHWEST ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE NORTHWESTARKANSAS THE MORNING NEWS OF SPRINGDALE THE MORNING TIMES NEWSPAPERS LLC B NOTONCOU TYDAIL OF RECORD 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE, FAYEITEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 1 P.O, Box 1607. 72702 1479-442-1700 1 WWW.NWANEWS.COM AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Newspapers, LLC, printed and published in Washington and Benton County, Arkansas, bona fide circulation, that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: City of Fayetteville Ordinance 5420 Was inserted in the Regular Editions on: August 4, 2011 Publication Charges: $ 58.37 Cathy Wiles Subscribed and sworn to before me This q day of N-q. 2011. Notary Public My Commission Expires: J>vip' a _. ,_9n 9U7n RECEIVE® AUG 1 6 2011 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERKS OFFICE ORDINANCE NO.6420 AN ORDINANCE REZONING IHAT PROPERTY D A SE DIN FuoY 2.fi KING ACRES RZN I I - AT YC QOB WEST MARTIN LV3HENG RIXILEVARD Ie GAOM RMP-29, RESfOENTIAL MULTI.FAMlLY, �eeAHSAs 24 VNrTS PER ACRE TO 0.1, NEss8OR4A000 ©OMMERCIAL. �EE Fr ORpAINED BY THE CITY COONCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYErTEVI", RKANBA& oaen t.Rat dW Zene COaelrW9W OF dte fOIIO I dssUted property is h." C1 q. Y9 fdl0xe: • Rw W-24. R�Idevnly MWIi Family, 29 -ft par eare ID C-1, h4ygrlhRl,epD Ca Fle2d, as afi m &NC19 'A' eao'S' 9eaCred herft end maaa a per! �• hew. ism Ie 4w to "1 tM�orfI= —09 Fn 01 ]IV Qty VI Fay611vma,, Aiken9ae is tWuby z°°IM6 Uww P-Nded h secum I move. PASBEO aril APPROVED 1hle 19N day or July, 20, 1. i APPROVED: ATTEST: PONELD.IORDAN, Mayor 80 1!q . SMITH, O!y OeM/Rea&xar EXtCHe.0' Nb wdYu 'IV ba YVmid IA ft nMw or the Oqy CIerWOeespl,ef, **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent.