HomeMy WebLinkAbout74-06 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 74-06
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CUP 06-1892
AND TO DENY CUP 06-1892 BECAUSE APPLICANTS HAVE
WITHDRAWN THEIR REQUEST
WHEREAS, the applicants have withdrawn their request for CUP 06-1892.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS•
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the
appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 06-1892 and denies CUP 06-1892 upon
request of the applicants to withdraw the request for a conditional use.
•
PASSED and APPROVED this 18th day of Apnl, 2006.
``��vrhnWTR'�,,�
C>.• F.R , fqs .
•G.,
��•G\TYOc pr
�U• •��
E ;FAYETTEVILLE• 5.
APPROVED• ATTEST:�
;V:5:' NS:• Jam';,
By: ./J /I By:�i�.G
C.['"' '°`""c°ON
%%%p,
�v
DAN OOD , Mayor j SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
ALDERMAN APPEAL REQUEST FORM
A
1
COUNCIL MEETING OF: February 21, 2006
y/is166
Y-4(0
& P o6 -Ina
cdoni
apta!
FROM: Alderman Robert Reynolds
APPEAL TITLE AND SUBJECT: Appeal the Planning Commission's decision
regarding the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Temple Shalom
synagogue on Rockwood Trail.
Date
/e/
Date
/02 I/04
Date
rel re --1r 02/4,-, mnedo
•
City Council Meeting of February 21, 2006
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
0
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: January 25, 2006
Subject: Conditional Use Permit for Temple Shalom (CUP 06-1892)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a temple at
1001 Rockwood Trail. This action would retain the existing single-family house and
allow it to be used as the permanent home for Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 1100 Rockwood Trail just over a quarter -mile east of
Mission Boulevard. The house on this property was designed by the famous architect
Fay Jones, and is commonly referred to as the "Butterfly House". The 1.5 -acre site
contains an approximately 4,100 square -foot single-family house with a large driveway.
The eastern portion of the property is a bare landscaped Lawn with a chain-link fence dog
run and storage shed visible from Rockwood Trail. The north, east, and west portions of
the site are shielded by thick stands of trees and brush. The site is entirely surrounded by
residential land uses in the RSF-4 Zoning District.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission voted 6-3-0 in favor of this request on January 23, 2006, with
Commissioners Graves, Vaught, and Trumbo voting no for traffic safety concerns.
Recommended conditions were approved by the Planning Commission with a few minor
additions and are reflected in the attached staff report.
There was a large amount of public comment at the meeting stating objection to the
project with concerns mainly centered on community character and traffic impacts. A
larger number of written comments and a petition in objection to the project were also
provided and are included in the attached staff report. The Planning Commission heard
all comments from those that wished to speak, and were provided with copies of the
written comments, as well. After much discussion, the conditional use permit was
granted. The City Council has appealed this decision in accordance with the UDC.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
Wteviie
ARKANSAS
PC Meeiing ofianuary 23, 2006
THE CFI Y OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: JMmtar¢4i; 2006 February 2, 2006
CUP, 06-1892: (TEMPLE SHALOM OF NWA, 447): Submitted by JOSEPH
RATNER for property located at 1100 ROCKWOOD TRAIL. The property is zoned
RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.50 acres.
The request is to allow a synagogue (Use Unit 4) in the existing zoning district.
Property Owner: Max Harral Planner: Andrew Garner
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends approval of' the requested cultural and recreational facilities use
(Use Unit 4) for a temple in the RSF-4 zoning district on the described property,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission determination of compatibility with adjacent
properties and those within the same zoning district. Staff recommends that
the use of site as a temple as described in the materials herein is compatible
with surrounding properties. The modifications to allow a grass pave parking
area, landscaping, and extending the decorative/retaining wall shall be
compatible with the existing structure and appearance of the property as a
single-family structure and submitted to the Planning Division for review and
approval. The temple activities at this site shall be limited in scope to be small
and unobtrusive meetings/gatherings as described in concept in the materials
provided by the applicant attached with this report
PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THIS CONDITION
(01-23-06)
2. Additions to or remodeling of the existing structure and site, and the
intensity and nature of the temple use of the site, other than those approved
and described with this Conditional Use Permit, shall be submitted as a
conditional use for consideration by the Planning Commission, unless
approved otherwise. If the use of the site is substantially different that that
described in the information provided by the applicant, the conditional use
permit may be revoked.
K: I Reports 120061PC Reports10l-23-O61CUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).doc
3. Conditional Use approval shall not be construed to guarantee building
permit approval. A building permit plan must be submitted for City review
and approval for any extension or reconstruction of the existing structure(s).
Development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Unified
Development Code including, but not limited to: tree preservation, minimum
parking requirements, minimum buffering requirements, minimum
landscape requirements, storm water detention, setbacks and bulk/area
requirements.
4. The project shall conform to the required setbacks and other applicable
zoning and development requirements.
5. Due to limited sight distance from the crest of a hill near the existing curb
cut, staff recommends limiting this curb cutto an entrance and a right -out
only exit, clearly depicted with a small directional sign. This directional
signage shall be depicted on the site plan submitted for building permit. The
new proposed curb cut shall be located as close to the eastern property line as
feasible with the best sight distance, at a minimum of 5' from the property
line in conformance with City ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THIS
RECOMMENDATION (01-23-06).
6. The applicant shall contribute money in lieu of sidewalk at a rate of $3 per
square foot for a 4 -foot wide sidewalk, along the project's Rockwood Trail
frontage. This amount shall be determined by the Engineering Division
based on a scaled site plan, and paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. Any new exterior lights on the structure and site shall not only meet the
requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, but shall be of a
compatible architectural style with the existing house and surrounding
single-family neighborhood, as determined by Planning Staff. A lighting
plan and details shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review as
part of the building permit. All lighting shall be limited to pedestrian -scale
lighting (bollards, wall -mounted, etc.) and shall be unobtrusive to the
neighborhood. No pole lighting shall be permitted on the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ADDED (01-23-06).
8. All trash receptacle(s) utilized by this structure shall be internal to the
existing structure. Exterior trash receptacles or dumpster pads shall not be
allowed.
9. All improvements to the site shall be designed and constructed to be
compatible with the appearance of a single-family residence to the extent
K: IReporu110061PC Reports101-13-06ICUP 06-1891 (Temple Shalomidoc
feasible.
10. The new parking area shall be constructed as described in this report to be a
grass parking arca with grass -pavers to accommodate a maximum of 20
vehicles. Parking shall not be permitted on the property that exceeds the
capacity of the proposed 20 -vehicle lot and driveway, or order to limit the
size of events to be held in the single family neighborhood. Parking
associated with this conditional use permit shall be contained entirely onsite
and shall not be permitted on Rockwood Trail or any other public street:
PLANNING COMMISSION ADDED (01-23-06).
11. The new curb cut and driveway shall be constructed to have the appearance
of a residential driveway, and shall be approved by the City prior to
construction.
12. Landscaping for the site shall be planted as proposed in the presented site
plans to include trees and shrubs to be compatible with residential use, and
to provide screening of the parking area. A landscape plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by Planning Staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
13. Signage within the RSF-4 zoning district is limited, and staff recommends
limiting signage on this conditional use permit even further to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residential properties. Staff recommends
allowing the following maximum signage requirements for this conditional
use: (a) only one on-site wall sign on the existing structure not to exceed 16
square feet; (b) two on-site directional signs for the curb cuts of the site not
to exceed a maximum of 4 square feet per sign, and (c) one additional
informational sign with the temple name not exceeding 4 square feet to be
allowed on the front decorative wall or mailbox area. Staff recommends wall
signs and information signage be constructed of bronze or other materials
compatible with the existing structure.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
Planning Commission Action: • Approved ❑ Denied 0 Tabled
Motion: Anthes
Second: Lack
Vote: 6-3 0 with commissioners Vaught, Graves, and True mbo voting no
Meeting Date: January 23, 2006
Comments:
K_IReports120061PC Reporls101-23-06ICUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).dac
4'
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" listed in this report are accepted in total without
exception by the entity requesting approval of this conditional use.
Name:
Date:
LIST OF REPORT APPENDICES:
Appendix A
Appendix A-1
Appendix A-2
Appendix A-3
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix C-1
Appendix C-2
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
BACKGROUND:
Maps of the Project Area
Adjacent Property Owner Parcel Map
Regional Map
Vicinity Map
Project Description by the Applicant (under separate cover)
Written Public Comment
Comment Summary Table by Last Name
Copies of Written Comment by Last Name
Meeting Minutes: January 23, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting
Petition in Opposition to the Project
Traffic Counts for Proposed Synagogue Use
Property Description: The subject property is located at 1100 Rockwood Trail just over
a quarter -mile east of Mission Boulevard (see Appendix A). The house on this property
was designed by the famous architect Fay Jones, and is commonly referred to as the
"Butterfly House". The 1.5 -acre site contains an approximately 4,100 square -foot
single-family house with a large driveway. The eastem portion of the property is a bare
landscaped lawn with a chain-link fence dog run and storage shed visible from
Rockwood Trail. The north, east, and west portions of the site are entirely shielded by
thick stands of trees and brush. The site is entirely surrounded by residential land uses in
the RSF-4 Zoning District. The site is described in more detail and color photos of the
house and yard are provided in the applicant's proposed, Appendix B.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to use the existing single-family structure as the
permanent home for Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas. This Jewish temple was
_founded in 1981 and is Fayetteville's only Jewish congregation. Proposed modifications
to the structure and property to make the site compatible for the Temple use are described
and depicted in the supplemental information included in this packet (Appendix B), and
include the following items.
1. Install a guardrail on the back patio;
2. Replace the three sliding glass doors in the rear of the house by outward
swinging doors for emergency egress;
3. Install sign to the front wall or porch of the structure, and/or the mailbox or
driveway light fixture;
I. Follow Fay Jones' original landscaping plan and screening of parking lawn;
S. Convert the bare lawn on the east side of the property into a grass parking area
K:IReports12006V'C Repons101-23-061CUP 06-1892 (Temple Sholom)-doc
J
to accommodate between 16-20 vehicles. This area would require some
grading, extension of the existing retaining wall to the east, and installation of
grass -pavers to make an adequate parking surface;
6. Install a new curb cut at the east end of the property, made to look like a
residential driveway;
7. Some additional lights in the parking area may be necessary, and if needed,
would be electric utility fixtures, or more residential style porch or walkway
lighting.
The property is located within the'RSF-4 zoning district, in which Use Unit 4, Cultural
and Recreational Facilities, is allowable only by conditional use permit. The applicant
requests Planning Commission consideration of conditional use permit to determine
whether the proposed temple use and associated additions to the site are appropriate in
the RSF-4 zoning district.
Request: The applicant requests conditional use approval to allow a Jewish temple, Use
Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational facilities, within the RSF-4 zoning district.
Public Comment: Staff has received a relatively large volume of phone calls and written
responses to the proposed conditional use permit. A list of written comments received in
adequate advance of this Planning Commission meeting is summarized and included as
an Appendix C to this report. A large number of the comments state concern and
opposition to the project mainly for neighborhood compatibility and traffic issues, and
other comment supports the project stating that it will help improve the appearance of the
neighborhood and will be compatible. A large number of people from the surrounding
neighborhood were in attendance at the January 23, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting, Verbal comment at the meeting centered on opposition to the project for the
sane reasons stated in writing and submitted prior to the meeting. The meeting minutes
from this meeting are included in Appendix D. A petition was also submitted to Planning
staff on the afternoon of January. 23, 2006 with approximately 72 signatures in
opposition to the project (see Appendix E).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
Section 163.02. AUTHORITY; CONDITIONS; PROCEDURES.
•
B. Authority; Conditions. The Planning Commission shall:
•
1. Hear and decide only such special exemptions as it is specifically
authorized to pass on by the terns of this chapter.
2. Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a
conditional use should be granted; and,
3. Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are
appropriate under this chapter; or
K:IReports120061PC Reports101-23-06ICUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).dac
4. Deny a conditional use when not in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
•
C. A conditional use shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless
and until:
1. A written application for a conditional use is submitted indicating
• the section of this chapter under which the conditional use is
sought and stating the grounds on which it is requested. •
Finding: The applicant has submitted a written application requesting a
conditional use for a temple within the RSF-4 zoning district.
2. The applicant shall pay a filing fee as required under Chapter 159
to cover the cost of expenses incurred in connection with
• processing such application.
Finding: The applicant has paid the required filing fee.
3. The Planning Commission shall make the following written
findings before a conditional use shall be issued:
(a.) That it is empowered under the section of this chapter
described in the application to grant the conditional use; and
Finding: The Planning Commission is empowered under §161.13 to grant the
requested conditional use permit.
(b.) That the granting of the conditional use will not adversely
affect the public interest.
Finding: In order to make findings regarding the impacts of the proposed
temple use, staff analyzed the potential effects of the project on
various land use and public interest issues. The results of this analysis
are presented in Table 1 on the following page.
Based on the conclusions shown in Table 1, granting the conditional
use for a temple in this location will not adversely affect the public
interest with appropriate and sensitive design measures in place.
Surrounding properties are all single-family residential and the
proposed temple would not adversely change the single-family
character or appearance of the neighborhood. The low -intensity uses
and lack of potential for growth of the temple as described in the
supplemental information would not result in traffic or public service
impacts that would be incompatible with the existing residential uses.
Based on these findings, the public interest is not considered adversely
affected by the presence of this temple.
K:IReports120061PC Reports101-23-061CUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).doc
Issue
Aesthetics/
Community
Character
Table 1
Community Impacts
Potential Effects
The structure would retain its original Fay Jones design and appearance as a residential dwelling in the
neighborhood. Installation of the extensive original Fay Jones landscape plan, removal of the chain-
link dog run and storage shed, and extension of the decorative/retaining walls would improve the
appearance of the site. Installation of the grass parking area as proposed would represent minimal
visual intrusion to viewers along Rockwood Trail due to the parking area being below the street grade.
Meetings and gatherings would be small and unobtrusive as described by the applicant. Appearance
of vehicles during weekly services (approximately 6-8 vehicles on Saturday and Sunday) would not be
substantially different from the number of vehicles that could be expected at a house of this size during
the weekend. Monthly Rabbi -led services once per month with approximately 12 cars on Friday
evenings would not represent an adverse visual impact or change in the character of the neighborhood.
Occasional events with a maximum of 25 cars parked on the site would not result in a substantial
change in the appearance or character of the community due to the irregular nature of such events.
Proposed low -scale identification and directional signage would alter the appearance of the
neighborhood slightly enabling viewers to note the temple use of the site. Signage limitations would
keep these visual impacts to a minimal level.
Conclusion
No significant
adverse visual or
community character
impacts.
Traffic and
Traffic
Safety
Vehicle trips generated would be limited during the week to: (1) occasional random trips for office work
by one or two people, (2) approximately 6-8 vehicles on Saturday and Sunday afternoon and evenings,
(3) approximately 12 vehicles at the monthly Friday evening services, and (4) occasional events
(approximately 2-3 times per year) that would generate 20 vehicles to the site at one time. Based on
the general traffic engineering standard of 10 vehicle trips per day per dwelling, the existing house
would generate approximately 70 vehicle trips per week. Traffic from the proposed temple would not
adversely affect traffic flow or the street condition when compared to the existing residential nature of
the site. The new proposed curb cut at the eastem end of the property has a better line of sight than
the existing curb cut and would provide a second safe means of access. Due to the limited sight
distance at the western curb cut, staff recommends limiting the exit from this curb cut to a right -out only.
Pedestrian use in and around the site is not anticipated due to the lack of sidewalks, and the proposed
parking that would be contained onsite.
No significant
adverse traffic Flow
or traffic safely
impacts.*
Parking
All parking would be contained onsite. The existing driveway is anticipated to contain 5 vehicles, and ,
the new grass parking area is anticipated to accommodate 16-20 vehicles, for a maximum parking
capacity of 25 vehicles. Based on the house being able to hold 101 persons, the proposed parking is
within the City code requirement of 18-33 spaces. Parking is to be entirely screened from view from
the right-of-way and adjacent properties.
All parking is
contained onsite, no
adverse impacts.
Lighting If additional lighting for the parking area is proposed, the lights would be required to comply with the
Lighting Ordinance, requiring fixtures to be fully shielded and downward directed. Compliance with the
lighting ordinance would avoid light pollution from the project. However, to avoid the potential for
parking lights that are not compatible with the neighborhood, staff recommends a condition requiring
any new lights to be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff as part of the building permit approval
for architectural style that is compatible with the residential neighborhood, and all lighting to be of a
pedestrian scale, utilizing bollards. wall -mounted lights, etc.
Minimal additional
lighting, if any, is
anticipated to be
unobtrusive and
would be reviewed
for architectural
compatibility with the
residential
neighborhood. No
adverse impacts.
Noise
Noise associated with the uses as described in the information provided by the applicant would be
those associated with religious services and study inside the existing structure, occasional social
events and larger services, and vehicles traveling to and from the property for those activities. 11 is not
anticipated that noise from the temple would be noticeably different from residential uses. The City
noise ordinance as administered by the Police Department on a complaint basis would be applicable to
this as a residentially -zoned property.
•
No substantial noise
impacts.
Public
Services
The provision of public services to the site such as fire, police. water, sewer, and other utilities currently
exist to the property, and due to the small scale of the proposed use would not create a burden for
public service providers.
No substantial public
service impacts.
'Appendix F provides the traffic generation rates for the proposed synagogue based on the
Microtrans traffic model. The model shows that 24 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) would be
generated for a synagogue with 50 family members. This number is very similar to approximately
20 ADT that would be generated from the existing two single family lots on which the synagogue
would be located
K:IReports12006IPC Reports101-23-06ICUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).doc
(c.) The Planning Commission shall certify:
Compliance with the specific rules governing
individual conditional uses; and
Finding: There are no specific rules governing this individual conditional use
request.
(2.) That satisfactory provisions and arrangements have
been made concerning the following, where
applicable:
(a.) Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference
to automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow andcontrol and
access in case of fire or catastrophe;
Finding: Access from Rockwood Trail to the subject property currently exists.
An additional curb cut and driveway is proposed near the eastern
edge of the property with the improvements to create a grass parking
area. As discussed in Table 1, this curb cut has adequate site distance
and would provide a second means of safe egress. Due to the crest of a
hill located near the existing westernmost curb cut, staff recommends
limiting this curb cut to an entrance and a right -out only access point.
Off-site street improvements are not required for this proposal.
Money in lieu of sidewalk improvements is recommended by the
Sidewalk Coordinator for this property and will be assessed along the
project's frontage in the amount of $3 per square foot.
(b.) .Off-street parking and loading areas where
required, with particular attention to ingress
and egress, economic, noise, glare, or odor
effects of the special exception on adjoining
properties and properties generally in the
district;
Finding: A parking lot is required for the proposed temple uses. As described
in Table 1, the applicant proposes to construct a parking area with a
grass -paver surface to accommodate between 16-20 vehicles, in
additionto the approximately 5 parking spaces that are available in
the large front driveway. The total parking that would be provided is
in compliance with City ordinance. See Table 1 for detail. The
applicant proposes an extensive landscape plan based on Fay Jones'
original concept, and would effectively screen the parking area in
compliance with ordinance. Staff is in support of the landscaping
K: IReportr120061PC Reporrsl01-23-06ICUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).doc
concept; however, a full landscape plan shall be submitted for review
and approval as part of the building permit review, with plant species
subject to approval of the City's Urban Forester.
Any. parking lot lights that may be installed in the future shall meet
the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. A lighting plan
and details shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the
building permit review. In addition, in order to ensure that light
fixtures are compatible with the surrounding residential
neighborhood, light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by
Planning Staff as part of the Lighting Plan to determine that the
fixtures are of a compatible architectural and lighting style with the
neighborhood.
(c.) Refuse and service areas, with particular
reference to ingress and egress, and off-
street parking and loading,
Finding: It is anticipated that the existing residential curbside trash service
would be adequate for the proposed temple use, and is not proposed
to be modified witlfthe improvements to the site. -
(d.) Utilities, with reference to locations,
availability, and compatibility;
Finding: Utilities are currently extended to this property.
(e.)
Screening and buffering with reference to
type, dimensions, and character;
Finding: As part of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a Landscape
and Abbreviated Tree Preservation Plan to the Planning Division for
approval pursuant to City Ordinance and in addition to any other
plans deemed necessary. Adequate vegetative screening shall be
provided between this use and adjacent residential zoning districts as
required by ordinance or as deemed appropriate by the City Planning
Division. The site is screened by a dense tree and brush canopy on the
north, east, and west, with the frontage on Rockwood Trail un -
landscaped. The landscaping concept proposed by the applicant
would include extensive plantings and extension of a decorative wall
along the street frontage, further screening and enhancing the site.
(f)
Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting
with reference to glare, traffic safety,
economic effect, and compatibility and
harmony with properties in the district;
K:IReports11006IPC Repons101-13-061CUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).doc
0
•
Finding: Signage within the RSF-4 zoning district is limited. In order to ensure
that the proposed temple use is compatible with the neighborhood,
staff recommends further limiting signage onsite to the following: (a)
only one on-site wall sign on the existing structure not to exceed 16
square feet; (b) two on-site directional signs for the curb cuts on the
site not to exceed a maximum of 4 square feet per sign; and (c) one
additional informational sign with the temple namenot exceeding 4
square feet to be allowed on the front decorative wall or mailbox arca.
Staff recommends wall signs and information signage be constructed
of bronze or other materials compatible with the existing structure.
(g.)
Required setbacks and other open space; and
Finding: Any new development or additions to the structure shall meet open
space requirements and required building setbacks for the RSF-4
zoning district.
(h.) General compatibility with adjacent
properties and other property in the district.
Finding: Staff finds the proposed use for a temple is compatible with the
adjacent residential uses. All the details for the temple use seem
positive and do not seem to represent a high degree of incompatibility
with residential neighborhoods, especially due to the use of an existing
home, without expansion, for the temple. The parking area would be
almost completely located below grade from the street, out of view,
and substantial landscaping would be added along the Rockwood
Trail frontage. The gatherings/meetings proposed seem to, be small
and unobtrusive, unlike the high-volume downtown church use that
would certainly be incompatible with this neighborhood. Staff has
received positive comments from neighbors, as well as those that have
voiced their concerns and opposition. Based on these findings and
those detailed in Table 1 provided earlier in this report, staff fords
that granting the conditional use permit will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of General Plan and zoning regulations,
and will not be injurious to the neighborhood.
K:IRepons120061PC Repor is101-23-061CUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalomjdoc
Fayetteville Unified Development Code
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.
(I) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 8
Single-family dwelling
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 9
Cultural and redreati rial-faeilities
Unit 9'
Two-family dwellings
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
Lot area minimum
8,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
(D)Bulk and area regulations.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front -
Single-family
dwellings
Tyro -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.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front -
Side
Rear
25 ft.
8 ft.
20 ft.
(F) Height. None.
(G)Building area. On any lot the area
occupied by all buildings shall not
exceed 40% of the total area of such
lot.
(Codc 1991, §160.031; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98;
Ord. No. 4178.8-31-99)
K:IReports120061PC Reports101-23-061CUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom).doc
•
APPENDIX A
MAPS OF THE PROJECT AREA
APPENDIX A-1 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER PARCEL MAP
APPENDIX A-2 REGIONAL MAP
APPENDIX A-3 VICINITY MAP
191-000
*-000
765-14141-000
Chalfant
Charles 11 & Debra J
765-04552-000
'0
• v• s0
•
765-04535-000
p0 1 \\ Chalfant ..
-000 Chalfant (%J. 0 ChHarles 8r'Debra''9
Charles H & Debrjj
i-000
o 0
1- f Cr)
•-000 tet -
1
-000
Chalfant
— —-t--fherles41-&-DebraJ
•
-000-----
568-000. 65-08569-000
J Hb*vatd D 8 NaorhiliT
L. _
765-0856
000
da56"_0076508564-004
E RE8ECCA-'ST
I �
Oo0 I
2
(-‘413-
z: {
(51
Chalfant '.3(-3 Q
Charles H &Debra J \
•
j '-465-04534_000 I
r
:' i
765-04533-000
I tte
i a
r F-
i -- —�
04537-
ayeiteviHe
765-14147-000
Baled9e ,
Les R & Myriam (Goffin)
61011,11.
765-14152-000
00
1
i
765-04532-000
-r- '�-�---�
765-1414000 765-06430-003
.Isbn h
Don4Id ROIIeY l i E 1i
Kathleen Kay TTkE
•
1---- --{
*5-06431-000
765-14149-000
Wilson
Donald Roller TTEE
Kathleen Kay TTEE 765-06432-O00
f HnHNOR rstr `-
"k. P-1
_ i;:::
si
au...2�i..r:
L2i. RSF+r P -+al• BASF
:cx�_-ice,
02'_ R3<J`L 'CT _y
iiO,..
t C-2
-:REO rST.__
"t 4
RSFH
4 1 r 1
•
RSF-
FksFa RSF14 RSf4 _,.
Overview
Legend
Subject Property
CUPo6-1892
Boundary
Planning Area
43000 0)
0
,o0 Overlay District
I Outside City
Legend
0 0.120.25 0.5 0.75
1M
iles
FLOODWAY — 500 YEAR
100 YEAR --- UMIT OF STUDY •
— — - Baseline Profile
O Fayetteville
Outside Gly
6UPo6-1892
n.S^Y; vector.GDB.FoolpdM2004
•
APPENDIX B
•
PROJECT DESCRIPTION BY THE APPLICANT
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
•
APPENDIX C
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT
•
APPENDIX C-1 COMMENT SUMMARY TABLE BY LAST NAME
APPENDIX C-2 WRITTEN COMMENT BY LAST NAME
(UPDATED 01-25-06)
•
•
Pagel of
Temple Shalom
Conditional Use Permit 06-1892
Written Public Comment By Last Name
(Updated 01-25-06)
No 4
%u'i ;i Nadie
.... r''
trAtldiess '
Gomment SummaryF
vw�sxWsti+we.'_Y;
_fiist;ra
?Number
r,aS stx`".f,e_?tStreee4
s�$3+�'"`, -:��`'t,
1
Ahrendsen
Bruce and Jolene
1802 -
Applebury Place
Opposed to the project for the following adverse impacts
that would result: residential safety, residential character,
neighborhood future.
2
Anderson
Emmie and Ron
NA
NA
Love Mt. Sequoyah the way it is and oppose having a
church in the middle of the neighborhood.
3
Baledge
Les and Mina
NA
Adjacent neighbors
Object
to rezoning. Additional traffic, property value
reduction, 21 space parking lot. Other areas more
appropriate.
4
Bashor
Lorraine
848
Rockwood Trail
Object to the project: potential for growth, connection over.
Mt. Sequoyah, traffic safety and road condition.
5
Barron
Max and
505
Sequoyah Drive
Concerns to consider traffic safety, character of
Margaret
neighborhood.
6
Beard
Lorna
717
Rockwood Trail
Any non-residential use on ML Sequoyah will destroy the
beauty and livability of the area. Would prefer all non-
residential development banned from the neighborhood.
7
Beardsley
Tony
NA
NA
Opposed to the project Not compatible in neighborhood
-
(parking, lighting, traffic). The parking lot may expand in
the future. Wish to keep the neighborhood strictly
residential.
8
Beckers
Michael
608
Sequoyah Drive
Opposed to allow any other use than current uses at the
site. The proposed permitlrezening would set precedence
for other ventures.
9
Benton
Robert
1353
Rockwood Trail
Strongly opposed. Additional traffic, unsafe, eyesore,
neighborhood compatibility.
10
Blair
Jim
NA
NA
Object to the proposed 'spot rezone. The church will grow
overburden the existing roads and disturb the existing
peaceful neighborhood.
11
Brill
Katherine
1708
Anson Street
Always wondered why the subject lot was un -landscaped.
Would be delighted to have temple in neighborhood.
Much thought and consideration has been put into the
plans to improve the lot and be cogniiant of the concerns
of the neighborhood.
12
Chalfant
Chuck
1010
Rockwood Trail
Opposed to the project as it would grow, and there are
other more appropriate locations. This would set a
precedent that anyone can set up a church anywhere.
13
Chalfant
Debbie
1010 .
Rockwood Trail
Object to the project: traffic concerns, bad precedent for
this neighborhood, adverse impact to property values.
14
Condren
Sue and Terry
1585
Anson Street
Object to the project. Unacceptable use of residential
property. 21 space parking lot and playground.
15
Cox
Mr. and Mrs.
545
Crest Drive
Opposed to the project Adverse impacts to character of .
Boyd D.
neighborhood, traffic safety, would ruin the neighborhood.
16
Culberson
Patti Stiles
1008
Trust
Opposed to using the Butterfly House for any use other
than residential dwelling. Concerned issues include:
quality of life, traffic safely and -congestion. overflow
parking.
17
Dickard
Paul and Ethan
1197
Rockwood Trail
Concerned with extra traffic and traffic safety, potential for
expansion of the church.
18
Dicus
Cathy
1500
Clark Street
Opposed to the project. Adverse traffic/safety impacts.
Other options for this church. Possibility of another
'
organization purchasing the property after the fact.
19
Dykman
Dana
1822
Rockwood Trail
Opposed to the project: additional traffic and traffic safety,
not compatible in this neighborhood, parking lot is not
compatible in a single-family lot, potential light pollution.
20
Dykman
Torn
1822
Rockwood Trail
Significantnegative impact to neighborhood. Lighted,
congested, parking lot result in adverse visual impacts:
traffic congestion, danger to vehicles and pedestrians:
significant upside for growth of the temple.
Page 2 of 3
Temple Shalom
Conditional Use Perm t O6-1892
Written Public Comment By Last Nam(
vim-
0:
4,. + ""--Nadie' " 3:
' 'aB �+'aSAddressA'TJg �o
`*"
�� �,7Summaiy
-z
4.astt #Yi'.�:.First
fig's
y ,.Numtiei
°-5.. x z s
21
Eastin
Terry
858
Jackson Drive
Opposed to Ole project traffic and traffic safety, parking lot
would not be large enough.
22
� Echols
John
1022
Trust Street
Opposed to the project for traffic safety, and on -street
parking.
23
Etges
Elizabeth and
Lauren
701
Kenilworth Avenue
Opposed to the project: traffic safety, wildlife crossings,
light pollution, precedent for future decisions.
24
Farber
Pomfret Farber
3470
Nottingham Place
Property owner of 1009 Rockwood Trail. In support of this
project.
25
Farrell
D
NA
Neighbors just off Rockwood
Concemed with the proposed parking lot.
26
Freeman
Travis and Krisli
718
Crest Drive
Do not oppose the project. Do not believe the temple will
change the integrity of the neighborhood.
27
Greeson
James
1339
Rockwood Trail
No objection to the project.
28
Greeson
Janet
1339
Rockwood Trail
Only concern is additional lighting. and possible measures
to prevent light from shining into neighboring houses.
29
Hicks
Jean
1873
Choctaw Court
Not a good idea to have a church in a neighborhood.
30
Laughlin
.
Martha
1001
Rebecca Street
Opposed to the project because of traffic safety, aesthetic
concerns, and encroachment of non-residential uses into
the neighborhood.
31
Lusby
Lonnie
607
Sequoyah Drive
.
Opposed to the project. Traffic concerns, wish to keep
neighborhood the way it is.
32
McClinton
David and
Imelda
NA
NA
Opposed to the project. Traffic safety, and this would
encourage the Barbers.
33
Miller
Kathy
NA
NA
Not appropriate in.a residential neighborhood - opposed to
the project.
34
Neel
Eleanor
835
Crest Drive :
Proposed project is inappropriate and detrimental to
neighborhood. Not sure that Hillel, the University Group
will not use the site. Traffic safety, adverse aesthetic
impacts.
35
Ozment
John
804
Crest Drive
Adverse noise, Tight, privacy, property value, and traffic
impacts. Opposed to the project.
36
Ozment
Vicky
804
Crest Drive
Opposed to the project. Adverse impacts to community
character from traffic, parking lot, playground. No
guarantee of future use of the residence by change of
leadership or needs.
37
Ponder and Roth
Sherry and Paul.
614
Sequoyah Drive
Object to rezoning. Additional traffic, light pollution, power
outages, property value. In objection of this project
38
Prassel
Ann
1613
Rockwood Trail
Opposed to the project. There was a gathering at the
Butterfly House" on January 22 and traffic was
noticeabley increased.
39
Ratliff
Sam, Kim, Annie,
and Peter
941
Crest Drive
Opposed to project. Not appropriate in a residential
neighborhood.
40
Rogers
Margaret
922
Rockwood Trail
Concem about the project because of neighborhood
compatibility, traffic issues, and property value devaluation
41
Ruth
Brad
805
Crest Drive
Strongly opposed to the requested conditional use permit.
42
Rye
9.
Linda
1657
Anson Street
traffic
Opposed to having a business/commercial/church in the
neighborhood. Adverse community character impacts.
Other appropriate areas in the city for this use. Adverse
impacts.
43
Saitta
Michael 609
Crest Drive
Opposed to the project. The project is unnecessary,
unsafe, and unwanted by the neighbors.
44
Shipley
Curtis and Jane 1132
Ridgeway Drive
Adverse impact to community character and traffic.
Opposed to parking lot in a side yard and lighting.
45
Sowder
Victoria
NA
NA
church,
Opposed to the project: size of congregation, growth of the
close ties to UA Jewish student organization.
Page 3 of 3
Temple Shalom
Conditional Use Permit 06-1892
Written Public Comment By Last Name
(Updated Ot-25-061
Nb F-
* i.Namre-- 7. ';
tF, 'p .,
,Address` 'YT"t x^+'
cs ".Comment"Summa
F +asp,
� ,""..xIc.
st aE'-`:+:,^`,
fait tela
'x".hlumtieii4
.$ ;ib`i i Stree(f ` i
°F �
46
Spencer
Steven
562
Sequoyah Drive
,e'�'
Opposed to the project. Plenty of other available space.
Bad precedent for future projects.
47
Tolleson
Gail
671
Sequoyah Drive
Pro ect will 'brighten' the area Feel they will be excellent
neighbors.
48
Tolleson
John
671
Sequoyah Drive
Pro ect will enhance the neighborhood. In support of this
project.
49
Underwood
Bill
1088
Shadowridge
Location for a temple is wrong: traffic safety, parking
spaces would not have enough room onsite.
50
Urban
Charles and
Priscilla
1885
Rockwood Trail
In strong support of the project. Increase real estate
values, add interest and spiritual depth, be well-maintained
and increase the aesthetic appeal.
51
Volkamer
Janis
807
Rockwood Trail
Project would destroy the beauty of living in Mt. Sequoyah
with a sign out front and fighting and parking lot.
52
Vorsanger
-
Fred
NA
NA
Written comment not provided, but stopped by Planning
Office to voice concerns. Objections to the project are
conceming traffic and condition of the road.
53
Webb
Jennifer
1832
Viewpoint Drive
In support of the project for the following reasons: diversity
in Fayetteville, will be a good neighborhood with
predictable values and habits, total load of people is
minimal and holidays the group would go offsite, traffic
would be minimal, adverse visual impacts would not occur,
historic value of the structure.
54
Welch
Michelle
707
Crest Drive
Opposed to the project. Increase traffic, parking problems,
pedestrian safety, parking lot, extra lighting.
55
Williamson
Malcolm and
Carolyn
834
Jackson Drive
Welcome the Temple Shalom to the neighborhood.
Anticipate them being good neighbors and a positive
addition to the neighborhood. Issues to be aware of:
Rockwood Trail is a hazardous road, all lights should be
downward -focused
56
Wimberly
Sharon
1106
Ridgeway Drive
Opposed to the project
inadequate street condition
safety; church growth;
character.
for the following reasons:
and traffic and pedestrian
integrity of the home; community
56
Zimmerman
Stacey
NA
NA
Originally was in support of the project, but based on
neighbor's concerns is now in opposition of the project.
Conditional Use Permit ' ' P 06-1892) for "Butterfly House"
From: Bruce Ahrendsen <ahrendse@yahoo.com>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <jpate@cijayetteville.ar.us>,
<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ciiayetteville.ar.us>, <tconklin@ci fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/23/06 4:32PM
Subject: Conditional Use Permit (CUP 06-1892) for "Butterfly House"
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Re: Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit (CUP
06-1892) for "Butterfly House" on Rockwood Trail to be
heard by City Planning Commission at their regular
meeting on Monday, January 23, 2006; 5:30 PM; Room
219; submitted by Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas.
Thank you for taking into my comment on the change in
use of the "Butterfly House". In short, our position
is against the change in use. The following are three
reasons for this position.
Residential Safety
The "Butterfly House" is located at Rockwood Trail,
where it does not have curbs, has no shoulders, is at
the top of a hill, intersects with another street, and
has an unexpected "jog" in the narrow street. All of
which which makes it a particularly dangerous place.
The "jog" is where the street goes from being a
straight street to having an abrupt veer to the left
followed by an abrupt veer to the right before
returning to being straight: The top of the hill means
that oncoming traffic is obstructed from view. On a
personal note, my mother died as a result of a two -car
accident on a road with similar characteristics as
those.
As with many places in Fayetteville, this property may
have parking problems if the change in use is approved
and when membership grows. There would be the
temptation by members to park in the street which has
occured for other places in Fayetteville. Again, this
would make for a dangerous, unsafe area.
Residential Character
My wife and our two children reside at 1802 N.
Applebury Place, which has been our home/residence for
15 years 1 specifically use the words "reside" and
"residence" to accentuate the point that we live in a
residential neighborhood, where the area is zoned as
such. If we had wanted our family to be in a
non-residential area, we would have bought a home near
non-residential property. Homes in our area were
designed and are for residential use.
•
•
and Monreal - Conditional Use Permit"'UP 06-1892) for "Butterfl House"
Neighborhood Future
Any changes in use of property will open the door for
other petitioners to argue for changes in use in the
future.
Also, while the petitioners for the change in
conditional use to the "Butterfly House" may indicate
that they are small in number and that any growth in
numbers would call for a change in location, we are
concerned that there will be a temptation to expand
capacity by adding on to the house, building another
structure(s) on the property, and/or acquiring
additional nearby property.
Bruce & Jolene Ahrendsen
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Cindy Monreal — butterfly house•
EMit,-
INTO sif`flWarge3.
From: James Culberson <culbersons@sbcglobal.net>
To: cindy <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/23/06 10:34AM
Subject: butterfly house
Dear Commission,
Please understand that we love Mt Sequoyah just the way it is. We oppose having a church in the
middle of our neighborhood. You have an obligation to represent the citizens, and our voices. We are
taxpayers, and we want to protect our lovely neighborhood. We really don't ask for much, just to be left
alone.
Thank you!
Emmie and Ron Anderson
Page 1'k
Planning - Butterfly House Rezoning
•
From: "L Baledge" <Ibaledge@cox.net>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <Igambill@ci.fayetteville ar us>
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: Butterfly House Rezoning
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
Jan Gambill, Senior Planning Clerk
Dear Mr. Pate and Ms. Gambill:
We have received notice of the potential rezoning of the Butterfly House for use by Temple Shalom as a
church. Our house is adjacent to this property.
We object to this potential rezoning. Our neighborhood consists exclusively of single family residences
and is healthy. We don't want the additional traffic a church would bring (Rockwood Trail is already busy)
or the reduction of value from a "mixed use" neighborhood. Mina and I certainly don't want a 21 car
parking lot across the street from our home.
There are plenty of other locations in Fayetteville which are correctly zoned and appropriate for this type of
use.
Please recommend rejection of this request. Please forward our comments to members of the Planning
Commission and let us know if this matter will come before the Commission for public comment and vote.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Les & Mina Baledge
CC: "Yasmina" <yasmina2@cox.net>
•
•
•
•
Rockwood Trail
Fayetteville,Arkansas 72701
January II 2006
Re: Temple Shalom on Rockwood
to Whom it may concern,
I -have lived on Rockwood since 1972 between Jackson and Woodlawn the
steepest part of the Trail. I object to Temple Shalom locating on this street
fdfthefollowing reasons.
Once the congregation buys a large building and property of their own,
people from around Northwest Arkansas will join them. No one can predict
tffe traffic increase in five years given how fast the population is growing.
We on Rockwood have twice fought cutting Rockwood through to 265
which would completely alter the residential nature of Sequoia. Temple
Shalom would push for an exit in that directiion for their people from the
north. Their voice would be greater than the neighbors. Exiting Rockwood
onto Mission puts people where there is no way to go West,North or South
without.using narrow overcrowded roads already.
1 came within 5 minutes of losing my life recently as I turned off Mission
and up Rockwood. As I entered my drive a huge tree mulching rig came
down Rockwood brakeless and crossed over to the left just before Mission
Running onto the last property it plowed down a big tree and hit a cement
retaining wall around the house to avoid crashing into traffic. The rider
you may recall, jumped and lost his life. That is just the latest of many
dose calls we have had on this no -shoulder road where the grade is as
steep as North but with no level block at the bottom in which to slow down.
1 have never -known a church which did not hope to expand and offer more
programs once they invested in a larger plant. I don't believe we would 1
recognize this property 25 years from now. Just look at any in - town ' church for proof of this—Central Methodists,University Baptist, United
Presbytenans;"t Josephs,etc.
Finally,members will need four wheel dnves to make it to church on snow
days and may have to park on Mission and walk up Even if we widen
Mission and get a light it is still not wise city planning
Mrs. Phil Bashor
RECEIVED
JAN 17 2006
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
PLANNING fNMCinto
•
Cindy Monreal - y Jones "Butterfly Hc. --e" Page 1
•
From: <Hogknight@aol.com>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, ypate@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<tgambill@ci.fayetteviille.ar.us>,<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15/06 5:20PM
Subject: Fay Jones "Butterfly House"
We would like to express our concerns about the proposal for conditional use
of the property at 1100 Rockwood Trail, commonly known as the "Butterfly
House".
1. Safety. Rockwood Trail is a narrow street with no sidewalks on rolling
terrain with numerous blind spots and intersections. It is a heavily traveled
street, and many of the vehicles exceed the posted 25 mph speed limit. Entering
or exiting the property from the only access, Rockwood Trail, is hazardous.
If conditional use is approved, and the current relatively small
congregation grows, it will only make the problem worse.
•
2. Changes in the character of the neighborhood. Ours is a residential
neighborhood. Approving conditional use will mean changes such as a parking lot,
security lights, and signage on the property. This would change the character
of our residential neighborhood. We would prefer our neighborhood to remain
residential.
We request that our e-mail be placed in the site packets of the Planning
Commissioners prior to their visit to the site. Please take our concerns into
consideration as you make your decision. Thank you.
Max & Margaret Barron
• 505 N. Sequoyah Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 521-5839
•
CC: <nanwilli@cox-internet.com>, <vsowder@beta-rubicon.com>, <gsfreund@uark.edu>
Page 1 of 1
Andrew Garner - Butterfly House
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Lorna Beard" <lornabeard@hotmaiLcom>
<cmonreal@ci. fayettevi I le.ar. us>
1/16/2006 11:16 AM
Butterfly House
<agamer@ci. fayettevi l le. ar.us>
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband and I have lived in our home at 717 Rockwood Trail since the summer of 1979. We value
highly the atmosphere of Mt. Sequoyah with it's abundance of trees, lack of fences, resident wildlife and
residential -only status. We fear, therefore, that allowing ANY non-residential inroads will slowly
destroy the beauty and liveability of the area in which we live.
Yesterday, I met and talked to several people from Temple Shalom at the Butterfly House. They
showed me a drawing of how they would keep their parking area out of sight of the street by numerous
plantings between it and the street, as well as the surface they are planning to install being more "green"
than concrete. I have to admit that I felt a bit better about their congregation relocating to the Butterfly
House after seeing their plans. I am also aware that they have a very small congregation that is unlikely
to grow much over the years However, with all that said, I still would prefer all non-residential
development banned from the Mt. Sequoyah neighborhood.
Best Regards,
Loma Beard
lomabeard@hotmaiLcom
479-582-3708
file://C:\Documents and Settings\agamer\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.11TM 1/17/2006
Andrew Garner - Conditional Use Permi"CUP 06-1892) Page 1
From: Tony Beardsley <tbeardsll@yahoo.com>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 9:21 PM
Subject: Conditional Use Permit (CUP 06-1892)
This email is in reference to CUP 06-1892 to Temple Shalom to turn 1100 Rockwood trail into a Temple
for their congregation.
I would like to state my opposition to the granting of the requested permit for the following reasons:
1) The construction of a parking lot in a residential neighborhood.
2) The additional traffic at the intersection of Rockwood and Mission after events at the
temple as well as the potential for congestion in front of the "Butterfly House".
3) The additional lighting that will be required for the parking lot.
4) The additional needs for parking that will effect the surrounding streets during large events
at the Temple.
5) The potential need for addition to the parking lot as the Temple congregation grows.
I am opposed to any variance that would allow the use of a residential structure for anything except for
it's original design. As a resident of Mount Sequoia I wish to keep the neighborhood restricted to
residential use.
Thank you,
Tony Beardsley
Yahoo!
Photos
Ring in
the New Year with Photo Calendars.
Add photos,
events,
holidays, whatever.
Planning
- RE: Butterfly house on Rockv-'od Trai:rezoning/ conditional use
permit/ us" other then R
Page 1
From: "Michael Beckers" <michaelb@airwaysfreight.com>
To: <PLANNING@CI.FAYETTEVILLE.AR.US>,<JGAMBILL@CI.FAYETTEVILLE.AR.US>
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: Butterfly house on Rockwood Trai:rezoning/ conditional use permit/ use other then
R
Dear Ms. Gambill, Dear Mr. Pate
I recently moved to the below address from a Chicago'Bedroom'community/
suburb very similar to Fayetteville; with lots of religious worship
places .
All of them were close but NOT within our residential neighborhoods
Traffic around them was always a nightmare and safety a major concern -
as worshippers often would rush to get there on time.(and that in a
neighborhood where all streets had sidewalks and were much wider then
Rockwood trail.
I also believe that allowing such a permit/rezoning would set precedence
for other similar ventures;
Consequently please note that I am opposed to allow any other use then
the current (single family home) one.
Thank you kindly for your consideration
With kind Regards
Michael J.Beckers
608 N Sequoyah (4 houses from the Butterfly House)
t Andrew Gagne P Fwd: CUP 06-1892 �� ��� -- ��Q'"
Page 1
From: Cindy Monreal
To: Andrew Garner
Date: 1117/06 9:11 AM
Subject: Fwd: CUP 06-1892
FYI
>>> <RSBENTON@aol.com> 01/13/06 4:58 PM >>>
i am strongly opposed to allowing cup 06-1892. my name is robert benton, my
address is 1353 rockwood. the additional traffic will be unsafe. the parking
lot, signage and lighting will be an eyesore. there are no other churches on
our street please help protect the neighboehood and defeat cup 06-1892. thank
you.
From: "Nancy Beth Williams" <nwilliams@tcainternet.com>
To: <PLANNING@CI.FAYETTEVILLEAR.US>,<JGAMBILL@CI.FAYETTEVILLE.AR.US>
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2006 10:44 AM
Subject: BUTTERFLY HOUSE REZONING
DEAR MR. PATE AND MS GAMBILL
I WANT TO ADD MY OBJECTION TO THE ATTEMPT TO "SPOT REZONE" THE
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD OF ROCKWOOD TRAIL TO ALLOW THE FAY JONES HOUSE
TO BECOME A CHURCH OR TEMPLE.
IT MAY BE THAT THIS PARTICULAR CONGREGATION IS SMALL AND EVEN AT SPECIAL
EVENTS SUCH AS BAR OR BAT MITZIVAH'S WILL NOT HAVE CROWDS EXCEED 100
PEOPLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. I DO NOT DOUBT IT WILL GROW AND PROSPER. I
HOPE IT DOES AND WISH IT WELL BUT UNQUESTIONABLY IT WILL OVERBURDEN A
NARROW AND OVERTRAVELED STREET IN A STRICTLY SINGLE RESIDENCE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY LOCATIONS IN FAYETTEVILLE IN MIXED USE
NEIGHBORHOODS OR COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
TEMPLE FOR THIS FINE CONGREGATION WOULD NOT DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES,
CAUSE TRAFFIC DISRUPTION AND DESTROY THE PEACE AND QUIET OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS FOUGHT SO MANY BATTLES OVER THE YEARS TO REMAIN
PEACEFULLY QUIET.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
SINCERELY,
JIM BLAIR
NANCY BETH BLAIR
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
PH: 479-756-2545
FAX: 479-756-2546
CELL: 479-200-4151
E-MAIL ADDRESS:<mailto:NWILLIAMS@TCAINTERNET.COM>
From: Katherine Brill <katherinebrill@yahoo.corn>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/17/06 9:34PM
Subject: Butterfly House
I have lived at 1708 Anson for 21 years. I always wondered why that huge lot was left so "unlandscaped."
I would be delighted to have the temple located in our neighborhood. Like schools, houses of worship add
warmth and vitality to the local community. It seems to me that much thought and consideration has been
put into plans for the home to keep its integrity, improve the lot and be cognizant of the concerns of the
locale and neighbors.
Katherine Brill
Yahoo! Photos — Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
Photo Books. You design it and we'll bind it!
From: "Chuck Chalfant" ccchalfant@spacephotonjcscorn>
To: "Andrew Garner" <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, "Cindy Monreal"
<cm o n re a l @ci. fa ye tte vi l l e. a r. u s>
Date: 1/16/06 3:05PM
Subject: Against Church at 1100 Rockwood Trail
Mr. Andrew Garner
@ Ms. Cindy Monreal
Senior Planner
Fayetteville Arkansas Planning Commission
113West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Mr. Garner and Ms. Monreal,
This letter states my objection to establishing a church in the "Butterfly House" at 1100 Rockwood Trail.
One of the arguments for this establishment is "they will not grow" since they "are not a Christian Church".
They indeed will grow as new residents arrive of their denomination, since it is the only one in Fayetteville.
Establishing a church in a purely residential area would seta precedent that anyone can set up a church
anywhere, in anyone's home, with signs and parking lots.
There exist ample locations in Fayetteville for this. A very nice church could be built from the ground up for
the price they would be paying for the house.
I will be out of town on Jan. 23rd when the planning commission allows public input. I therefore wanted to
file this letter with the planning commission stating that I and many others are totally opposed to the
converting a residential home into a church at any location in Fayetteville.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Chuck Chalfant
1010 Rockwood
a.
From: deb cpurpledogl2@swbellnet>
To: <agarner@ci.fayettevilleatus>, <cmonreal@ci.(ayettevlle.ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 3:58PM
Subject: Butterfly House
I want to state my objection to the Butterfly House becoming a church. My husband and myself are
building a house next door at 1010 Rockwood Dr. We believed that we were building in a residential area
and not a mixed use area. As you may know, Rockwood is a narrow road and I am concerned about the
traffic. There will be too many vehicles coming and going from one address. The Butterfly house was
never meant to be a church or business and I believe that it would be very bad to start a precedent for this
group. What would be next? Another church.... small business that employs only 10 people? I do believe
that in time this group will grown, it should, as the town grows....then what? I do believe that having the
Faye Jones house turned into Temple will hurt the property values in the area. One of the greatest
investments that people make is in their home. Again, I want to object to allowing Temple/church/business
in a residential area.
Sincerely,
Debbie Chalfant
1010 Rockwood Dr.
Andrew Garner - Temple Shaloam cond' nna1 use permit Pagel
From: "Sue Condren" <scondren@sbcglobal.net>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1112106 9:24AM
Subject: Temple Shaloam conditional use permit
Mr. Gamer,
Attached is a letter regarding CUP 06-1892, Temple Shaloam's request for a
conditional use permit for the "Butterfly House" on Rockwood Trail, Mt.
Sequoyah. We would like it to be distributed to the planning commission, to
be included in their site packet.
Thank so much,
Sue Condren
Terry Condren
CC:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
f
r
Date: January 12, 2006
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Terry and Sue Condren
1585 B Anson St
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: CUP 06-1892 Conditional Use Permit for the Butterfly House on Rockwood Trail, Mt.
Sequoyah
Dear Sirs:
On January 23rd, you will be voting whether to grant a conditional use permit to Temple Shaloam
for a synagogue to be located in the Fay Jones "Butterfly House" on Rockwood Trail. Both my
husband and I are opposed to the conditional use for this residential property in our
neighborhood.
From attending an informational meeting arranged by Temple Shaloam at Root School, and from
reading correspondence sent to immediate neighbors, these are some of the issues as we
understand them:
- They will construct a 21 space parking lot on the adjacent lot.
- The garage will be turned into classrooms.
- The interior will be reconfigured to include a library and an office.
- The sliding glass doors will be replaced with push -bar emergency exit doors.
- A small sign will be installed on the front wall of the house.
- A children's playground area will be installed on the adjacent lot.
We understand that the criterion the planning commission uses for approving a conditional use
permit is, "Do the neighbors want this?" Our answer, and that of many Mt. Sequoyah residents
we have talked with is, "No, we do not!" We feel it is an unacceptable use of this residential
property.
The middle of an established neighborhood is not the place for a business with a 21 space parking
lot and playground. The neighborhood churches that we are familiar with either were constructed
first, and the neighborhood grew up around them, or they are located on thoroughfare streets, on
the edge of the neighborhoods they serve, for example, churches on Mission Blvd, Township,
Lafayette, and Crossover Rd.
It is not appropriate to allow this in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Rather, the location
would be better served on a thoroughfare street, in areas where a church -type business, with
parking lot and playground facilities, would fit in, and where the proper zoning is already in
place.
Thank you for your time, and for your work on this important committee.
Sincerely,
Sue Condren
Terry Condren
i
From: <DrPamCox@aol.com>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/19/06 9:38AM
Subject: CUP 06-1892
We are ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to this permit. This is and has always been a
residential neighborhood and this temple would drastically change the character
and integrity of the neighborhood. Rockwood Trail is already a dangerous street
with hills creating blind spots all around this house. The additional
traffic would be DISASTROUS - there would undoubtedly be numerous serious accidents
involving not only members of the Temple but area residents as well. I am
sure that no members of your committee want to be responsible in any way for any
such incidents. This decision could ruin a lovely old neighborhood, so we
STRONGLY urge you NOT to grant this permit.
Mr. and Mrs. Boyd D. Cox
545 Crest Drive
k¶ Cindy Monreal - butterfly house h u e kY Page 1
From: James Culberson <culbersons@sbcglobal.net>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/23/06 10:12AM
Subject: butterfly house
Dear Cindy and commission,
Thank you for hearing us. Thank God for freedom. I am opposed to the use of the butterfly house for
any use other than residential dwelling. If we let this one slip in, it only opens the door to others, and that
is not acceptable for our neighborhood. We love and respect this mountain as our home, and seem to be
fighting to maintain a good quality of life because we feel that it is an important thing. We have lived on
Sequoyah Dr.previously, and now on E Trusttjust off Sequoyah). We understand why people cut through
Sequoyah Dr to get to Mission. A left turn at the bottom of Rockwood is very difficult, and they can hit the
4 -way stop at Maple this way. Although it is understandable, it is already a problem with cars speeding
while pets, kids, and walkers are everywhere. The street is narrow, and with the addition of at least 3700
car trips per year, times 2, this would defintely effect us, not to mention inevitable overflow parking on
Sequoyah Dr. We have 2 teenagers
driving now, and I hate to think how much harder it would be for all of us to pull out onto Sequoyah Dr.
with more traffic.
I think it is inappropriate for the leaders of the Jewish community to ask us to compromise our own
well-being and safety for their enhancement purposes. Please listen to the voices of the people effected
by this, not the city planner who lives elsewhere!
Sincerely,
Patti Stiles Culberson
1008 E Trust
From: Paul Dickard <pauldickard@coxnet>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 8:49PM
Subject: Conditional Use Permit (Cup 06-1982) To Temple Shalom
> We are writing about the granting of a conditional use permit
> (CUP06-1892) to Temple Shalom to turn the Faye Jones "Butterfly
> House" at 1100 Rockwood Trail into a Synagogue complete with a 21-
> space parking lot. Although this may seem like a good idea, and we
> respect their right to freedom of religion and assembly, we believe
> that most citizens in this neighborhood do not feel this is an
> appropriate place for a church and parking lot.
> As residents of 1197 Rockwood Trail, and having lived across
> from the proposed location for eight years, the extra traffic that
> the Temple would bring to the area presents a major concern for the
> safety of those traveling on Rockwood Trail. This, combined with
> the hidden drives, narrow roads and blind hills, could lead to an
> increased frequency of accidents along the roadway.
> Furthermore, having personally visited the "Butterfly House",
> as you will do as well, brings me to question how quickly a 50+
> member church would find it necessary to expand in order to
> accommodate growth, destroying more of the wooded area around the
> neighborhood and amplifying the problems stated above.
> While no person could ask for more prudent neighbors than a
> church, what disturbs us and we feel many members of our
> neighborhood is the sheer volume of people that would be coming
> through our quiet corner of Northwest Arkansas.
Sincerely,
Paul Dickard
Ethan Dickard
.. •,. . �aeru_�xac� .x-.Jvr a�xs-a-m- _
Cindy Monreal - Butterfly House CUP Page 1
From: <cmd1953@aol.com>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15/06 5:19PM
Subject: Butterfly House CUP
I write in opposition of the Conditional Use Permit for the Fay Jones "Butterfly House" on Rockwood Trail.
I live on Clark Street at the top of Rockwood Trail. Rockwood Trail is a busy residential street already in
desperate need of curb and gutters and re -surfacing. It is heavily traveled by those of who live in the
neighborhood and is extremely dangerous when winter weather arrives. Fayetteville is home to many
commercial properties. Therefore, this organization has other options for purchase. Why does the
integrity of our neighborhood have to be changed to a place for regular public meetings? What would stop
another organization from trying to buy property on our street and turn it into a public meeting place?
Would any other residential neighborhood welcome a public meeting place on their streets? Our
neighborhood has worked long and hard to keep Rockwood Trail from becoming a cut -through street to
Hwy. 265 in order to maintain the integrity of Mount Sequoyah. Please help us keep this a residential
street.
Please consider all the concerns of the neighborhood as there is much opposition to this CUP. Thank
you.
Cathy Dicus
1500 E. Clark Street
Fayetteville, AR
479-521-2616
From: .Tom and Dana Dykman <ozarkhigh@sbcglobal.net>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 10:38PM
Subject: CUP 06-1892 1100 Rockwood Trail
Dear members of the Planning commission
I presently reside at 1822 Rockwood Trail and have been at that address for the past 12 years and I am
opposed to the proposed conditional use permit at 1100 Rockwood Trail
(CUP 06-1892). Here are my reasons:
1.) Adding additional traffic for regularly scheduled public meetings will intensify an existing safety issue
in the neighborhood. Rockwood Trail barely handles the present traffic in the neighborhood and the road
is already dangerous due to the grade, the absence of shoulders, and the number of hidden driveways_
2.) A meeting spaceLwith capabilities of housing 100 plus people several times a year would be a great
insult to the integrity of this long time neighborhood. These numbers are accurate only for the present .
Undoubtedly, the number of people utilizing the Temple will increase as the community grows. The
present AND future downside risk to the neighborhood 's safety and well being are just too great.
3.) The installation of a parking lot into a parcel zoned to be a single family dwelling is absolutely not
compatible with our neighborhood and most especially Rockwood Trail. Also, the illumination of a
parking lot as well as the glare of headlights exiting the parking lot would be particularly annoying to the
houses across the street .
Please take these issues into consideration as you evaluate this property and I hope you will deny this
permit.
Sincerely,
Dana Dykman
Wind Monreal - CUP 06-1892 Page 1
From: Tom and Dana Dykman <ozarkhigh@sbcglobal.net>
To: <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/11/06 10:38PM
Subject: CUP 06-1892
January 11, 2006
Ms. Cindy Monreal
Secretary
City of Fayetteville Planning Commission
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Regarding: Rezoning permit (CUP 06-1892) for Butterfly House on Rockwood Trail
'Dear Ms. Monreal:
I have lived at 1822 Rockwood Trail since 1993. I understand the Shalom Temple has applied for
rezoning of the Butterfly House for use as a temple. I attended their informal neighborhood meeting last
Fall so I am aware of the circumstances that have prompted their request.
I believe the use of this property for a temple will have a significant negative impact on our neighborhood.
The applicants for this permit propose constructing a parking area with grass pavers to accommodate up
to 20 cars. I suspect that a permanent temple to allow informal social and formal organized meetings will
need this amount of parking. I also understand the parking lot would have to be lighted. As I and my
neighbors drive up and down Rockwood Trail, I am certain this parking lot congestion will be a visual insult
to the neighborhood atmosphere that has so long characterized Rockwood Trail. The lighting will make it
offensive at night as well.
This is only part of the problem. The exit of these cars from the lot will significantly impact the traffic on
Rockwood Trail. I need not remind you that -Rockwood Trail has been singled out on numerous occasions
in the past as a poor road for any additional traffic due to hidden driveways, no sidewalks and steep grade.
Furthermore the bottom of Rockwood Trail is a "T" intersection with one of the busiest roads in that area
of Fayetteville, Mission Blvd. It takes some time for even one car to exit off Rockwood onto Mission at
certain times of the day. Fortunately the current neighborhood traffic seldom accounts for more than 3 or
4 cars waiting to get out at Rockwood and Mission. If the temple is allowed to rezone the Butterfly House,
there may be up to 20 cars waiting to exit at the bottom of Rockwood Trail. This would impose very
unreasonable waiting time at certain times of the day and night for those desiring an exit from Rockwood
Trail.
This traffic will also place the neighbors who walk on Rockwood at additional risk for injury since there
are no sidewalks. I drive carefully on Rockwood and cannot tell you the number of times I have come
over a hill or down a slope only to be suddenly surprised by a pedestrian walking on the road. The
members of the temple who have any ideas about walking to their temple on Rockwood will be at similar
risk as the current residents of the Rockwood area.
I was told this temple would be quiet and not have a lot
of meetings.
Our area is growing
as quickly as
any area in the country. All religious organizations have
the potential to grow and the track
record of other
religious organizations in NWA has been growth. There
is no need to
allow any entity with
growth
potential to land in our quiet neighborhood. The downside risk for our
neighborhood is simply
too great.
Additional structures will need to be added now including signage. Over time, the temple may need to
accommodate growth by adding additional lighting, signage, building structures, playgrounds and more
parking. It would be silly to assume this situation would not be dynamic over time. I really don't want to _
drive by the house every day and wonder what the next change will be. Even if these additions did require
reevaluation of the conditional use permit. I really don't think the neighbors should be subjected to coming
back to the commission every time the permit requires review. Our neighborhood deserves more stability
than the temple would bring to our area.
tam asking you to deny the conditional use permit CUP 06-1892 for the Butterfly House. Don't allow any
entity with a significant upside for growth to disturb our quiet neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Tom Dykman
1822 Rockwood Trail
Cina Monreal - opposed to rezoning on Rockwood Page 1
From: Terry Eastin <teastin@lynks.com>
To:<Cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15/06 11:17PM
Subject: opposed to rezoning on Rockwood
Dear Ms. Monreal
As a homeowner on Jackson Drive, located just off of Rockwood Trail,
I am writing to indicate my opposition to rezoning the Faye Jones
Butterfly House to accommodate a synagogue with 21 parking spaces.
Rockwood Trail is inappropriate for handling the current traffic load
to various housing developments. The addition of a synagogue at this
location will serve to increase traffic. Twenty-one parking spaces
will accommodate approximately 60-70 church members. Should the
church grow, or should there be events or special occasions, parking
may not be accommodated with those 21 spaces. There is absolutely no
safe streetside or additional parking areas in this location.
Please forward this letter to planning commission members on behalf
of the Eastin Family, 858 N. Jackson, Fayetteville, AR, 72701.
Best regards,
Terry Eastin
Homeowner
Planning - Prop ed conditional use per'
for
butterfly
house
Page 1
From: John Echols <john-echols@sbcglobal.net>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2006 9:23 PM
Subject: Proposed conditional use permit for butterfly house
Ladies and Gentlemen
We write
to protest
the proposal to permit the conditional
use of the Butterfly House at the intersection of
Rockwood
Trail and
Sequoyah Drive as a Synagogue.
We bought our house two years ago, when the neighborhood was 100% single family residences. We
expected it would remain that way. We hope it will.
Rockwood Trail is a narrow, busy street with no shoulders. Sequoyah Drive intersects Rockwood just
short of the crest of a hill. We shudder every time we turn left off Sequoyah onto Rockwood, fearing what
we can't see coming over the hill. We understand the parking lot for the Synagogue would be located just
on the other side of the crest of the hill, which will cause a problem coming from the other direction.
Rockwood Trail is ill-equipped to handle existing traffic without adding the Synagogue traffic. We feel it
would make a dangerous situation even more so.
Overflow parking would have to go to the street. There is no other place. Any on -street parking on
Rockwood would create the additional hazard of one way traffic with little warning. We observed this
happening once this week when a TV news cameraman was at the house and people started parking on
the street.
We ask that you consider these factors and respectfully request that the conditional use permit be
denied.
Sincerely,
Sharon & John Echols
1022 E. Trust Street Oust off Sequyah Drive)
John Echols
1022 E. Trust St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479)582-1436
From: "Katherine C. Etges" <williametges@cox.net> --
To: <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville_ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 5:03PM
Subject: Objection to Temple Shalom use permit
Katherine C. Etges
williametges@cox.net
Dear Committee Members:
As the owner (The Katherine Etges Trust, Elizabeth S. Etges Trustee),
and occupant (Lauren Etges) of a nearby home, 701 N. Kenilworth
Ave., one block off Rockwood Trail, we vehemently object to your
granting a conditional use permit for 1100 Rockwood Trail. The
objections are as follows:
I. Traffic conditions on Rockwood Trail are already dangerous due to
the grade, blind spots, and heavy use by residents accessing Mission
Blvd.
2. Wildlife crossings, including groups of deer, are frequent and
present an additional serious danger to drivers and deer alike as it is.
3. The potential light pollution from a lighted, proposed parking lot
would be a travesty in this neighborhood; note there are presently
few streetlights intentionally for night sky viewing.
4. Most importantly, since when is a neighborhood of the size and age
of Mt. Sequoyah suddenly subject to zoning changes? We realize that
Methodist Assembly is at the top; however, historically, it preceded
the majority of the current -day neighborhood. If this conditional
permit is allowed a precedence will be set for commercial daycare
"homes," and numerous other industries that will compromise the
integrity of this residential area.
Please consider voting against the requested conditional use permit!
Sincerely,
Elizabeth S. Etges, TTEE
Lauren Etges
479-444-0849
iu 1T trill IITF-t4L41
From: <Margiefarb@aol.com>
To:<jgambill@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/3/06 10.16AM
Subject: Temple Shalom Site
I own the 1009 Rockwood Trail property, nearby the proposed 1100 Rockwood
Trail site that is of interest to Temple Shalom. I am very supportive of the
synagogue at that location. I have communicated to the siynagogue, and they
asked that I ensure that the city of Fayetteville knows of my support. If
there are any further questions, let me know.
Margie Pomfret Farber
my mailing address 3470 Nottingham Place, Fayetteville 72703
CC: <jratner@uark.edu>, <erext@sbcglobal.net>
neighbors just off �,,)ckw€ q
From: <KAROLYNK@aol.com>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/12106 9:18AM
Subject: from neighbors just off Rockwood
We are concerned re the parking lot for the "former butterfly" house.
DFarrell
�C, indy Monreal - conditional use permit' '1100.Rockwood Trail Page
From: Travis Freeman <travisfreeman@sbcglobal.net>
To: <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/18/06 8:24PM
Subject: conditional use permit for 1100 Rockwood Trail
Just a note to let you know that we do not oppose the conditional use for the property located at 1100
Rockwood Trail. We do not believe that the temple will change the integrity of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Travis and Kristi Freeman
718 Crest Dr.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
From: James Greeson <jgreeson@uark.edu>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/13/06 9:13PM
Subject: Temple Shalom conditional permit
Hello;
This year I moved to 1339 Rockwood Trail, just east of the so-called "Butterfly House" which is being
discussed by the planning commission soon with regard to being approved as a new home for Temple
Shalom. I am simply writing to say that I have no objection to Temple Shalom being located on Rockwood
Trail and I wish them well.
Sincerely,
James Greeson
1339 E. Rockwood Trail
Fayetteville, AR 72701
442-3872
From: Janet Greeson <jangree@swbell.net>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 10:46AM
Subject: Butterflyhouse/Temple Shalom
Dear Commissioner Garner,
My husband James and I live at 1339 E. Rockwood trail. I understand you are visiting the Butterfly
House at 1100 Rockwood Trail prior to the planning commission voting on a conditional use permit for the
house being used as Temple Shalom.
The only concern I have is will additional lighting be installed in the parking lot? If so, can measures be
taken to prevent the lights from shining into neighboring houses?
Thank you,
Janet Greeson
From: <pinto87@juno.com>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayettevilie.ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 7:37PM
Subject: Church
I don't think that it is a good idea to have a church in a
neighborhood ......
Thank You,Jean Hicks
1873 N. Choctaw Ct.
Fayetteville,Ark
NP
From: <malaughlin5@aol.com>
Ta:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/23/06 8:31 AM
Subject: Proposed Jewish Synagogue
My family lives at 1001 E Rebecca Street. I am very concerned about the proposed Jewish Synagogue on
Rockwood Trail. The intersection of Sequoyah and Rockwood is already a dangerous intersection. When
you are turning off of Sequoyah onto Rockwood, it is difficult to see traffic coming from the east on
Rockwood. Also, the two lane road has a steep incline, and the added traffic of a business will add to the
crowded conditions of the road.
Besides creating a dangerous condition on Rockwood Trail, I also do not like the prospect of a parking lot
at the house. The neighborhood has great beauty, and I do not want to look at a parking lot every day as I
leave my house. The lot will not be in keeping with the other houses in the area.
Allowing a business to establish on the top of Mount Sequoyah is not a good precedent. I do not want to
see the city allow a church to set themselves right in the middle of an established residential
neighborhood. This opens the door to more traffic, increased encroachment of business into the residetial
area and the destruction of the natural beauty of the mountain.
I respectfully request that the planning commission vote to not allow the synagogue to use the Butterfly
Home at 1100 Rockwood Trail for their meeting place.
Martha Laughlin
1001 E Rebecca Street
Fayetteville Arkansas
From: Lonnie Lusby <lonnielusby@yahoo.com>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15106 5:19PM
Subject: My Opposition to 'Temple Shalom"
Mr.Garner,
I am fundamentally opposed to the plan to turn the "Butterfly House" into anything other than a residence.
Littler narrow Sequoyah Drive already has too much traffic now due to area growth and with the addition of
a worship center there would be a constant traffic flow on a little pavement which was constructed
decades ago and not meant for the volume. We want our peaceful little neighborhood the way it is. You
wouldn't want a monumental increase in traffic in your neighborhood. Please take our views into
consideration.
Regards,
Lonnie E. Lusby
607 N. Sequoyah Dr.
Fayetteville, Ar.
Yahoo! Photos — Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
Photo Books. You design it and we'll bind it!
From: <Imelmac@aol.com>
To: <jpate@ci-fayetteville.ai-us>
Date: 1/22/06 11:23PM
Subject: the Butterfly House
We just want to express our opposition to the Conditional Use Permit that is
being sought by Temple Shalom. Rockwood Trail is a narrow road that doesn't
need additional traffic, plus this would only encourage the Barbers. We are
all for Temple Shalom but hope they find a more suitable location.
David and Imelda McClinton
From: "Chip and Kathy Miller" <chipandkathymiller@cox.het>
To:<agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<cC monreal@ci.fayettevil l e.ar.us>
Date: 1/21/06 11:54AM
Subject: Synagogoe
To whom it may concern,
I just wanted to voice my concern about the proposed synagogoe on Rockwood Trail. I do not believe it is
appropriate to have a church in a residential neighbor such as that and if this does occur, what is to
prevent it from happening in any neighbor. As a resident of Fayetteville, I just wanted to voice my opinion.
Thank You.
Kathy Miller
From: e neel <e151d53@yahoocorn>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15/06 10:34PM
January 15, 2006
To Cindy Monreal, Secretary
We have lived at 835 Crest Drive since 1978
and are extremely alarmed and concerned that the city
is considering changing the character of our
residential neighborhood by allowing a public building
on Rockwood Trail. We believe this change is totally
inappropriate and entirely detrimental.
Although we were told by Temple Shalom
representatives that Hillel ( the University Group
associated with the Temple ) would likely not be using
the facility, we have no guarantee whatsoever this
would not be the case.
Frankly , we do not see how the Planning
Commission can in good conscience approve this drastic
change.
In addition, the potential for multitude of
accidents is evident by installing the parking lot
being planned. Our living room and dining room and
bedroom decks will all be overlooking this parking lot
with its lighting installations.
I urge you most strongly to reconsider this
change to our neighborhood and deny the request to
allow a public facility at this location on Rockwood
Trail.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eleanor S. Neel
UO You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
CC: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
John Ozment
804 N. Crest Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72701
January 12, 2006
Fayetteville Planning Commission
Town Hall
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Sirs:
I.wish to express my concerns regarding Temple Shaloam's application for a "Conditional Use"
permit to convert the Fay Jones "Butterfly House" on Rockwood Trail into a temple for their
congregation (CUP 06-1892). I have lived at 804 Crest Drive (on the corner of Rockwood Trail
and Crest) for approximately 20 years and feel I have a right to appeal to you. I have attended
two of the congregation's neighborhood meetings, and I am fully aware of their proposal.
I feel that that any use of this property for something other than residential use will have a
negative impact on our area. There are many concerns with respect to the affect on the ambiance
of the neighborhood, which will undoubtedly affect property values. Fortunately, I am not one
of the area residents who will have the noise and lights right in their back yard, or who will lose
the privacy they so highly value. Still, I am certain that the many changes it will bring will have
a negative impact on the highly valued atmosphere associated with the Rockwood Trail area.
My primary concern, however, is with the additional traffic that will be generated on Rockwood
Trail. The intersection of Rockwood Trail and Mission is already in serious need of a traffic
light that is not likely to be installed any time in the near future since there is already a light at
North.Street and a four-way stop at Maple. Granting this permit will increase the level of traffic
significantly. Provisions are to be made for 21 parking spaces. They estimate the actual use of
the lot to be far short of that based on an average of 4 people per car, but that estimate is
unrealistic. Studies show that the average occupancy of automobiles in urban areas is
approximately 1.3 passengers per car. Even in extremely large urban areas where serious traffic
problems exist, many cities require only 3 persons per vehicle to qualify for the multiple
occupancy vehicle (or Diamond) lanes. It is more realistic to assume that the parking lot will not
only be full at times, but that there will be times when people park along streets in the
neighborhood as they attend the various functions at the temple.
Adding unnecessary traffic to this street is, I my opinion, a serious mistake. The area still has
many undeveloped lots where residential homes eventually will be constructed. There is in fact
one being constructed next door to the Butterfly House right now. As Fayetteville continues to
grow, this area and the areas further out that generate traffic on Mission will continue to congest
these streets which are ill equipped to handle our current levels of traffic.
January 12, 2006
Fayetteville Planning Commission
Page 2
I realize that the temple will not add an excessive amount to the total level of traffic, but with
continued growth and increased traffic, it seems unreasonable to allow any unnecessary increase
in traffic. It is enough to have to deal with residential traffic as part of a neighborhood, but it is
quite another to compound it by permitting the establishment of a public facility.
As you consider the effects of the use of this property for something other than a residence,
please consider not only the affect on the ambience of our neighborhood, but consider also the
negative affect on our mobility and the problems that will bring.
Sincerely,
John Ozment
804 Crest Drive
From: Cindy Monreal
To: Andrew Garner
Date: 1/17/06 9:12AM
Subject: Fwd: Conditional Use CUP 06-1892
FYI
Cindy Monreal
Senior Planning Secretary
City of Fayetteville
PH: 479.575.8268
email: cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
>>> Vicky Ozment <vozment@yahoo.com> 01/13/06 7:34 PM >>>
To: The Fayetteville Planning Commissioners
This letter is regarding the conditional use permit (CUP 06-1892) being requested to change the
residence at 1100 Rockwood Trail to Temple Shalom.
I have lived at 804 N. Crest (NE Corner of Rockwood Trail and Crest) for 20 years. I have attended the
informational meetings involving this permit, and I appreciate the plans for historic preservation of the
residence and the attempt to conceal/beautify the adjacent lot by the petitioners. The fact remains that it
will be a 21 space parking lot with lighting (discreet as it may be) in an otherwise residential neighborhood.
I understand the feeling of tranquility and serenity they talk about when in the house. We all feel that in
our homes here on Mt. Sequoyah somewhat due to the fact that it is for single family use without the
additional traffic, parking lot, and playground a public meeting place includes.
I understand their intentions for immediate use are limited to the small size of their current congregation,
but they cannot predict the growth of the congregation nor guarantee the future use of the residence by
change of leadership or needs.
They estimate the yearly total of car trips for the current congregational needs to be about 100 more than
a single family dwelling. However, the 10 daily car trips of an individual family are interspersed throughout
the day and blend into the flow of neighborhood traffic. Dispersing 15-20 cars at once onto Rockwood
Trail on a regular basis puts a hardship on the neighborhood and with any greater use in the future the
problem is compounded.
I feel that allowing this permit will negatively impact the existing neighborhood - that is, those of us within
eyesight as well as those who use Rockwood Trail as a means to and from their homes, and the rest of
our community who enjoy this area for walking and jogging.
Please vote "no" on this conditional use permit.
Thank You,
Vicky Ozment
----------------------
Yahoo! Photos
Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.
Planning -Rezoning of 1100 Rockwooc' ' !utt�erfly House" Pa e 1
a
From: "Paul Roth" <profcr@sbcglobal.net>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2006 3:42 PM
Subject: Rezoning of 1100 Rockwood "Butterfly House"
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning & Jan Gambill, Senior Planning
Clerk
Dear Mr. Pate and Ms. Gambill;
This past week we received a letter in the mail informing us of the
intentions of Temple Shalom to purchase the Butterfly House and through
rezoning, use it as a synagogue. Following the letter, we received a post
card giving us the time of a Sunday afternoon meeting at the property.
Approximately 20 neighbors attended the meeting. We are one house away from
this property.
It is with much thought and deliberation that we object to this rezoning
request. This is a neighborhood consisting solely of single-family
residences. As you know, this neighborhood is a closely -knit group of
Fayettevillians who feel strongly about our neighborhood of Mt. Sequoyah. We
have rallied together before about matters affecting Mt. Sequoyah. The
matter of additional traffic is not a new topic to the neighborhood. Many
neighbors would have the sights, sounds and smells of a parking lot outside
their back door. This is not to mention the added light pollution caused by
lighting a 21 -car parking lot in our neighborhood. Another consideration
would be the effect of a growing congregation on the existing utilities.
Would water, sewer and electricity be negatively affected? This neighborhood
knows all too well about power outages.
By giving a zoning variance for a "mixed use" in the neighborhood, this
would adversely cause a reduction in property value for the whole
neighborhood.
Throughout Fayetteville there are many locations already zoned appropriately
for this type of use.
We request that you recommend rejection of this request. Please let us know
if and when this matter will come before the Commission for public comment
and Commission voting. Also, please forward our comments to the Planning
Commission as a whole for their review.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and our concerns.
Sincerely,
Sherry Ponder & Paul Roth
614 N. Sequoyah Dr.
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1971
479.442.4784
CC:<jgambill@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <jbatch72@ipa.net>
Andrew Garner - Butterfly House (CUP!' -1892) Page 1
From: "Ann Prassel" <aprassel@earthlink.net>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,<tconklin@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/23106 11:14AM
Subject: Butterfly House (CUP 06-1892)
Dear Planning Commission Members and Planning Office Staff;
Yesterday, Sunday, Jan. 22 during the early afternoon., there was a
gathering at the "Butterfly House" on Rockwood Trail. Many, many cars were
parked in the driveway and on the vacant lot next door. Traffic on
Rockwood was noticeably increased and travel less safe as a stream of cars
came and went. All this additional activity convinced me that I OPPOSE
the granting of conditional use permit CUP -06-1982 to Temple Shalom.
Thank you,
Ann Prassel
1613 Rockwood Trail
Fayetteville
521-0997
From: <KCRatliff@aol.com> --
To: <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/16/06 12:00PM
Subject: 1100 Rockwood Trail
Good day -
I am writing on behalf of my family and myself in regard to the proposal
for a conditional use permit for 1100 Rockwood Trail. We reside at 941 N.
Crest Dr., Fayetteville, AR.
We believe that if this conditional use permit were granted it would ch
ange the complexity
and integrity of our neighborhood. It would no longer be the residential
neighborhood we so enjoy. This is a residential neighborhood - not a place for
public meetings to take place.
Please do not grant this request. Surely with all of the locations
available in Fayetteville there is a better and more suitable location for Temple
Shalom - a place where a conditional use permit is not an issue.
Thank you for your attention to this most important matter.
Respectfully,
Sam, Kim, Annie, and Peter Ratliff
From: Margaret Rogers <jim.coml2@juno.com>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/21/06 3:40PM
Subject: to Andrew Garner -Butterfly house
Dear Planning Commission,
would like to add my concerns about the "Butterfly House" becoming a
temple. I hope this does not happen. Rockwood is a residential'
neighborhood and I hope it stays that way. My concerns are added traffic
and I feel this permit will lower the value of my property.
Respectfully, Margaret Rogers.
922 Rockwood Tr
Fayetteville Ar. 72701
. -. .1L
From: Brad Ruth" <brad.ruth@cox.net>
To:<agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<planning@dfayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/18/06 5:31 PM
Subject: Butterfly house: CPU 06-1892
Andrew and Cindy -
1 live at 805 N. Crest Drive, the adjoining lot due east of the Butterfly
house. I see it (and the proposed parking area) from every room in my house
- living room, office, master bedroom, bathrooms - and all outdoor living
spaces, decks and back yard.
I am STRONGLY opposed to granting a conditional use permit (CPU 06-1892) to
Temple Shalom and ask that you deny the request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brad Ruth
805 N. Crest Drive
443-9469
From: Linda Rye <Irye@sbcglobal.net>
To: <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15106 5:19PM
Subject: CUP 06-1892
Cindy -
Please pass this on to the Planning Commission who will be touring the "Butterfly House" at 1100
Rockwood Trail on Tuesday, January 17th.
I am against having a business/commercial/church entity in our neighborhood. We have worked hard to
keep Rockwood Trail from becoming an east/west passage through Fayetteville because the Mount
Sequoyah neighborhood is a residential area of unique houses and enviornment. The Butterfly House is
part of the heritage of architectural houses in the area. Turning that home into a church with parking lot
and signage will alter this community to our disadvantage. There are many areas in Fayetteville that are
zoned for churches and businesses. This is not one of them. In addition, traffic backing up at the•
Rockwood Trail/Mission intersection would be hazardous. Please do not grant the conditional use permit
to Temple Shalom.
Linda Rye
1657 Anson
Fayetteville 72701
Cind Monreal CUP 06-192 (Temle o Page 11
From: Mike Saitta <msaittal@cox.net>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/23/06 12:17PM
Subject: CUP 06-1892 (Temple Shalom)
Ms. Monreal,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed conditional use
permit at 1100 Rockwood Trail. I live less than 1/4 mile from the
property in question and have done so for almost ten years.
This project, as described, is unnecessary, unsafe and unwanted by the
neighbors; in addition, the assumptions about future growth are not
credible. Unnecessary because there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of
properties in the two -county area suitable for such an activity that
are not located in a residential neighborhood and would not require any
variance at all. Have each of these properties been examined and found
lacking? Granting of a variance from the existing zoning requires
exceptional circumstances and a demonstration that no other suitable
solution exists. This proposal meets neither of these criteria.
Unsafe because the proposed location is an already dangerous stretch of
Rockwood, where traffic routinely travels at 2-3 times the posted speed
limits despite several blind curves and vertical drops. This block also
becomes essentially a one lane road during the spring and summer with
the overgrowth of brush along the side of the street. This particular
house is perhaps the worst possible choice in all of Fayetteville
purely from the safety standpoint. Additional traffic, particularly
with people unfamiliar with the area, coupled with frequent cars
turning in and out of the property, will create dangerous conditions
for everyone. Four-way stop signs at the intersections surrounding the
property, along with sidewalks connecting Sequoyah and Crest might help
to alleviate this to some degree. If the commission chooses to approve
this CUP, it should be contingent on these improvements being completed
at the Temple's expense prior to occupancy.
Unwanted by the neighbors because of the traffic, noise, light
pollution and horrible precedent outlined by other opponents. Please
also remember that hundreds of families have purchased or improved
homes on Mount Sequoyah secure that the zoning laws would protect them
from this type of intrusion into their neighborhood. Who is going to
reimburse them for the loss of property value that will accompany this
permit? What is to stop the next enterprise from purchasing a lot in a
100% residential neighborhood and moving in? The president of the
Temple has been quoted as saying they won't come if there is
significant neighborhood opposition. Let's help them live up to this
promise.
Even if we somehow can ignore all of these concerns and justify a
variance for the current temple size, the property and the neighborhood
have no margin to accommodate any additional growth by the temple,
either in mission or population. I would predict that before long, we
will be back before the commission on the slippery slope of additional
parking, additional lighting, additional buildings, all of which will
seem like small incremental changes, but collectively serving to erode
the neighborhood we live in.
I encourage you to put a stop to this now.
Thank you,
Michael Saitta
609 Crest Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CC: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
From: Jane Shipley <janebshipley@sbcglobal.net>
To:<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/13/06 4:06PM
Subject: Rockwood Trail
To the Planning Commission
As neighbors of the "Butterfly House" at 1100 Rockwood Trail, we are concerned about the proposed
conditional use permit' to Temple Shalom. We feel it will change the nature of the neighborhood in a
negative way. Traffic is already a problem on this narrow and steep street. Additional traffic will make it
dangerous for those of us who use this route regularly. We are opposed to turning a side yard into a
parking lot. We are also concerned about proposed lighting on this property.
As neighbors, we do not want this.
Curtis and Jane Shipley
1132 E. Ridgeway Drive
Fayetteville
From: "Victoria Sowder" <vsowder@beta-rubicon.com>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <jpate@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<jgambill@ci_fayetteviille.ar.us>,<cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <agamer@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<tconkl i n@ci.fayetteville. a r. u s>
Date: 1/20/06 9:40AM
Subject: Opposition to CUP for "Butterfly House"
GlacierGood morning,
I would
like to add my opposition to the
Conditional Use Permit requested
by
Temple
Shalom for the Butterfly House
on Rockwood Trail.
My position is summarized below in bold red type and is copied directly from
an email that I sent yesterday to my neighbor Joel Freund, who is an officer
with Temple Shalom and who is one of their spokesmen. I also copied our
neighborhood email list on my email from which the following comments are
copied.
"..... It appears to me, just based on what I have heard from several
immediate Butterfly House neighbors and the feedback on the neighborhood
grapevine, that it's going to be a tough sell. As for me as an individual,
you recall when this was first discussed last summer, my initial reaction
was that I felt that I personally would be comfortable with a small
congregation like Temple Shalom being in the Butterfly House: As time has
passed and as I have done more research and reading and have educated myself
more, I really don't feel now that I personally can support the plan. My
change of heart occurred not without personal angst and for essentially the
following reasons: because the congregation actually has more family units
than I had initially thought; because it is unlikely that the congregation's
membership would remain static, particularly if housed in this neighborhood
in this facility, because of the close ties with the UA Jewish student
organization and the difficult -to -separate functions and needs shared by the
student group and the Temple's congregation as a unit; and because I feel
that the very nature of the Butterfly House's cachet in and of itself would
bring about increased usage (unanticipated at this time) in our neighborhood
that we all treasure and work to protect and preserve......"
Thank you.
Victoria Sowder
Victoria Sowder
Administrative Manager
Beta -Rubicon, Inc.
21 W. Mountain, Suite 123
Fayetteville AR 72701-6064
Phone: 479.444.8118
Fax: 479.444.0089
www.beta-rubicon.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are
confidential, legally privileged, and intended only for the person or entity
addressed above. If you are not the above -addressed and intended recipient,
From: <sspencer98@cox.net>
To: <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15/06 10:00PM
Subject: "Butterfly House"
Dear Planning Commission,
I live at 562 N.
Sequoyah
Dr. six houses
down from the "Butterfly House."
I am opposed to turning this
residence into
a Temple.
Nobody in this
neighborhood wants this.
Why do we need this? There are plenty of empty buildings in Fayetteville that are available. It makes as
much since to turn this house into a church as it does to turn my house into a liquor store.
If you grant this conditional use permit then it makes it harder to deny other conditional use permits in this
neighborhood.
You still need to change the zoning for Lindseys junk yard between Maple and Lafayette.
Sincerely,
Steven F. Spencer, MD
From: Gail C Tolleson <gtolleson@sbcglobal.net>
To: <jgambill@ci-fayetteville.ar-us>
Date: 1/1/06 1:27PM
Subject: Butterfly House
I live at 671 North Sequoyah and look forward to the arrival of Temple Shalom as my new neighbor. I
believe that their plans will do much to.'brighten" the area and I am confident that they will be excellent
neighbors. Gail Tolleson
_
Andrew Garner - Temple Shalom _ m.. Page 1
From: John Tolleson <jtolleson@sbcglobal:net>
To: <jratner@aol.com>
Date: 1/1/06 4:38PM
Subject: Temple Shalom
Mr. Ratner,
My wife, Gail, has already written you expressing her support for your plan to purchase the Butterfly
House and make it your synagogue. Although I have not seen her message, I know she speaks for both
of us. We welcome you, and believe your presence will only enhance this neighborhood we love so much.
I attended the meeting at Root School a few months ago and expressed my support at that event. The
quiet character of the neighborhood is wonderful, and I do not envision that changing. Your landscaping
plan looks good to me.
By the way, we live at 671 North Sequoyah Drive, which is near Rockwood Trail.
John Tolleson
CC:<jgambill@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Page 1 of!
I have long admired the Fay Jones Butterfly House and recall that it had just been finished when Fay was
designing the Underwood Bldg. He took me there to show me elements of design he intended to incorporate.
It is one of the most beautiful and unique buildings in N.W. Arkansas, and I'm sure it would make a beautiful
Temple. But the location is wrong.
I have
travelled Rockwood
Trail past the Butterly House
for the past
37 years on the way to work....
through all
of the
seaons and through
all types of weather. Here is
what I have
observed:
1. That intersection is a blind intersection from both east and west because it is on the top of the hill.
2. Rockwood Trail is limited in. width there with on -street parking strictly on one side, and even then be
cramped. .
3. With regard to that, the propasal for at least twenty additional spaces for on= street parking. I believe th'e
city recommends 20,-25 feet length for each car space when marked. Unmarked spaces require more. 25 feet
X 20 spaces would be 500 feet, which is almost a city block in either direction from the intersection. As the
Temple grows, that need will increase and there is no other place to go. I well remember the problems at St.
Joseph's where they parked on both sides of a much wider street.
This is the wrong location for a public building (which is the whole purpose of zoning) and I oppose it for that
reason. But I applaud the group for wanting to have a new Temple and I wish them every success in that
endeavor in an area that is zoned for it. Bill Underwood 1088 E. Shadowridge. Fayetteville
JAN 232006
ThnrcAau t n1Icnr 10 7AUI A.,....:.... /l-.1:.....
9 `ot& �. ct yt i'i zaa6
.1 fl f ./ Wow{
P( h cH CowLn,rss,,
h CcJ ??a Gl_�l 1!/1� �OkkLWCrSSldY7 ctN��. oL
ei.t joce . S h.ct !.0772 _
W\ C1 2_cc i- a.2.. es e
.a I h. t"P/tie + 5 r(.'c(
-} - -re(Q '9w L4lae w w� c�ta s h e d
a4. w o tAt _ cru UA- Che --I k.0
- k2. •OD10 :
-.. ryu.
s..
Gt1t
�. BB'S" 1eocokwocLar4c
-
z .
From:
<JanVolkamer@aol.cdm>
To:
<cmonreal@ci.fayettevilIe.ar.us>
Date:
1115106 5:52PM
Subject:
Butterfly House
Hello Cindy,
I am writing you because I am concerned about the "Butterfly House" becoming
a Temple or anything else besides a residential house.
I just moved to 807 E Rockwood Trail. I grew up on Woodlawn and lived for
years on Crest: This neighborhood is one to be proud off and one I am happy
to be back in. I cannot imagine a place with a parking lot for 20 cars, a
sign out front and special lighting for the lots.
It would destroy the wonderful beauty of living in the Mt Sequoyah area
having a re ular meet I•
g mg p ace m the middle of established residential area.
I highly oppose this.
Janis Volkamer
Andrew Garner - Butterfly HousecF m
From: Jan Gambill
To: Garner, Andrew
Date: 1/18/06 4:07PM
Subject: Butterfly House
Andrew,
Mr. Fred Vorsanger stopped by to offer his comments on the CUP for the Butterfly House. He was unable
to email them and will try to come to the meeting Monday night.
He stated that his objections to the project are strictly concerning the traffic and condiiton of the road. He
noted that even when St. Joe s was on Lafayette, there were cars parked on every street and on both
sides of the road. Although he does not live on the street where this project is proposed, he has been in
the forefront of the campaign to keep the 265 connection closed.
jg
Jan Gambill
Senior Planning Clerk
City of Fayetteville
Planning Division
125 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville AR 72701
479-575-8263
jgambill@ci.fay.ar.us
CC: Pate, Jeremy
From: Jennifer Webb <jwebb@uark.edu>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: Sun, Jan 22, 2006 7:11 PM
Subject: Support of Butterfly House Conditional Use Proposal
I am writing with regards to the Temple Shalom's intent to use the
Butterfly House as a place of worship. I SUPPORT the Temple's proposal.
While I am not a member of the Jewish Community, I am a member of this
particular neighborhood. I moved to Fayetteville 6 years ago from a very
conservative community in Oklahoma. One of the most attractive qualities
about Fayetteville has been the diversity of the people and the accepting
nature of the community. I feel very alarmed to listen to the opposition to
this proposal and the narrow perspectives voiced by those speaking out. The
Temple has presented calm, rational responses to the expressed concerns and
I find their careful consideration for the neighborhood and its inherent
characteristics to be reassuring.
I believe the Temple Shalom will be a good neighbor with predictable values
and habits. Few of us can anticipate this when a home on our own street is
sold.
I believe that a neighborhood should have places of worship as is reflected
in many of our existing neighborhoods. This conditional use offers
non-Jewish residents the opportunity to share with their children a
tolerant perspective and an understanding of more than one
religion/culture. This can help to mediate America's distrust of those that
are "different" from the American stereotype. Local media has used the term
"Jewish" in headlines and commentary in such a way as to be inflammatory. I
passionately believe that failure to support this proposal will reflect a
bigoted attitude of Fayetteville's administration, planning commission, and
an uncomfortably large number of its citizens.
I was in attendance at the Fall, 2005 meeting at Root Elementary School.
Following is my thinking on some of the objections to this conditional use
proposal:
1) Load. The Temple explained carefully the number of people that would
participate in their worship activities. The total is minimal and special
celebrations or high holy days would necessitate the rental of an
alternative venue space; this alternative venue is common within Jewish
communities. Certainly this issue is more pressing for places of worship
near the U of A campus where there is regularly extensive roadside parking
in residential areas and cause a hazard to not only cars but also cyclers.
2) Traffic. The Temple explained that they met on Friday evenings, Saturday
mornings, and on Sunday mornings. The total load at maximum would be 15
cars and this does not occur during peak travel times and should pose no
challenges to the neighborhood. Additionally, the Temple does not meet when
school is not in session thereby not impacting families or children that
may be on foot during summer and holidays. Additionally, the road itself is
not pedestrian friendly and therefore impact should be minimal.
Additionally, as with any meeting, participants tend to trickle away and a
mass exodus can not really be anticipated.
3) Business. The Temple is not a business in the truest since of the word
They will not have large trash dumpsters, delivery trucks, brightly lit
signage,, or other such aspects of a business. Their activity is respectful
and non intrusive to those around their place of worship.
4) View. The Temple plans to complete the landscape design proposed by E.
Fay Jones thereby enhancing the visual aspects of the current site. The
house has been unoccupied for a number of years and the grounds are mowed
on an irregular schedule. Proposed changes -to the drive and parking areas
include an environmentally responsive product called grass -Crete. The
Temple has secured the services of a landscape architect and one simply
cannot, with any reason, anticipate a Wal-Mart like setting.
5) Historic Value of the Structure. Historic structures are always of
debatable value. However, a commercial enterprise receives financial
incentives in the form of tax credits for renovation and use that a private
homeowner DOES NOT RECEIVE. Therefore, the Temple has a significantly
greater financial reason for maintaining and preserving the residence as
designed by E. Fay Jones than does any private homeowner. Additionally, the
federal government has allowed certain stretching of guidelines with
regards to accessibility (the Americans with Disabilities Act) for historic
structures. The Temple's use presents no significant risk to this
structure's historic value. I speak as a professional interior designer
University faculty member with expertise in this area.
I would like to reiterate that I would welcome the Temple in MY
neighborhood -- and this is my neighborhood. I believe the Temple will be a
good neighbor and will continue to contribute to Fayetteville's
attractiveness as a place to live.
Jennifer Webb
1832 Viewpoint Drive
IILIILIIS
• a .. .-. ..a •v ... .-.. •. ... ...' �..--.....uv ..
From: Michelle Welch <mdwelchl@yahoo.com>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1116106 9:41 PM
Subject: CUP 06-1892
To the City Planning Commission:
As a close neighbor to the 1100 Rockwood Trail "Butterfly House", I want to voice my opposition to
granting a conditional use permit to Temple Shalom.
A residential neighborhood should be kept a residential neighborhood.
To turn this residence into a Temple will increase traffic on Rockwood Trail, and could potentially cause
parking and safety problems for pedestrians.
I also object to the creation of a parking lot we would all have to drive past every day, and I do not want
the extra lighting that a public building would need.
Thank you for considering our neighborhood's views.
Respectfully,
Michelle Welch
707 Crest Dr.
Yahoo! Photos
Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.
From: <malcolmwilliamson@cox.nel>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/15/06 10:00PM
Dear committee members,
It has come to our attention, through a neighborhod information campaign, that
the Temple Shalom is planning to turn the "Butterfly House" at 1100 Rockwood
Trail into a temple for their congregation. As close neighbors (our house is
four houses away, just around the corner on N. Jackson Dr.), my wife and I
would like to say that we welcome the Temple Shalom to our neighborhood. We
anticipate them being good neighbors and a positive addition to the
neighborhood.
We would like to ask that the congregation and Planning Commission keep a
couple of issues in mind. First, Rockwood Trail is a hazardous road, due to the
hills in the road and a tendency for drivers to go faster than the speed limit.
For the sake of pedestrians, neighbors, and themselves, the congregation needs
to carefully consider traffic issues as they make anyparking or driveway
changes. Second, if additional exterior lighting is added for the parking lot,
etc., all lights should be of the downward -focused type, illuminating the
ground rather than all around, in consideration of immediate neighbors.
Thanks for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Malcolm & Carolyn Williamson
834 N. Jackson Dr., Fayetteville
521-8530
From: Sharon Wimberly <smwimberly@yahoo.com>
To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 1/19/06 2:58PM
Subject: CUP 06-1892, 1100 Rockwood Trail
>Dear Planning Commission Members:
>
>1 am asking you to deny approval of the proposed conditional use
_permit at
>1100 Rockwood Trail (CUP 06-1892).
>1 have resided at 1106 E. Ridgeway Dr. for over 25 years. As time has
gone
>by our neighborhood has.become very concerned with the increasing
amount of
>traffic that our streets were never designed to bear. These streets
are
>steep and narrow with poor lines of sight for residential driveways
and
>intersections. Few of these streets have curbs & gutters, and several
are
>still ditched. The pedestrian traffic, which is at a very high
volume, is
>already in harms way since there are few sidewalks in the.
neighborhood. The
>traffic, & speed of that traffic, has already increased due to the
>increasing population of the city. CUP 06-1892, if approved, will be
>creating even more traffic on a regular basis to an already strained
>vehicular & pedestrian traffic situation. Why deliberately increase
the
>traffic flow in an already overloaded and potentially dangerous
situation?
>It is my understanding that at present the congregation numbers around
85
>persons. With time and the population pattern, surely you foresee
growth
>in the size of this congregation? What are these projections? Also
as
>size increases, so does the utilization of the building. Parking, as
well,
>is a concern. When the congregation increases in size the current
proposed
>grass parking area will no longer be efficient for the situation.
Which in
>turn will result in a paved or graveled parking lot, which will not be
>cohesive with the existing residential neighborhood.
>Faye Jones, internationally renowned architect, designed this house
fora
>residence. The architectural integrity should be preserved and this
>structure should continue to be used as a residence. Fay Jones'
designs are
>created in such a manner as to bring the beauty of nature into the
>residence. By allowing a parking lot to be built on the adjoining lot
>(which is zoned for RSF4) the design integrity of Fay Jones would be
>destroyed. A large parking area (grass or pavement) would also be a
major
>eyesore to the residents and visitors of Mount Seqouyah.
> Our neighborhood has long been established as an area whose
residents
>enjoy the comforts of city living as well as the tranquility &
cohesiveness
>of a relatively small town that cares about its surroundings. If CUP
>06-1892 were approved, you would be setting a dangerous precedent for
the
>future and integrity of our neighborhood.
>Sharon Wimberly (Mrs. F. Ervan Wimberly)
Yahoo! Photos — Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
Photo Books. You design it and we'll bind it!
synagogue on Rockwood Trail
Page 1 of I
,L • • .I.I.
-+... �.� -..-v. _-.N--.ev..�...... .._.�!-.-.. a.a /v.yJ-.. l-a.V l...YA+.\rWaar\ vIM.v4i�.......-.--N�.n+._...v..n....yY�H+.. a.-...Y..�.�...M.n ✓n vT1Y.P:.YX VN
From: "Stacey Zimmerman"<SZimmerman@co.washington.ar.us>
To: <jratner@aol.com>
Date: 1/18/2006 1:51 PM
Subject: synagogue on Rockwood Trail
CC: <cmonreal@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
On January 4, 2006, I sent an e-mail to you in response to the letter you sent to me about the proposed
synagogue. In that e-mail, I voiced no objection to the proposal and stated it would be an asset to the
neighborhood. However, since my January 4, 2006 e-mail to you, I have received additional information
regarding the project. I have also received correspondence from Les and Mina Baledge. The Baledges own the
home directly across Rockwood Trail from your property. They have voiced to me their strenuous objections to
the project. In light of their objections, and most importantly, that they are the closest homeowners to the project, I
cannot support the project,
and I join in the objections raised by the Baledges. I hope you find another location for your synagogue, as I still
believe such a synagogue would be a welcome addition to Fayetteville.
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\cmonreaRLocal%20Settings\Temp\GW } 0000! .H.. 1/18/2006
APPENDIX D
MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 23, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Planning Commission
January 23. 2006
Page 32
CUP 06-1892: (TEMPLE SHALOM OF NWA, 447): Submitted by JOSEPH
RATNER for property located at 1100 ROCKWOOD TRAIL. The property is zoned
RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.50 acres.
The request is to allow a synagogue (Use Unit 4) in the existing zoning district.
Garner: This property is located at 1100 Rockwood Trail. It is the Butterfly
House, designed by Fay Jones. The site is approximately 1.5 acres and
contains a 4,100 square foot single family house, with a large driveway in
the front. The eastern portion of the property is a bare landscaped lawn
with a chain -link fence with a dog run and storage shed. The north, east
and west portions of the site are entirely shielded by thick stands of tress
and brush. The site is entirely surrounded by residential uses in RSF-4
zoning district. The applicant proposes to use the existing single family
structure as a permanent home for Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas.
This Jewish Temple was founded in 1981 and is Fayetteville's only Jewish
congregation. In order to use this house for a Jewish temple, they would
have to have some minor changes done to the outside of the home. Those
changes are noted there and listed in your Staff Report, numbers 1-7. The
applicant requests a conditional use permit because the property is zoned
RSF-4 residential single family, four units per acre, and Use Unit 4,
Cultural and Recreational Facilities are allowable only by conditional
use permit. Staff has received a large volume of public comment; and we
have a large number of people here for this item. We have had a number
of phone calls and a -mails and your Staff Report has included all the e -
mails we had received prior to publication of this Staff Report. We
continue to receive a large volume of a -mails and we also received a
signed petition this afternoon which we made copies of and passed out to
you before this meeting. The majority of the comments are opposed to the
project. There is a fair amount that is for the project and in favor it. The
main opposition to the project is that people don't feel it is compatible
with the neighborhood and the main issue has been traffic and visibility.
There are a lot of comments on lighting and what this would look like and
how it would change the character of the neighbor. Those that have
supported the projected have stated they feel that the landscaping and the
proposed improvements to the site would really improve the appearance of
the neighborhood and a neighborhood temple would be compatible with
the neighborhood. Staff has made the required findings of fact regarding
this project and Staff does find that it is compatible with the
neighborhood. Some of the main justifications for these findings include:
The description of the project which includes — it is going to use the
existing single family house. The appearance of the house and the
structure will remain as a single family dwelling unit. The gatherings and
activities that are proposed and described by the applicant for this permit
are small and appear to be unobtrusive. In general, the scale of activities —
approximately half a dozen to a dozen vehicles would be at the house for
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 33
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, usually weekend and evening -type services,
and they would have occasional social events and annual holiday services
that might have around twenty to twenty-five vehicles at the site. One of
the improvements to the site that I wanted to call out is the parking for the
site: They are proposing to use a grass -paved lot to accommodate
additional parking on the site. The driveway in front of the house, they
feel is large enough to accommodate their parking almost all of the time
and they would install grass -paved parking area to accommodate
approximately sixteen to twenty cars when they would have some of their
larger events. Some of the other issues that Staff looked at when making
the findings, were the ascetic impacts which, as mentioned, the house
would remain looking as a single family residence. The applicant would
propose a new driveway along the eastern property line and it would have
the appearance of a residential driveway. Traffic issues: Staff looked at
the traffic and the access in and out of this site and we do find that this
house is on the crest of the hill of Rockwood Trail and the entrance into
this site we feel is okay turning into the driveway. Exiting that driveway
we find there is limited sight distance and we are recommending that that
be a right -out only exit from that driveway, and the driveway on the far
eastern side is appropriate for turning movements in either direction.
There are photos in your packet and supplemental information that show
that sight distance, if you want to look at those. Those are some of the
main issues. In order to recommend approval, we did include a large
number of conditions to ensure that this is compatible with the
neighborhood. Condition #1 — Planning Commission determination of
compatibility with adjacent properties and those within the same zoning
district. That is Planning Commission's determination on whether you
find that this proposed conditional use permit is compatible. To call your
attention again — the modifications to allow a grass -paved parking area,
landscaping in extending the decorative retaining wall, shall be compatible
with the existing structure and appearance of the property as a single
family structure. Any improvements to the site would have to look like a
residential structure. Condition #2 — talks about how the description of the
project as proposed here, the type of parking, what it would look like. If
the site is substantially different than what is described in the information -
provided by the applicant, the conditional use permit may be revoked. So
that is ensuring that what we are seeing before us is tonight is what is
permitted. If at some point we get complaints or something like that, the
conditional use permit can be revoked. Condition #3 — the building permit
plan must be submitted for City review. That talks about that we will
require more detailed information on exactly what some of these
improvements will look like. They will have to go through our typical
building permit process. Condition #4 — references that any improvements
to the property are required to conform to the RSF-4 zoning requirements
and required setbacks. Condition #5 — discusses the access, driveways in
Planning Commission
January 23. 2006
Page 34
and out of the site. As mentioned, Staff recommends an exit only from the
main existing driveway entrance to make sure that traffic movements
turning in and out of this property are safe. Condition #6 — the sidewalk
requirement money in lieu of sidewalk improvements required is at a rate
of $3 per square foot for the four -foot wide sidewalk along this property.
There are no existing sidewalks in this area, so that is where the money in
lieu would be paid and be able to go toward other sidewalk improvements
in the neighborhood or area. Condition #7 — requires all lighting be
limited to pedestrian scale lighting (bollards, wall -mounted, etc.) and shall
be unobtrusive to the neighborhood. Condition #8 — requires that all trash
receptacles would be required to be internal to the site. They won't be
able to have dumpster pads or dumpsters outside the site. Condition #9 —
reiterating the appearance of the single family structure and any
improvements to the site are required to look like a residence compatible
with the neighborhood. Condition #10 — references the parking lot and
calling out specifically that it has to be grass -paved, so it won't be
pavement; it will be a grass surface that will essentially look like a lawn.
Condition #11 — the new curb cut. on the eastern side of the property is
required to have the appearance of a residential driveway, and this is
required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction.
Condition #12 — requires landscaping for the site. This is requiring trees
and shrubs. The applicant in their packet proposes to install the
landscaping plan, the original landscaping plan that Fay Jones intended for
this site. We find that that would be compatible with this neighborhood
and would be an improvement to the landscaping in the area. Condition
#13 — pertains to the signage that would be allowed on the site. There are
some minimal amounts of signs that would be allowed in the RSF-4
zoning district with this conditional use permit. Staff also recommends to
further limit that signage and call out specifically what signs would be
allowed with this permit. We are recommending a wall sign on • the
existing structure be allowed, some directional signs — two directional
signs. for the curb cuts going in to and out of the site, specifically. making
sure that the one turning movement is an exit only out of the main
driveway. One additional informational sign with the Temple name not
exceeding four square feet would be allowed on the front decorative wall
or mailbox area. As with any conditional use, the Planning Commission
must make the decision based on the findings and facts and whether you
agree or disagree with Staffs findings in your Staff Report. We will be
happy to answer any questions you have.
Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your
presentation.
Ratner: Good evening. I
am Joe Ratner,
President
of Temple
Shalom of
Northwest Arkansas.
I appreciate the
chance to
address you
this evening.
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 35
While there have been Jews in Fayetteville much longer, Temple Shalom
has been Fayetteville's only Jewish congregation since it was founded in
1981. Over the years we shared facilities of the Hillel, the Jewish Student
Association at the University of Arkansas or used rented facilities. We
have a very good long-term relationship with the Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship, but worshiping in someone else's space is very different from
having a building dedicated to your own worship of God. As we begin
our 25'h year as a part of Fayetteville, we finally have the opportunity to
have a home of our own as we have always dreamed. But not just any
home. Beyond our dreams we have an opportunity for a beautiful
landmark by Fayetteville's and Arkansas' most famous architect. I'd like
to thank the City's Planning Department for its thorough review of our
proposal and the positive recommendation. While many area residents
have expressed their support for Temple Shalom, I know there are those
who object as well. And while some may just not want a synagogue in
their neighborhood, I would like to address the neighbor's specific
concerns individually_ Just as the Planning Department did to arrive at
their conclusion that our use would be compatible with the surrounding
properties. If I heard a church wanted to locate in my neighborhood, I
would have concerns myself. Though Fayetteville is the most diverse and
tolerant city in Northwest Arkansas, as the only Jewish Congregation and
being very small, we've always had a low profile in the community, so it
is understandable, that when most residents hear about us, they picture the
Baptist, Catholic, Methodist or other Christian church that they are
familiar with. As explained in my proposal, we operate quite differently
from the typical Christian church. First, while guests are welcome, only
Jews can join the congregation. And while conversion to Judaism is
possible, it is a long and difficult process and we don't encourage or seek
out converts. Second, because traditional Jewish law prohibits handling
money on the Sabbath, we get our income from annual dues and not a
collection plate. Because of these factors, we don't use large religious
symbols, signage or advertising to recruit membership or attendance by
the public. And our future growth is.limiled to the Jewish population of
the Fayetteville area. In 1985 as the only Jewish congregation in all of
Northwest Arkansas, we had thirty-five member families. A little over a
year ago some of our families founded a new congregation in Benton
County and with most of the growth of the Jewish community having been
related to Wal-Mart and it's vendors, Bentonville's congregation has
swelled in little over one year from an initial twelve families to over forty-
five. After twenty years our current membership is still only about fifty
families, few of which could be considered young. And unfortunately
most of our children leave Arkansas as adults. We don't expect more than
one or two new Jewish families to join our Fayetteville congregation each
year, while others leave or grow less active as they age. And so
unfortunately we do not expect to outgrow the Butterfly House in the
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 36
foreseeable future. As for concerns about the VA Hillel Student
Organization, they own a building two blocks from campus, so they will
continue their events in their facility. Temple Shalom has always been in
the heart of Fayetteville, centered around the University. U of A
professors still make up a large part of our membership, so we require a
location in close proximately to the campus. We when began to look for a
building, we started from campus and worked our way outward,
investigating all the possible locations we could find. When real estate
listings were unable to provide a suitable home, I drove every street within
a two-mile radius of the University of Arkansas campus, and that was how
I came upon the Butterfly House. I was immediately struck by its beauty
and it looked like a synagogue and not a private residence. I didn't have
high hopes of a private residence providing a suitable meeting space for
our worship services, and I was pleased and surprised to find the Butterfly
House has a central space with over 700 square feet under a cathedral
ceiling and with a rear wall of glass looking out on undisturbed woods.
Like most of the people who have visited this space, I was immediately
struck by the spiritual and connected -to -nature feeling that is evoked by
Fay Jones' best work, such as the Thorncrown and Cooper. Chapels.
When we met with Gus Jones, Fay's widow, she said, "I know that Fay
would have been very pleased to have Temple Shalom rescue one of his
architectural children and give it new life and loving care." Then she
amazed me by telling us that just before returning to Fayetteville and
designing Butterfly House, she and Fay had been in Houston and Fay had
toured that city's synagogues. With an adjacent lot also for sale, so that
we could have adequate off street parking and a stand of trees on either
end between it's and property and the neighbors, the Butterfly House
seemed to be tailor made for our congregation, and we feel it will be safe
from anti-Semitism and vandalism in.this beautiful neighborhood. My
next step was to contact the surrounding neighborhood associations to
arrange a meeting on August 31St of last year to which all the members of
the associations were invited. About twenty-one neighbors attended the
meeting, and while various concerns were raised, we were encouraged to
proceed by the large percentage who expressed support for our idea.Over
the next few months, we developed plans that added greatly to our
expected expense, but addressed the concerns that the neighbors had
expressed to us at that meeting. This month we held two more meetings
with neighbors to show them our plans and to address their concern's. At
the first of these meetings, eight nearby residences were represented out of
the over forty to whom I mailed information and invitations. Everyone in
the area neighborhood associations was invited to the second January
meeting and twelve attended. A number of very positive comments were
made at the first meeting this month and I also received mail and e-mail
from a number of various supportive neighbors who were unable to attend,
including. Patricia Collier of 1344 Rockwood and. Donald Wilson who
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 37
owns the property opposite the empty lot where our parking will are will
be located, and who wrote welcome, absolutely no problem. The final
meeting had a few undecided attendees but most there were the few who
were actively trying to keep us out of the neighborhood. As presented in
the Planning Department's report, we designed our parking area to include
more than the minimum number of spaces as per City code without relying
on any on -street parking. And we have designed it to be unobtrusive and
to look as residential as we could. Our plan includes a parking surface
that will be below street grade, screened by landscaping based on Fay
Jones' original plan for the house, and at much greater expense than
conventional methods. We will utilize grass -pavers that will allow lawn to
grow in the parking area. Lighting will be pedestrian scale and we hope to
.remove the large utility company light from the pole next to the driveway.
The entrance will be through the existing driveway, and egress from the
lot will not require backing onto the street and will also be as far from
Crest off Rockwood as possible, maximizing visibility. Changes to the
Butterfly House itself will be minimized and will include new landscaping
based on Fay Jones' original plans. Upgrading the powder room to allow
handicap access, a railing around the terrace wall and the conversion of
some doors to be outwardly swinging for safe egress will be included. A
small play area would also be designated in the back yard for a handful of
young children to attend our religious school. All the changes will be
overseen by Davis and McKee of the firm With which Fay was affiliated
and the doors and railing will be custom designed and custom built so as
to maintain the home's esthetic qualities. No changes will preclude
returning the building to residential use if we should outgrow it and move
on. Our plans respect Fay Jones' legacy and the integrity the Butterfly
House is designed with minimal changes, which would likely not be the
case with a family in residence. As for traffic, as per our proposal, our use
would sporadic, largely on Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday
mornings and not at peak traffic times. I have a chart outlining the use.
As you can see, our total annual car trips would be little more than the
standard estimate for a single family home and much less than a home
with a couple of teenagers, or if the vacant lot was sold separately and a
second home was constructed on the property; the number of car trips
would be much higher. The number of cars parked when we do have
events would rarely be more than ten or fifteen and the peak time for
exiting the lot would be after 9 p.m. on Friday. Yesterday Temple Shalom
held a congregational meeting for a final vote from our membership on
their approval to proceed with this project. At this meeting which was the
most important meeting and most important vote in the history of our
congregation, there were twenty cars, thirteen parked in the driveway and
seven on the vacant lot. It would be unusual that the number of cars
would even be as much as for this very important meeting. As for the J
issue of precedent, nonresidential use and incompatibility with the
Planning Commission
January 23. 2006
Page 38
neighborhood, we plan for the Butterfly House to be a House of God and
home for Fayetteville's small Jewish community, a religious, not
commercial use. The City Planning Department concluded that our use
would be compatible with the neighborhood, and Fayetteville's zoning
ordinances as well as the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 both allow for religious assembling under this area's
residential zoning. I would like to thank you for your thoughtful
consideration of our proposal. Temple Shalom looks forward to the
Butterfly House providing a center for Fayetteville's few Jewish residents
and we all look forward to being a part of the wonderful Mt. Sequoyah
area and getting to know our new neighbors.
Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Ratner. Before we proceed to public comment, I am
going to ask everyone to avoid repetition. We want to hear everyone's
comments tonight. If you want to come up and introduce yourself and if it
has already been said, you can say I agree with him. We are going to
avoid all personal comments; we are talk about the issue and if you would
please try to organize your thoughts and keep them brief and to the point,
we'd like to hear everyone of you. So, I'm going to open the floor for
public discussion.
Blair: My name is Jim Blair. I have lived in Fayetteville for a little over 70
years. I've lived on the north slope of Mt. Sequoyah for a little over 30
years. I have been the owner of the property to the west of this proposed
Temple, to the east of this proposed Temple and to the north of this.
proposed Temple. I have traversed Rockwood Trail as best as I can
calculate approximately 36,000 times. I think I know a little bit about the
situation. I know you asked that there not be any personal comments, but
I have to say I would rather have a tooth pulled, I would rather have a root
canal, I would rather have all my teeth pulled than to oppose anything
Jewish. I am intimidated by that because my late wife, the love of my life
for over twenty years, was Jewish, her mother was born in a Jewish family
in Poland, my oldest daughter is married to a fine young Jewish man,
Aaron (I forget his name) Levi, this summer in Staten Island, NY. I gave
away my goddaughter in a Jewish wedding to marry a very fine Jewish
man named Ivan Cohen. I make trips to Israel to see my extremely close
and precious friend, Sol Katzen and his wife, Gaia. Sol, is a retired from
the Israeli Army, Gaia who was in a Kabbutz in Israel. I understand why
they use gently and subtly the word anti-Semitism and they should not be
subject to any of that and I love the Jewish people and I'm happy to
intermarry with them, I'm happy to socialize with them, I'm happy to
share anything I have with them. I'm not here for that reason. I am here
because I think this is very bad idea and I would be here if it is Buddhist,
Islamic or a Baptist, or Episcopalian, Catholic, Pentecostal project. I do
think that if you allow this, you cannot keep out future controversial
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 39
groups. I think a lawyer even as good as Kit Williams could not keep an
Islamic Temple from going on Rockwood Trail if you allow this. This
issue is that Rockwood Trail is an extremely narrow street without any
shoulders and it comes up an extremely steep hill, and it undulates as it
approaches its apex and it has a lot of blind drives and the people who pull
off the street like Crest risk their lives to some extent every time they pull
on Rockwood Trail. Rockwood Trail drains the entire north slope of Mt.
Sequoyah. The is the only way off the mountain unless you go through a
long, winding sequence of streets like down Tanglebriar where I live,
across Applebury, down to Columbus, across Columbus to Eastwood and
then it serpentines and on any day you may or may not be able to turn out
on Mission Avenue. My step -daughter totaled her car on Rockwood Trail.
It is not a safe street. There was a car that drove into the house we are
talking about. It is not a safe street. But the neighborhood is very
peaceful and quiet and gentle and loving we - all get along except when
somebody tries to increase the traffic on Rockwood Trail. Then three
times, as some of this Commission knows, we have fought like tigers
when there is been an effort to increase the traffic on Rockwood Trail.
There have been three major things in thirty years and fortunately all of
them have been stopped. Now, the people who I think support this
project who live on Mt. Sequoyah are people who don't in- general, drive
Rockwood Trail. There might be a few exceptions. There are people who
did not voice objections because they were visited by advocates of this
group, Howard Baird is an example. Two gentlemen came to see him,
told him there would only be six or eight cars across the street, there
would be only be six to eight families. He comes back from Florida today
to find that is not exactly the case. There are other representations that
were muddied to a lot of people, that if a neighborhood opposed it, they
would not proceed with this project. And yet I think in the face of
.neighborhood opposition, they have done so. I know some woman named
Nancy Williams, not the Nancy Williams I just married, says she
represents the Southern Mt. Sequoyah Neighborhood Association and she
is for this project. Well, they don't use Rockwood Trail: I can understand
why she would be for it. She would be for it because she wouldn't want it
using Rogers or Spring or Dickson that they could use to get off the
mountain.. I think the people I sold my land to are building a multi
hundred thousand dollar house right next door. I think their property
instantly becomes worthless. The, person that succeeded me in my past
job has a house right across the street, he paid $450,000 for the house. I
think it immediately becomes worth less. I think it diminishes the
property values, it diminishes the peace and quiet, it creates a hazard. I
think there are a lot of other places in Fayetteville for this wonderful group
of people who I dearly love and would support in other way so they can
find a place for a Temple. It is not a neighborhood Temple, it is a Temple
for the entire City of Fayetteville, the entire County of Washington. And
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 40
as Bentonville's group has grown, I will think they grow and prosper and I
hope they do. And I love them and I wish it wasn't here. Thank you for
listening to me.
Merry -Ship: I am Kathy Merry -Ship. I am a homeowner, wife, mother.and live in the
neighborhood on Trust Street just south of Sequoyah Drive and I agree
with everything Jim Blair said. I also wanted to say that every day I take
a left on Rockwood Trail and it is very dangerous. I stop, I look, I start to
go out and all of a sudden a car is coming over the hill. So I am opposed
to the project because of traffic. Thank you.
Ostner: If. I could ask any future comments to please sign in at the podium, it
would help us.
Vallage: My name is Les Vallage. My wife, Nina and I own the home across from
the Butterfly House on Rockwood Trail that Jim Blair just priced for you.
We are not sure but we think we may be the family most impacted by this
proposal. We have owned our home for seven years and our architect,
Hanna McNeil recently completed plans to enlarge the house, add a
kitchen and bedrooms for our growing eight year old twins. We like our
home and we like our neighborhood and we have three specific thoughts
we would like to convey this evening. First, we believe that the proposed
conditional use is inconsistent with our home and the neighborhood. The
proposed use is for a house of worship on Saturdays and holidays. It is
also for a school which according to the Temple website is held every
weekend. It is also a facility to support the University of Arkansas
students, because Temple Shalom has a close partnership as we would
hope and expect with Jewish students attending our University. For
example, they currently offer Friday evening movies,, the last one was
Betty Boop and the next one is the Frisco Kid. This would also be a
special events center for weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs and bat
mitzvahs and lectures on Israel, etc. About two weeks ago Joe Ratner
wrote us a letter describing the Temple's plans. In his letter he spoke of
how holidays and other celebrations saying "this year we had one service
attended by 120, one with 90 and the other services were attended by
about 60". He also said that this year they had three bar -bat mitzvahs,
"anywhere from 40 to 100 plus may attend depending upon how many
relatives come to town and how many invitations are sent". We believe
that these planned uses disagree with the Planning Staff findings and we
believe they are not consistent with a residential neighborhood. The
Planning Staff found that we would occasionally have events that would
generate twenty vehicles. That is not 100 or even 60 people that Joe
Ratner talked about. In fact we don't think any kind of special event
center is appropriate for our residential. neighborhood. We would ask you
to note, and we think this is very, very important, there is nothing in the
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 41
proposed conditions which limit the number of events, the attendance or
the vehicles that park at this home.' Common sense tells you that once
Temple Shalom spends over a.million dollars to acquire and develop this
property and it becomes their home, they will•want to use it as much as
possible. Our second point is we believe the Temple use will grow.
Temple Shalom membership doubled during the past few years, the
congregation shrank after a new temple was opened in Benton County.
We don't expect that to happen again. In addition, let me quote to you
what the Temple Shalom website says about growth, "can Temple Shalom
survive without the Butterfly House? Yes, can it thrive and grow?
Perhaps not." This is an active, healthy Temple as evidenced by the
effective and professional way they have approached this project. It is
clear to me that they will thrive and grow wherever they locate and we,
like Jim Blair, wish them well. We love the diversity that Fayetteville has
and we think that Temple Shalom adds to that and we think it is a
wonderful thing. We just don't want it in our neighborhood. Our final
point is that this use involves a twenty-five car parking lot with lighting
immediately across from our home. The Staff findings say that the
parking will be "totally screened". We disagree with that. It won't be
screened from our house, it won't be screened from anyone driving down
Rockwood, and in fact the Temple held a meeting at the house yesterday.
Thefl website called it a congregational meeting and that is a photograph
from our house of the twenty or so cars attending that meeting. Would
any of you want this use across the street from your home? That is the
driveway that Staff is recommending for egress. It is directly across from
the bedroom in our home so at 9:00 every Friday night when those cars
leave, we will have to put up with that. Here is the real point for us. We
bought a home in a residential neighborhood. If this use is approved, we
will be across the street from a significant non-residential use. Our
children's bedrooms will look out on the twenty-five car parking lot. This
Temple, like everything else in Northwest Arkansas, will grow and the
glare from car lights, the parking lot lights, and: the visits to the Temple
will adversely affect our neighborhood, our home and our family. We ask
that you deny the requested use.
Freund: My name is Joe Freund and I am happy to be Vice President of Temple
Shalom. I would like to respond to several points. He did mention that
we have Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs and High Holiday services that
generate significant number of people, maybe 100. We have for many
years....
Ostner: Mr. Freund, excuse me. We are going to take comments just for now that
are not associated with the application and then we would like to hear
from, you all. If you don't mind. We are just going to reserve this for
people who are not associated with Temple and then we will come to you.
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 42
Roth: Hello Commissioners. My name is Paul Roth. I live at 416 Sequoyah
Drive, one house away from the proposed project. Lots of bedrooms are
surrounding this property and who wants bedrooms looking out on sights,
smells and sounds of a parking lot? I don't. Secondly, I have an 87 year
old father that I am responsible for. One of the things that keep him alive
is walking up and down Sequoyah Drive and they have already said they
are not going to put any more sidewalks up there, so where does this man
have to walk except on the street. You put twenty-five to fifty cars up
there in the afternoons and weekends, what if it snows? You're not going
to go down Rockwood, you are going to come out on Sequoyah so its
added traffic. I feel that my father will be in danger by any added traffic
added to the mountain. That's about it. Thank you.
Ostner: I would like a show of hands of how many neighbors are here tonight. I'm
guessing twenty-five to thirty.
Lusby: My name is Lonnie E. Lusby — I live in Mt. Sequoyah, Sequoyah Drive. I
rise in opposition to the Butterfly House being anything else but a
residence for all the reasons stated by my neighbors. Thank you.
Condren: I am Sherry Condren and I live on Sequoyah Drive. .I've been up there.
since 1980 and have seen a lot of changes. One thing I think the Planning
Commission needs to think about is back in the early 80s, some young
people missed a curve on Ruth and hit the gas pump station and it blew.
We had to evacuate the entire area and it was a Friday night and just this
past year a man ran into the house at Mission and was killed — coming off
of Rockwood Trail. It is a dangerous street. How much tax would be
losing. for our schools? That is a concern for our schools. I don't want my
tax increased.
Arentsen: My name is Bruce Arentsen and I live at 1802 Applebury Place and for a
lot of the reasons that have been given previously, I am against the
proposed change in use. I might also note for safety is that Rockwood
Trail is primarily straight, but right at that house is a jog in the road, which
has an abrupt veer to the left and abrupt veer to the right. I don't think that
has been mentioned. It is at an apex at the street so there is limited sight.
I do believe in the future that this could grow and have additional
members and like in a lot of places, there is parking difficulties and people
end up parking on the streets in some neighborhoods. I think that would
be a consideration.
Garner: I am Rebecca Gamer and I live 1061 Pembroke Road. I travel Rockwood
back and forth every day. I agree with all the things they have talked
about I have to admit, my heart was broken when I drove by it. I have
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 43
forgotten, and quite frankly I thought without a use permit they couldn't
do that, but there were all those cars there and it surprised me. I didn't
expect it. I thought nothing would happen until after this. I happen to be
on the Architectural Committee of our Southampton Subdivision which is
just beyond this area, but still on the top of Mt. Sequoyah. We had a
gentleman there who had a lot next door to his home. He used to hold
church services there and I think he taught some church things and sold
books. We weren't really sure. But he was working with the Planning
Commission and your Staff and he had given us something that appeared
that the Staff had approved. what he was going to do on Pembroke Road. I
don't think it had gotten to you. And it went to the point when he showed
us what he was doing — it was a 7,000 square foot home on a small lot. He
tells us it is for his brother, long story short. We wound up hiring an
attorney and they had one — it was friendly and when we started talking
about how it didn't fit into the neighborhood. It was a great idea for him,
but it just didn't fit. It didn't look like the neighborhood, it didn't did have
the same use. After he finally admitted it wasn't a home. He said he was
very sorry and maybe this wasn't a good idea. He sold his home and
found a better place. I hope these people can do the same thing.
Ozment: My name is Vicky Ozment and I live at 804 Crest, which is on the
northeast corner of Rockwood Trail and Crest and for five months out of
the year, I have a view of what would be the .parking lot. So I am that
close. I bet you don't want know all of the Jewish friends I've had in my
life, so I won't go there. When I spoke with Mr. Garner several times, he
said that this had the most conditions on a permit that he and Staff had
possibly seen and that raised a red flag for me and I hope it does for you as
well. That means that they had to condition it to pieces to get it to be
neighborhood friendly, to be compatible with the neighborhood. I am sure
Gus Jones would be thrilled to have anyone move in and restore the home.
I would enjoy anyone here restoring my husband's '47 Hudson, but doing
on your own lawn, would not be appropriate and that is sort of how about
this. There will be someone who comes in there and fixes this house and
restores it to Gus Jones' desires as well. It doesn't have to be this. When
I looked through the conditions, I was a little surprised actually. The very
first condition says at the very last of the paragraph, "The Temple
activities at this site shall be limited in scope to be small and unobtrusive
meetings, gatherings, as described in concept and the materials provided
by the applicant". So small and unobtrusive — those sound like somewhat
vague words and somewhat open to interpretation. What that would be to
me would not be to the next person, so that is going to have to mean we
have to come to some terms of what exactly we are talking about, because
if you pass this tonight and Planning has put their conditions on that, and
the Temple agrees to that, we are' all agreeing as particularly in the
neighborhood to very set expectations. And small and obtrusive might not
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 44
quite get it at that point. If we decide what that means, we go to their
proposal and you have that as well and I think President Ratner also
presented you with the list of the existing activities and schedule that they
keep now. That schedule is also part of their not owning their own
building. They are using this in conjunction with other organizations
where they rent their space; therefore, they haven't had the history of
owning their own building so therefore they really don't know what kind
of participation this might generate. If their congregation is expected to
help fundraise or contribute in any way to making this Temple exist, then
usually, if I put my money into something, I show up a whole lot more. I
want to see what I am getting. I would predict that that is a more realistic
view. 1 think their numbers are a best case scenario for what they
experienced at the time. But owning your own building is a different
story. We have a history of that in Fayetteville. We built the Walton Arts
and everyone said, who is going to buy a ticket and take their kids to
Dickson Street, and we know how successful that is. We built a beautiful
library and three times as many people show up to use it in the first year.
Not predicted. This is an unknown. How much use this is going to get is
an unknown to them. They should prosper and grow, everyone agrees
with that, but this location does not allow it because they have cited that
they will have no off-street parking. Who is going to be able to guaranty
that? And if you try off-street parking — we've measured all the streets
around there — all the streets available for parking, none of which would
be allowed because you cannot get an emergency vehicle down them, in
addition to parking.. So that is not going to be a place for them to go.
When I asked about their growth — I said, what if you under estimate the
number of people that want to come an event, you can't predict that, no
one can. Well, we will tell them we have twenty-five parking spaces. Is
that a realistic solution to a public building? They say that they are a
group of fifty families and that they are very slow growing. Their usage
and participation levels will jump once they will have their own building,
as it should. 't doesn't belong in a neighborhood. Also, they said that the
students have their own place, and that is true. I have been to all three
neighborhood meetings, and I digress for a moment, and I would not
characterize them nearly as friendly as President Ratner did. People did
not come out and absolutely oppose it when they were asking questions.
They were trying to get a feel for all of the information. You have before
you a petition that has only been three days in the making and those
people are saying no, so that is a substantial "no" that they did not want to
have a resounding voice to in a meeting with the people that were giving
us our information. The twenty-five students when we were talking about
that on the January 8'h meeting for the immediate neighbors, they said that
they would not hold their events in the Temple, but that they were always
welcome to come to their Temple events, because this is their home away
from home. Also, the public is invited to any of their events. How are
Planning Commission
.January 23, 2006
Page 45
they going to control the parking, if they can't .predict these numbers?
That would be a problem. How will they control the limited use that this
condition #1 has put on them? We have to go back to their proposal and
the very short events they will have and only twelve people show up out of
fifty families. They are trying to tell us that we are going to have to
guaranty low participation, or they will already fill this building up
without any growth. They already meet capacity if they up the
participation of the people who already belong there. I do oppose this.
You are probably going to hear a lot more about parking so I won't go on
about that. I thank you for your time.
Jumper: I am Allison Jumper. I on the southwest corner of Rockwood and Crest.
The only different thing that I wanted to bring up was something that was
proposed in their drawings in the neighborhood meetings, was a sub
service parking level. I want to speak to the point that that is something
that I would not see that could easily be reverted back to a single family
function. There has to be significant excavation - I don't even know if it
can be built that way, actually. If anyone has built anything up there, it is
not easy to get through the rock. I wanted to bring that up — it was what
was shown to us at the meetings and no one has spoken to that point.
Dykman: My name is Tom Dykman and I live at 1822 Rockwood Trail. I've lived
there since 1993. I went to several of the meetings at the invitation of the
applicants and at the last meeting I asked them how big the parking lot
was going to be. I was told it was going to be hidden so you wouldn't see
this. They told me they didn't know. Tonight Mr. Garner tells us that
they'd have to comply with City code to build the parking lot. I went to
look at the City code to see what the size of the parking lot would be, and
according to Chapter One, 72, a parking lot that will hold twenty cars, ten
on one side, ten on the other, would exit out down the middle to what they
propose to be 90' x 62' feet by City code. You are not going to hide a
parking lot that big with any landscaping. If you look at the lot, it is
totally clear. It is totally flat, no trees, no shrubs. I just don't believe that
size lot is going to be unobtrusive when you have twenty cars parked on it.
The other thing I would like to add that has not been brought up, is the
volume of volume up and down Rockwood Trail. They proposed that the
volume will be comparable to a single family house, but in fact that is not
true, because everybody will come and leave at the same time. The times
that they propose to use the site are on Friday evening when people on
Rockwood Trail are coining home from work and going out for the
evening; Saturday morning when they are going downtown to do errands
of some sort or another and on Sunday when people are going to and from
church. These are times when Mission is very busy and it is going to be
difficult for cars to get out on Mission Avenue at the bottom of Rockwood
Trail. If they have twenty, twenty-five cars parked up there which is
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 46
within the limit of the permit, you could easily have ten or fifteen cars
backed up on the bottom of Rockwood Trail at those peak times. I just
don't think the neighbors should have to come down the hill and have to
wait for ten to fifteen cars to disappear to be able to get out of your
neighborhood. I oppose this permit.
Colverson: I am Heddy Colverson and I live on the alternative route to Mission which
is Sequoyah Drive and it runs right into the Butterfly home. I agree with•
Dr. Dykman on what lie was saying about the huge amount of traffic that
would hit at once. I just know from experience, I actually live on Trust
now, we. lived on Sequoyah for six and a half years, and we have to go on
to Sequoyah to get any where. I know that its understandable to me that
people want to cut through Sequoyah Drive to get to Mission because it is
almost impossible to turn left at the bottom of Rockwood Trail onto
Mission. So if you cut through Sequoyah Drive back to Maple so you can
hit the four-way stop. So I just see a huge increase in traffic on our street
which is a very narrow street. We have dogs, kids, joggers, walkers all the
time and there is hardly any place to get off the road. We have enough
traffic, I wish we didn't, but it's understandable. I wanted to comment on
the proposed parking lot, the grass -pavers as opposed to the concrete. I
guess it would maybe look better to some people, but to me it would like
cars parked all over the lawn and I don't think we like to see that
anywhere.
Sada: My name is Mike Sada. I live at 609 Crest Drive, approximately a quarter
of a mile from the proposed project and.I am opposed to this otherwise
very worthy project. Frankly I am a bit astounded that the Staff would
recommend this as a compatible use. In addition to all the other issues
you have heard about, it is important to understand that traffic routinely
traverses this stretch of Rockwood at two to three times the posted speed
limit. The street itself is extremely narrow; it is frequently overgrown
with brush and I would agree with Mr. Blair, that anyone turning off of
Crest is basically taking their life into their own hands already.
D. Dykman: I am Dana Dykman and I live at 1822 Rockwood Trail. I have lived in the
neighborhood since 1993. I have a couple of concerns and things I want
to bring to the Planning Commission's attention. First of all, visual works
for me, and one of the things that you all may know the measurement of
this room, but first of all, to envision what a 90' x 62''parking lot would
be, I'm guess this is about 60' long and 40' wide, so it would be about
double this room for a parking lot in a residential neighbor. Residential
neighborhoods are not meant to have parking lots that large. Period. That
is one of my biggest concerns. As my husband said, it is almost
impossible to hide that, especially when it is full of cars. I know that the
cars may not be there all the time, but given the fact that there is the
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 47
propensity for growth, there will be cars there.filling that parking lot
regularly in the near future. I was one of the ones that went around and
did a petition, mainly because when I was passing out flyers to notify
neighbors about the conditional use permit, I got a lot of hesitancy, but
negative comments from neighbors and I was, concerned that message
might not get out to you, so we went around very quickly and tried to
catch people at home, which is very difficult to do, and collected several
signatures from households. Sometimes both people in the household did
sign, sometimes just one. But the numbers were overwhelming opposed
to this project. For the petition there were sixty-four homeowners. One
page of that mentions Fayetteville residents, becausethere have been some
people who have heard about this concerned about their neighborhoods,
that if a twenty -car parking lot can be put in something next door to them.
I also checked on the letters, which you have a number of them, comments
I know you have them in your packet. I don't know if you were able to
get to look at them. The best I counted from those letters or a -mails that
you received there were 43 opposed and eight in favor. That was prior to
January 19th. Since then there have been at least twelve opposed and one
in favor. The numbers are overwhelmingly against this. Because I'm
visual, I enlarged the map that it is your packet of information regarding
the home and I marked in orange the homes that were opposed to this, the
nearby homes that will be most impacted. I marked in green the ones that
have come out and written you in favor of the project, and there are two.
This is a home under construction. This did not have the addresses — you
can verify those. My second concern is that I was at the Planning
Commission today with several other conversations I have had with
Andrew, it is hard to pin down some of the conditions that are delineated
in your packet and the findings — things like conditions that they will have
small and unobtrusive numbers. I feel like that is a very loose term. How
do we enforce that? I asked them if the neighbors found, not through any
fault of the Temple. Shalom, that there were more people that come and
they are late for services and they get there and they find the parking lot is
full, they pull over to the side of the road, and park on the side of the road
which blocks our traffic for all the neighbors, what are our options? Of
course they say we can report that and it can possibly be grounds for
revocation of the permit. I think that this is important, not only for our
neighbors to know, exactly how we could complain about this. I went to
ask the Planning Commission today, because I couldn't find it when I was
looking in the ordinances myself, if they could show me anywhere where
it is written how you, as neighbors, proceed on reporting and getting some
sort of action from the Planning Commission or the City in regards to
them not following the conditions of the conditional use permit. The only
place there is mention of it is under home occupation. Well I wish this
project was falling under home occupation, because then there would be
no extra parking spaces allowed. That is my biggest concern here. I think
)
Planning Commission
January 23. 2006
Page 48
there are a lot of issues with the different conditions, on just how we could
actually control those. I appreciate your time.
Seward: Good evening, my name is Jim Seward and I live at 1825 Tanglebriar.
Several of my neighbors are here tonight. We live on a street that appears
to be one of the easy routes off of Rockwood Trail. A lot of people come
down our street, as it is a long downhill approach, we have a lot of traffic
speeds on our road, with children and. dogs and a lot of people walking in
our neighborhood. I have concerns with the excess traffic feeding off of
Rockwood Trail coming down our streets. And 1 agree with all the
comments tonight and thank you for your time.
Grisham: My name is Lowell Grisham. I am the rector of St. Paul's Episcopal
Church. I am not a resident of the affected neighborhood and so I don't
have in interest directly in the concerns that we have heard. I look
forward to hearing the representatives of the Temple and their responses
and hope they can adequately address the serious issues of traffic and
parking. I just wanted to say as a religious leader, how important it is to a•
religious community to have sacred space and to have a place for a
congregation to be able to say it's prayers and for it to be able to do so in
it's own tradition. That is a good value for the whole community and one
to be held in consideration with all the other values we have mentioned
tonight. I've also lived in communities where we didn't have a living and
active Jewish congregation and that is something that is a great blessing to
our whole community. I hope that we can work something out. My own
limited knowledge of the congregation is that their events of prayer are
very small for the most part. I hope there would be a way for this to work
out. We need a strong a Temple; we need a strong Jewish community. It
is good for all of Fayetteville.
Condren: My name is Sue Condren. I live on Anson Street. I agree with what Rev.
Grisham just said about needing a strong Jewish community for the health
of Fayetteville. We aren't saying that we don't need a strong Jewish
community. We are just saying that it doesn't need to be located in the
middle of a residential neighborhood. When this first came up, I drove
around with this in my mind, so I became more aware the local churches,
and we have so many of them. They are located on Township, Old Wire
Road, Crossover, Mission, Lafayette, they are on edges of neighborhoods,
the are on thoroughfare streets. They are streets that the pubic uses to go
to the post office, to go out to eat, to go to the store. They are not located
in a street that goes up a hill and eventually dead ends. Rockwood is not a
thoroughfare street. I just think that a church like this would be better
situated on a thoroughfare street, the way the other churches are. I have
been playing with the cliche that "if you build it, they will come", which
is humorous but it is a proven tenant of growth. Many people have
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 49
touched on it. If a was a Jewish woman wanting to be married. I would
love to come to this Temple in a Fay Jones' home. If I was in a Jewish
family that lived between the Bentonville community and Fayetteville, and
I was attending the Bentonville community because they now have a
Temple, but the Fayetteville community has a Fay Jones' home in the
middle of a quiet neighborhood, I would come to the Fayetteville home. I
think that they are under estimating the amount of growth that is going to
happen when they move into something like this. I don't deny that they
want to be in a sacred place, in a beautiful home. It just doesn't need to be
in the middle. of a residential neighborhood, because it is non-residential
use. I went to several of the meetings as well, and from what I can
understand, there is going to be two handicapped spaces required on the
driveway and there will the blue handicapped signs, signage for the
driveway entry only and signage for the driveway exit only. There is
signage on the wall of the Temple and near the mailbox. That right there
tells you that this has a commercial slant to it. I don't have signs on my
home. None of my neighbors have signs on their homes. This is not
going to look residential, it is going to look more business oriented. My
husband couldn't be here, so he wanted me to convey one of his thoughts.
When this came about in the late summer, early fall after. we went to a
meeting, we called Tim Conklin to ask him about the, nature of the
conditional use permit and basically said, Tim, what is the crux or criteria,
what is the thing that a conditional use permit teeters on. Tim said,
basically, Terry, do the neighbors want it. He said if the neighbors don't
want it, it is not going to pass. In reading the Staff proposal where they
deal with traffic and esthetics, and noise, there was nowhere in there, do
the neighbors want it. I'm thinking that you are realizing that the majority
of the neighbors for very good, practical reasons regarding traffic and a
parking lot, lights and all of the things we have brought up, the neighbors
don't want it, and I think you need to really take that into consideration.
Welch: I am Michelle Welch and I live at 707 Crest Drive. I live one house down
from Rockwood. My husband could not be here, he is out of state. He has
written some e -mails and he is also opposed to this. All the public issues I
think have been very well said: traffic safety, issues about the trail. I am
one of the people who has to get out on Crest and look ten times before I
go. From a personal point of view, because of the lay of the land,
sometimes, if you were there at the house where the parking lot is going to
be, you. would not realize how many of us are impacted because you don't
see our house or our land. Because of the lay of the land and the way my
house is built on a hill, from my kitchen window, my deck, and front glass
doors in my living area, I look straight down on the lot that would be a
parking lot and the home. So as I do this and I've been moving around the
last few weeks, I want you know how much that will impact my lifestyle
and neighbors close to me. When I come home on a Friday evening and
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 50
want to sit and have a nice quiet evening on my deck, am I going to have
to listen to seventy-five car doors. It doesn't take very many cars to have
all that type of noise, the lighting. I did want to mention that Mr. Ratner
did mention that Mr. Wilson. was totally for this project. I have lived there
for over eleven years and Mr. Wilson does not come up the mountain, he
doesn't live there. We need to consider who actually lives there. Please
keep this a residential neighborhood.
Webb: My name is Jennifer Webb and I live.about a half a mile from this site. I
would like to let you know that I support the proposal. I think the number
of conditional uses that have been placed on the proposal by the Planning
office is indicative of the care and the thought that has gone into this kind
of conditional use. I also think that the agreement of the Temple to meet
those conditional uses is reflective of their desire to be a good neighbor. I
think very few of us, when we have a home on our own street that is sold
or changes hands, we can predict what kind of neighbor is going to move
in there. They may have a garage band, they may have big parties many
times a year as my husband and I do. There is no prediction of what you
are going to get. With the conditional use for the Temple Shalom, we are
guaranteed that they are going to be fairly quiet and respectful. We can't
.anticipate that they are going to have a garage band, we can't anticipate
that their recycle is going to be full of beer bottles. I think that their
agreement to these very rigid conditional uses is not a red flag, but it is
instead a commitment to that neighborhood and I think we should think of
that very carefully.
Vaungartner: 1 am Drew Vaungartner, 612 Sequoyah Drive. Don't know what else -I
could add to this. My neighbors have done a very good job of telling you
what our views are and for my wife and 1, I would like to concur with all
the objections that have been laid out before you.
Ruth: I am Brad Ruth and live at 805 Crest Drive which is the adjoining property
to the east. A couple of things: In Andrew's initial comments he said the
site was completely shielded from all sides: Not completely true. Six
months out of the year, the view from just about every room in my house
is the parking area and the Butterfly House. Just wanted to agree with
everything that has been said and ask that you deny the request.
Ozment: My name is John Ozment and I live at 804 Crest. I have lived there
approximately twenty years and I haven't made 36,000 trips up and down
Rockwood Trail, but a fair number. Again, I agree with everything that
has been said to oppose this. No personal feelings on this except that the
character of the neighborhood, what it is. There is still a lot of
undeveloped property on Mt. Sequoyah - people will be building as Jim
Blair sold a lot to a couple that is going to build a beautiful home there.
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 51
There are other undeveloped lots. I think we have enough traffic problems
as it is. Save the rest of the traffic problems for those who want to live up
there, rather than a "business". Thank you.
Chalfant: I am Debra Chalfant and my husband and I are building a house next door
to the Butterfly House. I just want to ditto everything. We just want the
neighborhood to stay residential.
Ostner: Is there any further public comment before we turn the floor over to the
applicant. I am going to close the public comment section. I am going to
bring this back to the Commission for any questions or discussion items
before the applicant responds.
Allen: I have quite a few comments I would like to make, but before I make
them, I wondered if Jeremy would be willing to explain to everyone here
exactly what a conditional use is? The reason being is I think there is
some misunderstanding about zonings and conditional uses and thought it
might be helpful to start with that.
Pate: • Sure. I think we have explained it several times over that past couple of
weeks to interested parties who are here tonight and others. I think there
was an initial misunderstanding that the property was requested to be
rezoned, which it is not. A conditional use is a use that is permitted, only
conditionally within a zoning district. In every zoning district in the City
of Fayetteville there are permitted uses which are permitted by right. It
doesn't take a special approval by the Planning Commission. Conditional
uses, I have the definition in front of me, but essentially what they are,
they are uses that could potentially be compatible, but also could be
potentially objectionable; therefore, there are a number of findings on
which you have to base your decision for each and every one. Each and
every one is separate. We do not base it on prior projects, prior approvals,
just like a variance request for instance is not based on any precedence
that is set; it is based on each and every review as it comes before you.
Findings are made by Staff. If the Planning Commission agrees with all
those findings, they recommend for approval; if they disagree with those
findings, they recommend for denial. But essentially those are the
findings that we are required, and the Planning Commission is required to
make for each and every conditional use. Based on those findings, we
then generate these conditions. With this project, for instance, we have
thirteen conditions that we felt were appropriate in order to ensure that this
use, which is non-residential in nature, retains a compatible nature with
the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Allen: Thank
you. I
thought
I would start by saying that
I've
never tabulated
my
times
up and
down
Rockwood Trail, but they
are
considerable.
My
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 52
parents lived off of Rockwood Trail and some of my friends who are out
here in the audience live off of Rockwood Trail and I've conic to visit
them. I feel like I am practically an historical district up here on the
Planning Commission since I've been on the longest. And I have a lot of
commitment to neighborhoods and wonder if after tonight,.I will have any
friends except the Planning Commission because a number of them live in
the Mt. Sequoyah and also the Washington -Willow area. I don't see this
church as having a high impact on this neighborhood. 1 don't feel like
your property.will be diminished. As a neighborhood advocate, I think
churches and synagogues, and schools are parts of neighborhoods and are
what make them rich and interesting and diverse places to live. I don't
think the risks on Rockwood will be any greater as a result of having this
church there. I think the conditions that have been put on the church will
minimize that; that this synagogue will be a good neighbor to you. For
those reasons, even though I am making myself very unpopular, I feel that
it is proper location for a synagogue.
Anthes: I have some questions for Staff. The Staff report here says that the
landscape plan that was conceived by Fay Jones will be installed by this
applicant, but I don't really have much to describe that, so therefore I can't
evaluate the type. of screening afforded the neighbors. Can you describe
that?
Jeremy: For the most part, the drawing that is included is a little hard to read. We
would obviously get permit drawings when we are looking at this
application, but I believe the condition #12 states that landscaping on site
will be planted as proposed in the presented site plan to include trees and
shrubs to be compatible with residential use and to provide screening of
parking area. As indicated on these plans of course, it includes the
addition thirteen potentially large to medium large species trees along the
frontage as well as in this one, shrubs planted behind the proposed free
standing wall along Rockwood Trail, which I believe is part of the original
plan. There is also a retaining wall to further screen the uses. It is
indicated best on the section on the following page where the screening is
indicated. You can see the small retaining wall as well as the' free
standing wall. I believe what is meant is not a completely underground
parking area, but sub grade. As you see in the photographs the grade does
fall from Rockwood Trail here and they would utilize that slope to help
screen the vehicles in that location.
Anthes: I'm going to state this as I
think I see it. If Mr. McKee or Mr. Jennings
listen and make
sure that I
have this right. There is a two to three-foot
high brick wall
that will be
built on Rockwood Trail that
was part of the
original design.
It looks to
me like the elevation of that is
from 99 to 105
feet, following
the curvature of the property. Then
the site slopes
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 53
downward and then there would be a retaining wall that the top of the wall '
is at 99 feet and the bottom is at 97 feet. And that is behind which the cars
would be parked. It looks like in the rendering there are two rows of
hedge material between Rockwood Trail behind the planned free standing
wall and then again another row in front of the retaining wall of the
parking lot? There are at least six trees to be planted in that space as well.
My next question of Staff is that the site alterations as shown on these
drawings, I believe if I read the conditional approval right, they say that
any site alterations other than those described and shown in the plans and
approved, which would be additional parking areas or pavement areas or
whatever, would compromise the conditional use, correct?
Pate: Correct. It would have to return as a new conditional use request if any
other further expansion is requested. -
Anthes: Can you , Jeremy, describe for the neighbors, what avenue of recourse
there is to them if there are complaints.
Pate: If there are conditions that are not met or applications on this site that do
not meet what the intent and what the proposal is before you (I have a
couple of notes to hopefully clarify that), a neighbor, citizen, or non -
citizen, anyone affected by the action could contact the Planning Division
Office, file a formal complaint in our Hansen system. We would do a
code violation request and a service request and would investigate that
potential violation just like we do on any violation of the City Code. If
those conditions were not being met, we would then contact the owner; if
it was not remedied within a reasonable amount of time — I believe most of
the ordinances give you seven days or fifteen days, depending on the
violation — to remedy that situation. If it is not remedied, then that would
come before the Planning Commission for further action. The Planning
Commission could then revoke that action and can go as far as the City
Prosecutor's Office and the Court_
Anthes: Is Staff available at times other than 9-5 Monday through Friday to
observe those complaints if they occur?
Pate: Yes.
Anthes: Have you evaluated the traffic numbers as submitted to us and concur with
the number of car trips per day being at or below what you most often
calculate for two residences?
Pate: For two residences? A typical number is around 9.6 — 10 trips per day is
what we realize for residential subdivision single family homes, so for two
homes on this site, it would approximate 20 vehicle trips per day. This is
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 54
larger home than most sites, so it might be more given the size of the
family that could occupy it. That is a national average that we realize in
our trip generation rate.
Anthes: Can you speak to Conditional use #6 and describe why we would not be
wanting sidewalks in this area?
Pate: The reason for that recommendation (and our walk administrator did visit
this site) and one of his criteria that he is required to do by ordinance, is to
look at the possibility of connecting sidewalks and unfortunately in this
area, the potential is so low at this point in time, it would have to be a
major City undertaking to do the entire Rockwood Trail, widening and
creating sidewalks and I don't believe that is in our future plans at any
time. The recommendation at this point would be to utilize that $3 per
square foot for the linear amount of a four foot sidewalk along this site for
sidewalks in this area. So that would be improving existing sidewalks,
creating new sidewalks where they do make connections.
Anthes: I am not sure if you, Mr. Pate or Mr. O'Neal would like to address this
one, because this subject has come up before, has the City looked at other
means to control traffic or the speed of traffic on Rockwood Trail - like
stop signs and that sort of thing?
Pate: We do have in place a system by which a neighborhood can petition for
traffic calming measures and that is available online and something that
the public has been aware of. We have looked at various neighborhoods —
I don't believe that Rockwood Trail has looked at those measures because
it is one of the only means of access for most of these neighborhoods. It
has functioned as a small collector. street for a number of. these
neighborhoods. I think one citizen mentioned it is sort of the drainage for
the traffic of this area, because there are no other means of access over the
mountain with the exception of the other two that are mentioned. I don't
believe we have done any comprehensive evaluation of that.
Anthes: Thank you. That is all for now.
Vaught: I have some comments. This is a tough one, because typically I would
support this type of use in the middle of a neighborhood. I believe it is
compatible and it would enhance the neighborhood. My problem this time
is the location and I believe that is why we have the conditional uses and it
is not by right in a residential neighborhood. We have a structure —
honestly, these streets in the Rockwood and Mt. Sequoyah area are
substandard. They are narrow, steep and are probably are never going to
be improved. With the lack of further development in these areas,
especially with no streets connecting over Mt. Sequoyah, it is difficult to
Planning. Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 55
get funding for improving these streets to a standard that could, handle the
traffic they currently have. Typically there are no curbs, gutters, there are
ditches on either side of the road, there is no room for on street parking,
dictating the need for this large parking lot with lighting. I would see this
more compatible if we were closer to a major road, if we weren't up such
steep grades on narrow roads, or off -site parking available at this location.
There is not. I do believe that churches can be great neighbors in
neighborhoods. I don't think that this is the right location for it. My
concern is not what it is, but what it could be ... In a year or two, we
could have twice that much. We are looking at the situation I think. This
conditional use runs with the property. If the Temple outgrows it and
wants to move to a new location, they could sell this piece of property and
obtain the conditional use, and we will have less control over really what it
will be. If we do approve this, I would like to see further definition,
especially on condition #1. As stated, I am against this conditional use,
for the safety concerns, street concerns, for off -site improvement which
we couldn't ask this applicant to bear. Another concern of mine is the
parking lot lighting. Any kind of lighting in that parking lot in this hilly
area is going to affect neighbors. I don't see how it could not; it is a hilly
area, on a plateau above other homes off the back side. You might be able
to screen the cars, but I don't think you can screen all the lighting. I think
that would be a radical change from What we currently have and for those
reasons, I cannot support it as written.
Graves: I would concur with what Commissioner Vaught just said. In general I
disagree with most of the public comment on where a church is
appropriate. A church is appropriate in a neighborhood, just like a school
is or a grocery store or maybe a small professional office here and there,
maybe the corner gas station. It is appropriate in many residential settings.
The issue I have with this proposal has nothing to do with what the
proposed use is, but the type of traffic and type of parking situation that is
involved in that particular location. If it was on a flat stretch of street that
was wider, that had sidewalks and more protection for people pulling in
and out, and people that were walking, I wouldn't have as much of a
problem with it. When you look at this site, I am very familiar with it — I
lived on Applebury Drive for a number of years. Professor Freund lived
right behind me and Mr. Blair lived down the street from me and I am
very familiar with the area. I've run that stretch of Rockwood a lot of
times. That picture doesn't even do it justice, how narrow Rockwood
Trail is and there is no where for the large number of pedestrians to go
whenever cars do top the hill. This particular location is on a plateau. It
dips down to the east and to the west of this particular site and it goes back
up as you go east and goes down again. It is very difficult to see traffic as
you are coming off Crest or coming out of the driveway for this particular
location that is right next to Crest. The screening that has been discussed,
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 56
I'm not sure it adequately addresses some of the homes. We have
comments from some of the residents on Crest, because a lot of those trees
that are natural trees that are back behind that aren't going to be planted,
especially a screening. There is a lot of canopy there, but the type of
canopy that is there drop their leaves for half the year and there is a clear
site line through there. Some of those homes are a level above of where
this home is located and they will be able to see down into that parking lot
and probably be affected by some of the lighting as well. When 1 take all
these things together, it is not that I have a problem with what the use is,
other that what the use brings - that particular type of use brings in this
particular location. Having been the victim of the Planning Commission
before with my other Methodist Church on Dickson who wanted to build
parking on Lafayette, I am particularly sensitive of having been denied by
the Planning Commission on things that a church wants to do with its
property and not being able to do it. I've really thought about this one a
lot and struggled with it personally on what is appropriate here, but I
cannot get past where this particular piece of property is located and there
is no way to make it safe, especially if there are 10, 15, 20 cars all trying
to get out at the same time at the end of the service. And that is assuming
that the numbers that we have been provided hold and there is no guaranty
that that would be the case, even if there is slow growth. Even the number
of cars that is being discussed right now is probably too much for that
location. If there is growth, the parking lot isn't going to contain it and
my suspicion is that people would begin to park along Crest and Sequoyah
Drive. They can't park on Rockwood, but they would start parking along
some of those side streets. I just cannot support that impact at that piece
of property and I'll be voting against it.
Anthes: Couple more questions for Staff. I think there is some confusion about
how this proposed parking lot is proposed to be lighted- It looks like
condition approval #7, all lighting shall be limited to pedestrian scale
lighting (bollards, wall -mounted, etc. and shall be unobtrusive to the
neighborhood): What does that translate into. There is going to be no
pole lighting? How will that parking lot be lighted?
Pate: In as much as it would provide pedestrian safety and that is essential — we
did not anticipate and we would be happy to add to that condition to say
specifically no pole lighting, that's why we included bollards or wall -
mounted, something more pedestrian scale and does not provide an office
and/or commercial type of lighting.
Anthes: And from ingress and egress — the Staff report states that the Staff felt the
site lines were adequate for safe ingress and egress from the new
driveway. Mr. O'Neal, would you substantiate that.
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 57
O'Neal: Yes, we
did visit
the site
and did
find
that the drive as far to the east as
possible
would be
the best
location
for
another exit point.
Anthes: Then I have a question about the size of events. I believe I read in here,
but can't seem to locate it, that the Temple still plans to hold larger at the
Unitarian Fellowship Building where they currently have events. Is that
true and can someone speak to that.
Pate: Just a quick thing and maybe the applicant can speak to where the larger
events would be held. Our recommendation is based upon this being a
small event -type of facility for this conditional use permit. There have
been allusions to larger events that once a year — bar and bat mitzvahs
would produce a hundred plus people, that is not an event that we would
anticipate would be held here. And to further quantify that, conditional
approval #10 is intended to help out with the questions regarding
unobtrusive and small meetings. By limiting the parking spaces, that is
ultimately the impact. You could probably put four or five people per car,
however, these would also likely be inside and by limiting the size the
parking area to the driveway and to the grass -paved area only, we felt that
was the appropriate way to limit the activity on the site, so there would be
whatever could fit in the driveway and in the parking area. Again, to
further clarify that, it was our intent that parking would not be permitted
on Rockwood Trail or any other public street in conjunction with this
conditional use permit. That can be added as a condition or can be further
clarified in condition #10, because that was certainly the intent.
Anthes: Would be alright for me to ask the applicant about the large events?
Freund: My name is Joel Freund. We have for many years used the Unitarian
Universalist for High Holiday services which are like Easter services —
lots of Jewish people come once a year. Those.occur in the fall. We plan
still to do that, and when we have bar —bat mitzvahs and those are very
sporadic, many years we have none. This past year we had three and it
will be a number of years before we have any more. Those also would be
held where we can accommodate them at the Unitarian and we plan to
continue an arrangement with them for those services. At our typical
Friday night services, we get fifteen, maybe twenty people. When we
have a children's service, which of course is a draw for the parents, we
may get twenty, twenty-five people.
Anthes: Thank you very much. I'd also like to state that the Unitarian Fellowship
Hall is located in the center of a neighborhood and on a steep and narrow
street. I look at how we build our community and what kind of uses we
permit regularly in residential neighborhoods. Time and time gain, this
Staff and this Commission has recommended and found compatibility for
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 58
churches in neighborhoods, some of them are on hills, some of them
aren't. Most have much more concrete, much more lighting; all have
their individual potential conflicts and traffic problems and issues. I can
think of a few on the west of town that were particularly challenged with
traffic right now. I keep coming back to the basic argument that
neighborhoods are perfect places for places of worship and that just like
neighborhood schools, people want to live and be able to walk to where
they worship and to their school, and it is a similar situation here. I
believe that Temple Shalom would be a good neighbor and excellent
caretakers of this important piece of architecture in our community which
has been vacant for some time. Personally, I would love to see the
landscaping installed because I think that is something that has always
been missing from that property. For all those reasons, I am going to vote
in support of this project.
Trumbo: A question for Mr. O'Neal. He mentioned a line of sight from the eastern
most ingress/egress and you are saying that is acceptable. What speed did
you estimate that at? Not the posted speed, but the current speed.
O'Neal: With the posted speed which is 25 MPH_
Trumbo: My issue is safety. My biggest issue right here. Everyone who has ever
lived Fayetteville or up there knows that nobody hits the crest of that hill
at 25. These are hard decisions to make. I am going to vote against it
based on safety. 1 don't believe that looking three or four years down the
road that we are going be at twenty or twenty-five, cars park all over side
streets and nothing happens. There are no tickets. I think we are going to
be back here in a few years if we allow this because of the growth of the
area.
Ostner: I have a comment first. This is a question for Staff. There is another
church, maybe a mile west of here near the intersection of Old Wire and
Mission, just a little west up that hill, I think it is a Presbyterian Church.
They do have a larger parking lot, but it is a big church. Does staff
receives lots of complaints from that mixture. That is sort of a purely
residential area.
Pate: We have not.
Ostner: That's sort of where I'm wanting to go. That good City planning is not
homogenous. We struggle constantly, we hire outside consultants to tell
us that this thing called mixed use, and in the really interesting towns that
we can't seem to build any more, but that use to exist, things are all
jumbled up. We didn't have large expanses of residential subdivisions.
think this use could work here. The traffic on that street is too fast. I am
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 59
not convinced that the connection is cause and fact. I am not convinced
that this establishment with as many cars as they predict or double the
amount of cars they predict, would make that street be worse. If fact, a lot
of streets, the more cars they get, people slow down. I'm not sure what
will happen with Rockwood Trail_ It needs help. But I don't think
stopping this is going to help it one bit. Another home could easily be
built on the eastern section. Just because it is a house, doesn't mean
people don't go to and from it frequently. People do speed along there. I
wish something could be done, and something should be done. The
methods that are in place right now with the traffic calming do not seem to
be adequate. There are a lot -of streets like this in residential areas, that
traffic is way too fast. It is absolutely wrong. I will probably vote for this
tonight, because I think it is a good use, I think the impact is minimal, the
number of conditions the applicant has agreed to is impressive. If the
Staff had told me I would need to submit to this many conditions for
something that is pretty simple, I'm not sure I would not have withdrawn
right there. I think these are good tools to help the. neighborhood and the
applicant get along. I do want to address a comment a person mentioned
that she talked to Tim Conklin and his response was, "if the neighbors
don't want it, it probably won't happen". I'm sure Mr. Conklin is much
more aware of conditional uses than that and I believe that person
misunderstood him. Mr. Conklin is well aware that conditional uses are at
this body's decision. Period. The fact that the neighbors are heavily
listened to is part of this community's benefit. We listen to the neighbors
a lot. It does not mean that you all get together and vote against it and that
is the answer. I wanted to mention that. I think that the right -only exit is
very important with this parking lot, which is one of the most beautiful
parking lots I've ever seen drawn. It is very nice.
Vaught: I would agree with everything that Commissioner Anthes was saying
about the placement of churches, but believe that we shouldn't approve
every church that comes before us. There are conditions we need to look
at; one of them is safety and the conditions of the streets and also the
potential for what that condition does and also the potential for
improvements. A number of the churches on the areas on the west side of
town are slated for improvements. We are seeing growth and we are
seeing improvements around them. The church she referenced we saw a
PZD at the end of one of their streets about a month ago. We heavily
discussed traffic and how adding seven houses wouldn't affect it because
of the church traffic- I think the church she references doesn't cast a good
light on this. It does produce heavy traffic along the street at certain
times. Another concern, like I said, I'd like to hear from those who
support this, address condition #1 more specifically. I think that is very
important. I think that if we do approve it, the comments Jeremy made
about no parking from this should be allowed on public streets and even 1
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 60
side streets is very important. St. Joseph's is a perfect example of a
church that outgrew the neighborhood. We had constant complaints and
constant driveways being blocked on all the side streets through
Washington -Willow neighborhood, which I lived in. It was one way on
most of those streets on Sunday mornings, because the size of the structure
would certainly handle that kind of volume of people. Like I said, a
conditional use runs with the land. We are granting this for this piece of
property. If the Temple outgrows in two or three years because they are
having more than twenty cars a Sunday, they could sell to somebody else
and there is no guaranty they are going to stick by those conditions.
Granted we can hear. I'd hate to have the Temple and agree to this strict
set of standards and outgrow it and be back here in a year or two and have
us revoke or modify the conditional use. This is something we are making
a promise to and they are investing heavily in this property. I don't want
to put them in a situation where they are set up to fail. To me, having such
a strict set of guidelines almost does that. That is why I have such a hard
time with this and the condition of Rockwood. I love churches in the
neighborhoods, it is better than a church in a commercial area. It is where
the area, where people go for help, where people go for rest. It is a great
idea, and I definitely endorse, if this was down by RootSchool, fronting
on Mission, this would be a different story. That is an idea of a
neighborhood school — it is a great location that people can walk to. We
are not talking about that kind of accessibility; we are talking about very
limited access to the site. The church referenced I would have the same
issues; I would probably have the same issues if. it came before us today
and they wanted to build a church of that size in that neighborhood. Like
I said, we discussed that very site about a month ago and had negative
comments about the impact of it.
Ostner: I would like to clarify that my comment was not that traffic doesn't matter.
That church is five, eight, ten times as big as this facility. My comment
was the mixture of the church in a neighborhood isn't always bad. The
traffic can be figured out sometimes.
Graves: That particular church that was referenced also impacts and affects a lot
fewer residences and that doesn't make it any less important to the people
that live there, but Rockwood Trail is a way off that mountain for an awful
lot of people and having traffic pulling out of a blind driveway, which it
will be, and I appreciate and understand what engineering has said and
what Staff says, but it will be a blind pull out and a blind sight line for
people coming over that hill and for people that are pulling out of there.
Aside from that, even at 25 MPH, Staff felt it needed to be moved as far
east as they could get it and right turn only and that is indication of the
safety concerns out there in this particular location. I'm not aware of the
church referenced by Commissioner Anthes and its particular location. l
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 61
don't know if I would have voted for those churches in those locations or
not. All I have in front of me is this one, and what I know about the area.
I would also reference back and say that we take each conditional use
permit on its own, that's understood, but this Commission saw just a few
months ago a proposed business on the comer of Poplar and Green Acres
Rd. that was going to have three or four cars and some of the same folks
were supporting this particular conditional use were opposed to some of
the same concerns that we have tonight, that it is was encroaching and
impactful on that neighborhood. This is even more impactfil. It is more
cars, more traffic, on a much narrower street with many more safety issues
involved, also in residential area. I will reiterate that I have struggled with
this one, that I understand and appreciate that a church needs a home and
how important that is to people of faith and this is in no way a reflection of
any kind on the fact that this is going to be a church. I would have the
same concerns if it was going to be a dentist office or another
denomination or a gas station or whatever it is, that there are uses that fit
within residences and churches without question do. I just don't think that
this number of cars even at the limits discussed, fit at this site. That is my
concern.
Ostner: I would like to mention that the issue on Green Acres and Poplar was a
rezoning and it is those exact issues that we did not have control on how
things would look or function.
Graves: Did we not have a conditional use out there too?
Pate: Yes.
Graves: And we turned it down for some of these reasons.
Lack: I think that the underlying concern that I would have is that it is critical to
the health of neighborhoods to house the places of worship within the
neighborhood. It is critical to the development of a sense of neighborhood
to embrace that idea and it is critical for the places of worship to be a
celebrated part of the sense of community. I understand that there are
traffic concerns in this location and I understand that is why we have
thirteen conditions of approval that require a small scope. I've been
involved with many churches in a growth process. Any growth does
require an additional conditional use application. With that application, if
the Temple has not been a good neighbor and has not held up to their end
of the bargain and the community appeals, then that begins ammunition at
that point. I think that for this to be a functioning part of this community
would be wonderful for this neighborhood. With that I plan to support
this.
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 62
Clark: I have struggled with this as well and it seems like since I've joined the
Planning Commission, I have seen a lot of these very neighbors from
Rockwood Trail. I think I see them every other week. We talk about
growth over the mountain, we talk about connectivity over the mountain,
we talk about a variety of issues that have all been denied by this Planning
Commission. We have supported no thoroughfare over the mountain, we
have listened intently to your suggested connectivity, new subdivisions,
growth, etc. and heard a lot of the same arguments and they are good and
compelling arguments. Rockwood Trail is one of the most dangerous
streets in the City. I will compare it to one I travel on a daily basis which
is Wyman Road, so undeveloped, also non-standard — very narrow and the
thoroughfare to, I believe, every individual in northwest Arkansas getting
into Fayetteville when I'm on the comer. Having said that, also on my
corner is Buckner Baptist Church. There are great neighbors. They have
a lot folks that come to that Baptist Church. They generate a lot of traffic
on Wednesday and Sunday — they are there all the time. We vote in one of
their buildings — it is a community center as well. It does not negatively
impact my neighborhood. That is part of.what I have to reflect on because.
my street comes. over the curve, it is dangerous intersection. We can go
through almost the exact list of issues that we have talked about tonight. It
does not make them a bad neighbor. That is my frame of reference when I
am talking about your particular situation. I think this house is gorgeous,
on a beautiful piece of property. I think it has been neglected for lot of
years. I think the Temple could be a good neighbor, I think they would
take good care of this property, take good stewardship of it. This is a
conditional use, it is one of most restrictive conditional uses I have ever
seen. That gives the neighborhood a clear cut sense of criteria that this
individual entity has to follow. If it doesn't follow it, it comes back to us,
we can revise it, we can overturn it or amend it. I would like to see the
language that prohibits parking on any side street and Rockwood Trail
because that just does not need to happen. But I look at the renderings. of
the parking lot and it is going to be a stark difference of what I see in this
picture, which is a very compelling picture, I might add. If this
• landscaping put in according to the drawing I'm seeing, which is
something the Planning office has approved and makes them follow, that
• is going to be screened and it is going to be an asset. Would parking
exceed this? Then it is time for Temple Shalom to look for another home.
Now I'm a lifelong resident of Fayetteville and I haven't seen that much
growth in Temple Shalom and I'm getting really old I might add, since I
was in high school and met some of my first Jewish friends. They were
going to Ft. Smith at the time, and now have a home here and I'm very
proud of that. I don't expect the growth to be expediential to the growth
of the area. I think it will be very controlled growth in terms of
membership for a variety of reasons. But should it grow, and it may it
grow, then we come back here and look at the conditional use and start all
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 63
over again. The neighbors have a lot of safety built into this conditional
use, which makes me less concerned about voting for this conditional use.
After hearing all the discussion and seeing I think my surrogate
neighborhood again tonight, I have to disagree and hope that everyone can
put differences aside and work together as neighbors. If not, you have the
criteria to call Planning and complain, come back and we will take a look
at it again. That's the beauty of a conditional use. We are not rezoning
this for, it is not forever. It is a conditional use andyou can complain,
monitor and follow and hopefully a few months from now, you'll figure
out it's much to do about nothing. This time I am going to disagree with
my surrogate neighborhood and going to vote for the conditional use. I
am sure we will see you all again.
Myres: After everyone else has talked, I don't have a whole lot to add, since we
are not supposed to be redundant. The thing that disturbs me the most
about this entire discussion is that it seems when the neighbors and the
neighborhoods have looked at this proposal, all they can see is what is
potentially harmful or bad about it. And that is all you are focused on.
Obviously that is important to you and I agree that there are things about
adding traffic to an already over traveled road that are certainly of
concern. I guess if we restrict parking on the side streets, I guess the next
time I go to a big party up there, we are going to have to have people drive
us up and drop us off so that we don't park on side streets. But I have to
support this even though there are arguments that are intellectually
compelling, not to do so, I agree with some of my fellow commissioners,
that it is an appropriate use for this property. I think they will be
wonderful stewards of this terrific house. I'm not sure it would be cared
for and built to its original intent without their assistance. For simply that
reason, I would like to see the plan completed. I heartily support this
conditional use.
Anthes: Rather than -taking the stance that we are setting up Temple Shalom to fail,
I would like to offer them the opportunity to succeed, and therefore I will
move to approve the CUP 06-1892 with the following conditions of
approval: one through six as stated with the addition with the addition of
condition #7 that no pole lighting will be allowed on the site and with an
addition to condition #I0 that says no parking will be allowed on
Rockwood Trail or any other public street but shall be contained in the
existing driveway or the grass -paved lot only.
Lack: Second.
Vaught: I would like Staff or the motioner help the neighbors understand condition
#1, the small and unobtrusive portion of that. I think that is very important
to them and very important to the Temple, too, to know exactly what that
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page'64
means as it is subjective and even as Planning Staff turns over, that could
change. I think that is something important to clarify for everyone.
Pate: The point of clarification really comes with condition 410 in that it limits
the actual vehicles on the property to what is located within the driveway
and the parking area that is provided, which is a maximum of twenty
vehicles in the parking area. So the driveway, I'm not sure what that
contains, but obviously there will be traffic movement plus the proposed
parking area. So that in itself will limit the amount of activity that can
occur within the home and the site. Obviously, as you mention,
occupancy of 100 -200 based on just the size of the property. If they get
that many people in there, they are going to have to walk. It is simply not
going to accommodate that type of use and that is not what is indicated in
the application to us. As noted on record and there will be a file in the
record of minutes, the applicant has indicated those larger events are not
anticipated to be held on this property. They are anticipated to be held off
site likely in the location that they are holding them at this time.
Vaught: Once again, for the neighbors, if they do have complaints, I guess one of
my concerns is when we go to investigate, we don't get the calls on Friday
night at 9:00 or Saturday night at 9:00. Obviously they are going to call
on Monday morning and say, there are forty cars out there that are parked
on the street. What are avenues — you have to have proof.. I know that as
much as we want to believe them, we don't want to hold someone guilty
unless proven guilty. So what are the avenues for investigation?
Pate: We very often take photographs and neighborhoods take photographs of
potential code violators and that is something that we submit and
investigate as well. So that it something that is very important that we use
all the time in investigation, just a photograph is pretty easy to see if it is
in violation.
Vaught: It is not the Temple Shalom for me, I think they will be an excellent
neighbors. No matter where they are, their investment in this property and
what they want to do is proof of that. It is an overall concern of safety.
The limits on this and the particular size of the building, to me they don''t
line up. It is a condition I don't want to put the Temple Shalom here a
year from now or two years from now, after spending well over a million
dollars on this property defending why they had too many cars they had in
the parking lot. I think it is a great concept and a great idea. If we could
improve Rockwood, I believe I'd feel differently, but we can't and there
are no plans to. And that is one of my main concerns. As we continue to
put more and more traffic on Rockwood as the other little areas develop
out on Rockwood and the streets around it.
Planning Commission
January 23, 2006
Page 65
Trumbo: For myself, Mr. O'Neal , if we rated this when we looked at the traffic
situation at 50 MPH or 45 MPH which is more realistic, coming over this
blind hill, right where this house is, is it a safe condition for the record.
O'Neal: For which entrance?
Trumbo: Either.
O'Neal_: I would say for neither.
Trumbo: For neither?
O'Neal: Neither one of them. No.
Trumbo: That is the only reason I am going to vote against this. Any other place in
this neighborhood, I agree with all my fellow commissioners. That's the
only reason.
Freund: I have lived on the hill probably as long as or longer than anyone up in
there — thirty-three years, on Rockwood. And from what Mr. Trumbo
said, my driveways are not safe, and it's not. If we were to grow at any
rate that we would outgrow the building, our plans would be to leave. We
would hope that we would outgrow it, but I've been here that long, it has
not happened in the time I've been here. I don't expect that it will for
many reasons that are beyond trying to go into in a short time. I
understand that it is not a safe street, but we would, making the second
entrance as the exit as the current driveway just has ingress, would solve
some of that.
Ostner: Are there further comments before I call for the vote? Please call the roll.
Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the CUP 06-1892 motion is approved by
a vote of 6-3-0. (Graves, Vaught, Trumbo voted no)
APPENDIX E
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT
(ADDED AFTER 01-23-06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Mount Sequoyah object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
Name(s) Address Phone/E-mail
7T4 /Y(:'Pl 5%fie
qgq- 2 QVI Qan�U G
t±_a 3. 7v
1"A ` \,"rV"1" •` : 55� EASrwnay `pc -gyi t mnrv. tzrntan
c bar i{env►ctrl gSL� E 4oac� 4 z SF(j4 GGrc�in�P���icx
CJ&Z[7_1SFl02 5a/ -09 / R55
3��
•
�Kwt Jfit / 7?,1L2 N Cis fir- 2 —1f 1
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Mount Sequoyah object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
m . • 1 i ' iii • n '
I
F G
/ I u
r
/ /i
.. �� 1. �
S, t
!/
I
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Mount Sequoyah object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
Nam s
Address
Phone/Email
h'i; siCrJ 302' 3355.
• ( U t'J z «v k(tiI 4'. .1x J ld>cLf . 4:
Bos creSj Dr hrac ru Cam.
De�bcz. tat 101 /e Cyest t t&ttitPav �?a4 (jVL
TMf3r>A erne_/_Gzc7al-.ne
b/Jt'...:er e
,qo c. Coni
`"JO Jil-
7 GPst Dr,' `/y1 ' S.P� 1 nit) wel
Races Fql{ ice( :sg os��
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Mount Sequoyah object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
Name(s) Address Phone/E-mail
P.-,,^ ---)• 5dt- in 7(2 2
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Mount Sequoyah object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
Nam s Address Phone/E-mail
—T .
/soy L.Cv
.fi`{ill�� t'iLS C C. 1-k3 I 44i4 My t.htill�r
_ = ?,�` C- d t� (osc� � c_�,nk N---: •a - s �-� z _ ����� �• ate; E(.6
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Mount Sequoyab object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
J
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Mount Sequoyah object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
Name(s) Address Phone/E-mail
s!io75 o aya jrj
Petition to Fayetteville, AR
Planning Commission
The undersigned residents of Fayetteville, AR object to the issuance of
the proposed conditional use permit allowing the Butterfly House to be
used by Temple Shalom. Please deny this non-residential use.
Names Address Phone/E-mail
1444 . , �.nr /7 112.E - '/9 4'C.G3
--�-�� Sv
1915 A). 'e
n'iII
APPENDIX F
TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR
PROPOSED SYNAGOGUE USE
(ADDED AFTER 01-23-06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
R
Temple Shalom at the Butterfly House
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 50 Family Members of Synagogue
January 25, 2006
Average
Standard
Adjustment
Driveway
Rate
Deviation
Factor
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume
0.47
0.00
1.00
24
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter
0.00 -
0.00
1.00
0
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total -
0.01
0.00
1.00
1
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter
0.07
0.00
1.00
4
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit
0.07
000
1.00
4
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total
0.14
0.00
1.00
7
Saturday 2 -Way Volume
0.26
0.00
1.00
13
Saturday Peak Hour Enter
0.01
0.00
1.00
1
Saturday Peak Hour Exit
" 0.04
0.00
1.00
2
Saturday Peak Hour Total
0.05
0.00
1.00
3
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Proposal to the City of Fayetteville
Planning Commission
December 15, 2005
A permanent home for
Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas:
the E. Fay Jones "Butterfly House"
1100 Rockwood Trail
t ., 1 -H.. `^ , i
M 0 0 SL ' o A M0.. At D N M1 S. W. D. M A RKA L a' x e r A. I a• F 1 •.•• i r i
Joe Ratner, President 479-685-0272 jratner@aol.com
I Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas
L PO Dox 3723
13IV Fatietteville, AR 72702
Introduction
• Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas, founded in 1981, is Fayetteville's only Jewish
congregation. On the eve of our 25th anniversary, we at long last have an opportunity to have a
home of our own. Our congregation has always been centered around the University of
Arknasas (many of our members are professors), and while real estate around the campus is not
plentiful, we have found a beautiful location only 1.5 miles from Old Main. As we contemplate
our legacy as a part of Northwest Arkansas, and we plan to honor Fay Jones's legacy, as
embodied in this early example of his work, which remains just as it was when he and Mr. Harral
oversaw its construction over 40 years ago. Most Temple events are open to the public, so
admirers will have an opportunity to visit the Butterfly House.
Structure and Signage
The "Butterfly House" at 1100 Rockwood is app. 4100 sq. ft., on app. 1.5 acres of land.
Behind the property is unbuildable land, and a stand of trees shields the property on both sides.
Changes to the structure of the home will be minimized, and no changes are planned that would
preclude returning the building to private residential use in the future. Modifications necessary
to meet building codes are being designed to retain the home's original spirit by David McKee,
of Maurice Jennings and David McKee, the firm in which Fay Jones was a partner. Changes
include a guardrail on the patio which runs the length of the rear of the house, conversion of one
restroom to ADA specifications, and the replacement of three sliding glass doors in the rear of
the house by outward swinging doors for emergency egress, which will be custom designed and
built. No yard or pole signage is desired. Signage will be confined to the front wall and/or porch
of the building, and the mailbox or driveway light fixtures.
Landscaping and Parking
There is virtually no landscaping in front of the house currently, and the lot to the east is
bare with a chainlink dog run and storage shed clearly visible at the back of the lot. We plan to
follow Fay Jones' original landscaping plan as closely as possible in front of the house, and it
will guide the landscaping and screening of the parking lawn on the grass lot to the east. While
the sanctuary area can hold 101 persons, going by raw square footage, we think about 60 can fit
comfortably. City code specifies 25 spaces for 100 person occupancy, and 15 for 60 persons,
while allowing 30% fewer to be provided, or 18 spaces for 100 persons. We plan to provide a
minimum of 21 and up to 25 spaces, of which up to 5 will be ADA accesible. We do not plan to
rely at all on on -street parking. As we would need parking beyond the existing driveway
infrequently, we plan to pave the parking area with grass pavers that allow grass to grow for a,
more residential look, and also provide excellent drainage. We have given a lot of attention to
integrating the look of the parking area with that of the building, and expect to incur significant
added expense to ensure that the parking area is as unobtrusive and residential looking as
possible.
Entry will be by way of the existing driveway, and the parking area will be excavated to a
level surface, which will be significantly below the street level. Cars at the west end of the
parking area will be below ground level, and at the extreme east end will still be partially below
grade and shielded from view by landscaping. The exit from the parking area will be a new curb
cut at the east end of the vacant lot, and will be made to look like a residential driveway. To the
west, the crest of the road is at the extreme west end of the property, while to the east the road is
still going down and the crest is even farther away. As can be seen in the accompanying
photographs, visibility for egress is excellent in both directions, and Rockwood Trail traffic will
have excellent visibility of the outgoing vehicles as we will minimize landscaping at the end of
the exit drive.
Traffic and Lighting
As indicated in the section on our activities and in the following table, the traffic
generated by our activities during the week will rarely involve more than one or two cars, and we
rarely have more than 6-8 cars at any weekend events. Even our better attended regular worship
services generally have no more than a dozen vehicles, and it is very rare for more than two or
three events a year to exceed 50 attendees and 20 vehicles. Clearly this is less burdensome than
a typical household with a couple of teenagers and the occaisonal party, and if we do not
purchase this property it is most likely that the two lots will be sold separately and a second
home will be constructed on the currently vacant east lot, doubling the potential increase in
overall traffic.
Day of week/Activity
Attendance
Number of cars
Car trips
Annual total
Weekdays: office work
1
1
10/week for 52 weeks
520
Monthly board meetings
12
8
16/month fdr 12 mos.
192
Friday night worship services
30
15
30/service (15 services)
450
Saturday adult education
10
10
20/week
1000
Sunday School
31
8 staying
16/week for 36 weeks
576
(Aug. -June)
7 drop-offs
28/week for 36 weeks
1008
3746
General traffic engineering standard for a dwelling: 10/day = 3650/year or 7300/year for 2 homes
Existing lighting may be adequate, but we may require some additional lights in the
parking area. Lighting will either be electric utility fixtures as currently, or more residential style
porch or walkway lighting.
Activities and Attendance
Member units
From a high of over 80 before the establishment of a new Jewish congregation in
Bentonville, our current membership is 46 family units (which include about 80 total individuals,
including spouses and children). Many members only show up for one or two of the most
important holidays each year. Membership is limited to Jews, though non-Jewish guests are of
course welcome to attend.
Typical attendance
Every Week
Adult education on Saturday is from 10AM-5PM with the rabbi or LOAM -Noon when the
rabbi is not present. Typically 6-10 persons will attend.
Sunday school (only during school year) 10AM-Noon 18 students enrolled, + 4 teachers.
Office work is done throughout the week on a fairly random basis by myself, my
20hr/month administrator, my treasurer, the Sunday school director, or the rabbi.
Every 3 or 4 weeks
Rabbi -led Friday evening services 7PM-IOPM (some 6PM children's services) usually
10-15 persons attend, however, occasionally around 30 will show up. It is possible that the
frequency of Friday services might increase in the future.
A couple of times a year we may have a special service, such as for Chanukah, with
around 50. Once in a while we have lay -led Friday evening events 6PM-1 OPM with typically 4-
5 persons in attendance. There also may be occasional social events where around 20-30 may
attend.
Annually
The Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) and Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), our High
Holy Days and the most important observances of the year, happen in the fall. In the same way
that many Christians only go to church on Christmas and Easter, many Jews only attend one or
both of these holidays. This year, we had one service attended by about 120, one with about 90,
and the other services were attended by about 60. The services are 7PM-1 OPM the evening prior
to the holiday with services continuing in the morning at LOAM to about 2PM on Rosh Hashanah
and until 8PM on Yom Kippur.
Bar/Bat Mitzvahs happen only when a child reaches the age of 12 or 13. Often there are
none in a year, this year we have had 3. Anywhere from 40-100+ may attend, depending on how
many relatives come to town and how many friends the child invites. .
We have been holding all our Rabbi -led services and High Holidays at the Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship Hall for many years, and we will continue to use their hall for any
services that we would expect to overfill the house on Rockwood, such as the High Holidays,
Bar/Bat Mitzvahs or other special events.
I have tried to be as accurate and realistic as possible with these estimates. We would
love to make this house our home, but we want to be good and welcome members of the
neighborhood. This is why I wanted to involve the neighborhood associations from the
beginning, and why I have tried to paint as realistic a picture as I can of our usage.
Here is the schedule of this year's services.
Calendar for 5766 (2005-2006)
AUG20
SAT
LOAM
Bat Mitzvah
SEP9
FRI
7:30PM
Shabbat service w/Rabbi
OCT3
MON
7:30PM
Erev Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year)
OCT4
TUE
I OAM
Rosh Hashanah I
OCT5 WED 8:30AM
OCT12
WED
7:30PM
OCT13
THU
LOAM
OCT29
SAT
LOAM
NOV26
SAT
LOAM
DEC9
FRI
6:30PM
JAN20
FRI
7:30PM
FEB10
FRI
6:30PM
MAR3
FRI
6:30PM
MAR31
FRI
7:30PM
Rosh Hashanah II (2nd day,for our more orthodox members, not
held every year, very small attendance)
Erev Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)
Yom Kippur
Bar Mitzvah
Bat Mitzvah
Shabbat Children's Service w/Rabbi
Shabbat service w/Rabbi
Shabbat Children's Service w/Rabbi
Shabbat Across America w/Rabbi
Shabbat Service w/Rabbi
APR15
SAT
6:00PM
Community Seder (Passover, catered at the Radisson)
MAY5
FR]
7:30PM
Shabbat Service w/Rabbi
Synagogue and Church
I know that for most area residents the idea of a "church" in a residential neighborhood
might not seem ideal, though it is not uncommon throughout our city and region. A synagogue
is, however, quite different in practice from a Christian church. First, we do not take up a
collection. In fact, handling money is forbidden on the sabbath by traditional Jewish law. Our
congregations are funded by annual dues from our members, so while we encourage attendance
at all our activities, there is no financial incentive to boosting attendance at our worship services.
Second, while we enjoy the attendance of non -Jews at our services, one must be Jewish to be a
member of the congregation. And while it is possible to convert to Judaism, it is a long and
difficult process, and we do not prostelytize or encourage conversion. Therefore, while we do
hope all Jews and non -Jews interested in Judaism will find out about us and attend our activities,
Jewish congregations do not do the kind of advertising and promotions that are used by many
churches to grow their membership and attendance.
Temple Shalom has been a part of Fayetteville for almost 25 years, but we have always
preferred to keep a low profile. With this acquisition, we plan to raise that profile a little bit and
add to the cultural diversity and sophistication that sets Fayetteville apart from our Benton
County neighbors. Now that we have a mosque in Fayetteville, we need a permanent synagogue
as well. We also hope to demonstrate that we are a part of and have respect for Fayetteville's
history and culture by upgrading and preserving a true Fayetteville landmark.
Temple Shalom has worked very hard to address the concerns of the neighborhood,
including meeting with neighbors to incorporate their concerns from the beginning of the project,
as follows.
Neighborhood Meetings Invited Attendance
August 31, 2005 all neighborhood association members app. 21 neighbors
Jan 15, 2006 mailed to over 40 of the closest properties 8 residences
Jan 18, 2006 all neighborhood association members 12 attendees
As indicated by the planning staff report, and by the careful consideration and affirmative
vote of the Planning Commission after listening to all public comment, our use of the Butterfly
House will be compatible with the neighborhood and will not create any more dangerous traffic
conditions than would single family residence on the properties. While we would prefer to be
welcomed by all of the neighbors, if that were the only criteria for living in a particular place, we
would live in a much less interesting and much more segregated world.
: i11
1`1
J [C•A
.fit,'. •• }- '..-.
' 1
Y
a
-000
``1
?-000
765-04552-000
765-14141-000
Chalfant SS
Charles H & Debra J
765-04535-000
0
0
0
to
to
CD
765-04534-000
Chalfant
-000 Chalfant
0120 Charles H & Debra J
Charles H & Debra J
s
,O k 765-04533-000
ti
i-000
- s.
__..__._.--
00 0 0 Chalfant Dap f
00 rn Charles H & Debra J
0
A
— E
i-000 v
- �
765-04537-000
5-000; Fayetteville
Chalfant Y 765-04532-000
Charles-H-&.Debrad.... i +____
?-O00 E r E%Ij th/pOf3 TRt -
11568-000
765-08569-000
Baird
Howard D & Naomi:J
765-08565-000
r-000
X8566-000765-08564-000
E REBECCA ST
OO it
6
765-14147-000
Baledge
Les R & Myriam (Goffin)
765-14148-000 765-06430-000
Wilson
Donald Roller TTEE
Kathleen Kay TTEE
765-14149-000
Wilson
Donald Roller TTEE
Kathleen Kay TTEE
765-14152-000
765-06431-000
765-06432-000
62O0..Th
-
ROBIN86�p 8 7 5-04530-00
E
65-06998.000 765-14142-000 765-04552-001 N
_. us
765-06999.000'.— . - _-- ^ 5-04529-00
765.06952-000 4 ------
765-04552-000 - w
o $
q 5-04528-00
765-14141-000 G ----- -_--- - -•E NORTNVfE
n
_ r` SIB 765A4535.000 765-04534.000 --- -
765-06949-000 65-04577-00
ems.
765-04533-000
765-06946-000 sue ,
g b, z
0 8 a
90t 765-04526-00
o p
765-06944-000 < a $ - -. --.-.
76 537.000...
Fayetteville 76
765-06945-000
5-04532-000
765-08570-000- .. -E •ROCfC1N.. TRL .......
765-08568-000 - -
765-08569-000 -- -
765-14148-000 765-06430-000
765-08565.000------
765-08667.000 765-14147-000 - - - - - - - -.
765 -06431 -DOD
765-08564-000
765 -08568 -REBECCA ST 765-14149-000 000
E
.. _ .. - 765-06432-000
765-07323.00
'2. .. _ _ .. 765-06433-001
per- 2' 765-14152-000 --- ------
165 765-0856344)
=0 765-14156-000
765-08627-000 W 765-14150-000 765-14151-000
765-08629-000765-08628-000 Z - -
765-08562-0 -.. _.. - - �s _
E TRUS7ST - 765-14157-000 765-14153-000 �4,
765-08561 00 - - - --
$6'0 765-08561-001
765-14158-000 765-14163-000 765-10611-000 -
%0 765-10614-000
I Feet
County Disclaimer. 0 160 320 640
This map was created by Washington County using data seated or acquired by its Assessor's office. Dept. of Emergency
Managment, and Road Department and in accordance with Arkansas Code 15-21-502 (2) (B), which states The digital cadastre
manages and provides access to cadastral information. Digital cadastre does not represent legal property boundary descriptions.
nor is it suitable for boundary determination of the individual parcels included in the cadastre " and Arkansas Code 15-21-502 (6)
which indicates that "Digital cadastremeans the storage and manipulation of cornputenzed representations of parcel maps and
linked databases."
This map has been developed from the best available sources. No guarantee of accuracy is granted, nor is any responsibility
for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall said Washington County be liable for direct. indirect, incidental, consequential or
speaal damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits or benefits arising out of use of or reliance
on the map.
The parcel lines shown am considered a graphical representation of the actual boundanes. Washington County sin no
way responsible for or liable for any misrepresentation or re -use of this map. Distribution of this map is intended for informational
purposes and should not be considered authoritative for engineering, legal and other site -specific uses.
I
1�-
-t
IC
I
L
O
Zm
of
U
' fir .'' f aLwn.....ia
q• Vb -
♦ YV �.
• v
/tt
\
A
C| !.
I. S2\!F! !!
|
L|||| a. iii ;§
$!
!|�!
# §1-O Aai! \
|! !,
i -- •}
) ��'||
]! ; | )I\};; |\}
| ..
" �i}
�}i ! 4: !11I
|! !��»
i!| )
it ,�•;§ 1• ,
l,f��l l|! |n
„
��'!}�l�•�!|��|�
J p
;!
|!h!!| lfLU a;!!,!
|
!
I
I
I
Proposal to the City of Fayetteville
Planning Commission
December 15, 2005
t
A permanent home for
Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas:
the E. Fay Jones "Butterfly House".
- 1100 Rockwood Trail
r.{,.
. =
rf .a 41 9 ••a 4 y TY T �M .. r=te.4 I Yv/
�I 11YSYi+. 1 i. ✓ ♦ . VEd r tf':.J"a.i '7t.'Y ��.cvY yry
' 1—+.[.a. 4^ l' < .-.F�♦
I' rte- .. '
r.'. YY�I 6 ✓.�1�. n Imo....,- --
.Fl. a.el : .. -.
M 0 U S C 1 0 0. Y F- AND N KS. W. D.{ X A P. R A L tip n e . n♦ ♦ a.[ 1 ..• n I 1.. 1
Joe Ratner, President 479-685-0272 jratner@aol.com
I Temple Slsalom of Northwest Arkansas
L PO Box 3723
Vfatietteville, AR 72702
Introduction
Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas, founded in 1981, is Fayetteville's only Jewish
congregation. On the eve of our 25th anniversary, we at long last have an opportunity to have a
home of our own. Our congregation has always been centered around the University of
Arknasas (many of our members are professors), and while real estate around the campus is not
plentiful, we have found a beautiful location only 1.5 miles from Old Main. As we contemplate
our legacy as a part of Northwest Arkansas, and we plan to honor Fay Jones's legacy, as
embodied in this early example of his work, which remains just as it was when he and Mr. Harral
oversaw its construction over 40 years ago. Most Temple events are open to the public, so
admirers will have an opportunity to visit the Butterfly House.
Structure and Signage
The "Butterfly House" at 1100 Rockwood is app. 4100 sq. ft., on app. 1.5 acres of land.
Behind the property is unbuildable land, and a stand of trees shields the property on both sides.
Changes to the structure of the home will be minimized, and no changes are planned that would
preclude returning the building to private residential use in the future. Modifications necessary
to meet building codes are being designed to retain the home's original spirit by David McKee,
of Maurice Jennings and David McKee, the firm in which Fay Jones was a partner. Changes
include a guardrail on the patio which runs the length of the rear of the house, conversion of one
restroom to ADA specifications, and the replacement of three sliding glass doors in the rear of
the house by outward swinging doors for emergency egress, which will be.custom designed and
built. No yard or pole signage is desired. Signage will be confined to the front wall and/or porch
of the building, and the mailbox or driveway light fixtures.
Landscaping and Parking
There is virtually no landscaping in front of the house currently, and the lot to the east is
bare with a chainlink dog run and storage shed clearly visible at the back of the lot. We plan to
follow Fay Jones' original landscaping plan as closely as possible in front of the house, and it
will guide the landscaping and screening of the parking lawn on the grass lot to the east. While
the sanctuary area can hold 101 persons, going by raw square footage, we think about 60 can fit
comfortably. City code specifies 25 spaces for 100 person occupancy, and 15 for 60 persons,
while allowing 30% fewer to be provided, or 18 spaces for 100 persons. We plan to provide a
minimum of 21 and up to 25 spaces, of which up to 5 will be ADA accesible. We do not plan to
rely at all on on -street parking. As we would need parking beyond the existing driveway
infrequently, we plan to pave the parking area with grass pavers that allow grass to grow for a
more residential look, and also provide excellent drainage. We have given a lot of attention to
integrating the look of the parking area with that of the building, and expect to incur significant
added expense to ensure that the parking area is as unobtrusive and residential looking as
possible.
Entry will be by way of the existing driveway, and the parking area will be excavated to a
level surface, which will be significantly below the street level. Cars at the west end of the
parking area will be below ground level, and at the extreme east end will still be partially below
grade and shielded from view by landscaping. The exit from the parking area will be a new curb
cut at the east end of the vacant lot, and will be made to look like a residential driveway. To the
west, the crest of the road is at the extreme west end of the property, while to the east the road is
still going down and the crest is even farther away. As can be seen in the accompanying
photographs, visibility for egress is excellent in both directions, and Rockwood Trail traffic will
have excellent visibility of the outgoing vehicles as we will minimize landscaping at the end of
the exit drive.
Traffic and Lighting
As indicated in the section on our activities and in the following table, the traffic
generated by our activities during the week will rarely involve more than one or two cars, and we
rarely have more than 6-8 cars at any weekend events. Even our better attended regular worship
services generally have no more than a dozen vehicles, and it is very rare for more than two or
three events a year to exceed 50 attendees and 20 vehicles. Clearly this is less burdensome than
a typical household with a couple of teenagers and the occaisonal party, and if we do not
purchase this property it is most likely that the two lots will be sold separately and a second
home will be constructed on the currently vacant east lot, doubling the potential increase in
overall traffic.
Day of week/Activity
Weekdays: office work
Monthly board meetings
Friday night worship services
Saturday adult education
Sunday School
(Aug. -June)
Attendance Number of cars Car trips
1 I 10/week for 52 weeks
12
8
30
15
10
10
31
8 staying
7 drop-offs
16/month for 12 mos.
30/service (15 services)
20/week
16/week for 36 weeks
28/week for 36 weeks
Annual total
520
192
450
1000
576
1008
t
General traffic engineering standard for a dwelling: 10/day = 3650/year or 7300/year for 2 homes
Existing lighting may be adequate, but we may require some additional lights in the
parking area. Lighting will either be electric utility fixtures as currently, or more residential style
porch or walkway lighting.
Activities and Attendance
Member units
From a high of over 80 before the establishment of a new Jewish congregation in
Bentonville, our current membership is 46 family units (which include about 80 total individuals,
including spouses and children). Many members only show up for one or two of the most
important holidays each year. Membership is limited to Jews, though non-Jewish guests are of
course welcome to attend.
Typical attendance
Every Week
Adult education on Saturday is from LOAM-5PM with the rabbi or LOAM -Noon when the
rabbi is not present. Typically 6-10 persons will attend.
Sunday school (only during school year) I 0AM-Noon 18 students enrolled, + 4 teachers.
Office work is done throughout the week on a fairly random basis by myself, my
20hr/month administrator, my treasurer, the Sunday school director, or the rabbi.
Every 3 or 4 weeks -
Rabbi -led Friday evening services 7PM-1 OPM (some 6PM children's services) usually
10-15 persons attend, however, occasionally around 30 will show up. It is possible that the
frequency of Friday services might increase in the future.
A couple of times a year we may have a special service, such as for Chanukah, with
around 50. Once in a while we have lay -led. Friday evening events 6PM-1 OPM with typically 4-
5 persons in attendance. There also may be occasional social events where around 20-30 may
attend. •
Annually
The Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) and Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), our High
Holy Days and the most important observances of the year, happen in the fall. In the same way
that many Christiaris only go to church on Christmas and Easter, many Jews only attend one or
both of these holidays. This year, we had one service attended by about 120, one with about 90,
and the other services were attended by about 60. The services are 7PM-1 OPM the evening prior
to the holiday with services continuing in the morning at LOAM to about 2PM on Rosh Hashanah
and until 8PM on Yom Kippur.
Bar/Bat Mitzvahs happen only when a child reaches the age of 12 or 13. Often there are
none in a year, this year we have had 3. Anywhere from 40-100+ may attend, depending on how
many relatives come to town and how many friends the child invites.
We have been holding all our Rabbi -led services and High Holidays at the Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship Hall for many years, and we will continue to use their hall for any
services that we would expect to overfill the house on Rockwood, such as the High Holidays,
Bar/Bat Mitzvahs or other special events.
I have tried to be as accurate and realistic as possible with these estimates. We would
love to make this house our home, but we want to be good and welcome members of the
neighborhood. This is why I wanted to involve the neighborhood associations from the
beginning, and why I have tried to paint as realistic a picture as I can of our usage.
Here is the schedule of this year's services.
Calendar for 5766 (2005-2006)
AUG20 SAT LOAM Bat Mitzvah
SEP9
FRI
7:30PM
OCT3
MON
7:30PM
OCT4
TUE
LOAM
OCT5
WED
8:30AM
OCT12
WED
7:30PM
OCT13
THU
10AM
OCT29
SAT
10AM
NOV26
SAT
LOAM
DEC9
FRI
6:30PM
Shabbat
Children's Service w/Rabbi
JAN20
FRI
7:30PM
Shabbat
service w/Rabbi
FEB 10
FRI
6:30PM
Shabbat
Children's Service w/Rabbi
MAR3
FRI
6:30PM
Shabbat
Across America w/Rabbi
MAR31
FRI
7:30PM
Shabbat
Service w/Rabbi
Shabbat service w/Rabbi
Erev Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year)
Rosh Hashanah I
Rosh Hashanah II (2nd day, for our more orthodox members, not
held every year, very small attendance)
Erev Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)
Yom Kippur
Bar Mitzvah
Bat Mitzvah
APR15
SAT
6:00PM
Community Seder (Passover,
catered at the Radisson)
MAYS
FRI
7:30PM
Shabbat Service w/Rabbi
Synagogue and Church
I know that for most area residents the idea of a "church" in a residential neighborhood
might not seem ideal, though it is not uncommon throughout our city and region. A synagogue
is, however, quite different in practice from a Christian church. First, we do not take up a
collection. In fact, handling money is forbidden on the sabbath by traditional Jewish law. Our
congregations are funded by annual dues from our members, so while we encourage attendance
at all our activities, there is no financial incentive to boosting attendance at our worship services.
Second, while we enjoy the attendance of non -Jews at our services, one must be Jewish to be a
member of the congregation. And while it is possible to convert to Judaism, it is a long and -
difficult process, and we do not prostelytize or encourage conversion. Therefore, while we do
hope all Jews and non -Jews interested in Judaism will find out about us and attend our activities,
Jewish congregations do not do the kind of advertising and promotions that are used by many
churches to grow their membership and attendance.
Temple Shalom has been a part of Fayetteville for almost 25 years, but we have always
preferred to keep a low profile. With this acquisition, we plan to raise that profile a little bit and
add to the cultural diversity and sophistication that sets Fayetteville apart from our Benton
County neighbors. Now that we have a mosque in Fayetteville, we need a permanent synagogue
as well. We also hope to demonstrate that we are a part of and have respect for Fayetteville's
history and culture by upgrading and preserving a true Fayetteville landmark.
Temple Shalom has worked very hard to address the concerns of the neighborhood,
including meeting with neighbors to incorporate their concerns from the beginning of the project,
as follows.
Neighborhood Meetings Invited Attendance
August 31, 2005 all neighborhood association members app. 21 neighbors
Jan 15, 2006 mailed to over 40 of the closest properties 8 residences
Jan 18, 2006 all neighborhood association members 12 attendees
As indicated by the planning staff report, and by the careful consideration and affirmative
vote of the Planning Commission after listening to all public comment, our use of the Butterfly
House will be compatible with the neighborhood and will not create any more dangerous traffic
conditions than would single family residence on the properties. While we would prefer to be
welcomed by all of the neighbors, if that were the only criteria for living in a particular place, we
would live in a much less interesting and much more segregated world.
I
\zp
ft.
4
liii'�C T � jLf'� •
�S.
a'
rR
yy
)O00
765-04552-000
.___
?-000
765-04552-000
765-14141-000
Chalfant
Charles H & Debra J
)-000
5-000
O
O
O
O
O
O
$-000 v
v
r
Lb
L
5-0000
Chalfant
_ _:
- Charles -H-& Debrad.
3568-000 P65-08569-000
Baird
Howard D & Naomi:J
765-08565-000
7-000
1-08566-000765-08564-000
E REBECCA Si
OS
O7
Sv,
O
Chalfant OO
Charles H & Debra J
O
O
O
rT
O
765-04535-000
N. Chalfant
Charles H & Debra J
O\�
s
%O
c
s06' `
,O\
Chalfant O
Charles H & Debra J
04537-000_..:,
0
O
to
v
O
(0
765-04534-000
i
765-04533-000
I
I.
Fa etteville
Y 765-04532-000
765-14148-000
Wilson
Donald Roller TTEE
Kathleen Kay TTEE
765-14147-000
Baledge
Les R & Myriam (Goffin)
765-14149-000
Wilson
Donald Roller TTEE
Kathleen Kay TTEE
765-14152-000
765-06430-000
765-06431-000
765-06432-000
765.045!0.000
9ip'�0 g
4 7(5-04530-00(
E ROBIN9
65-06998.000 765-14142-000765-04552-001
Q _
5-04529-00
C
65-06952-000 o ---- -
765-04552-000
q h
5-04528-00
765-14141-000 � _ _ _ - _ E NORTMVtE
765-04535-000 765-04534-000
65-06949-000 OO 6457M0C
65-06946-000 J, 765-04533-000
_...._._. _. o eo$ 765-04526-00
C
o d
N
0
765-06944-000 a $ - -.
•v v 785-04537-000 2Co
yw
N
765-06945-000 W Fayetteville 765
-04532-000 N
785-00570-000 - -- -f - ROCKWOOD TRIL - -
765-08568-000 765-08569-000 - -_--- --- -- - - -
765-14148-000 765-06430-000
rn
765-08565-000- - -- -
765-08567-000 765-14147-000 - - w
765-08564-000 765-06431-00D b
765-08566-000 765-14149-000
E REBECCA S7 _. --- -
765-06432-000
765-07323-00
765-06433-001
,p06 2' 765-14152-000
165 765-08563- 765-14156-000
O
765-08627-000 -765-14150-000 765-14151-p00
765-08629-000765-08628-000 - -- - _ - -
765-08562-0
E YRUSY ST - 765-14157-000 765-14153-000 '17
�6SO 765-08561 00
OS6p 765-08561-001 765-14163-000 765-10611-000 --- --
Opp 765-14158-000 765-10614-000
M,
County Disdalmer 0 160 320 640
This map was created by Washington County using data seated or acquired by its Assessors office. Dept. of Emergency
Managment, and Road Department and in accordance with Arkansas Code 15-21-502 (2) (6), which states The digital cadasae
manages and provides access to cadastral information. Dgital cadastre does not represent legal property boundary descnpbons,
nor is it suitable for boundary determination of the individual parcels included in the cadastre.' and Arkansas Code 15-21-502 (6)
which indicates that-'Dgital cadastre' means the storage and manipulation of oomputenzed representations of parcel maps and
linked databases. -
This map has been developed from the best available sources. No guarantee of accuracy is granted, nor is any responsibility
for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall said Washington County be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential or
special damages of any kind, including, but not limited to. loss of anticipated profits or benefits arising out of use of or reliance
on the map.
The parcel lines shown are considered a graphical representation of the actual boundaries. Washington County is in no
way responsible for or liable for any misrepresentation or re -use of this map. Distribution of this map is intended for informational
purposes and should not be considered authoritative for engineering, legal and other site -specific uses.
C
V.
C:
SA-'
Y
a
• � '� P 1 1 '11 i
•
PC?'
(�
' I
- _
r\
@
( ! .
| ).��.� )|/i
fI it}|}|) --'lk�li '§
!! f}�!§ !{'•',|! !!
| |
Li }�
I■;l;!`! !\
%
|} li.,
!! 2
,! !!!|! j{
I
;!\||
i I,;!!. !o
-,&»; |} |§f
I. H :il��
!!! I If
E. ,| i�`�
�` « • -
•, !
;|!
Cl | * �!! .!!
,!|%!�|!i}!!�}i|!(
}j|i��
}ilil!
{!!}|f!!!;,!!| a;|!.|
#!
L,!!!; |l!!
0
t,
MEMORANDUM
To: Fayetteville City Council
From: North Sequoyah Neighborhood Association
Victoria Sowder, spokesperson (479.236.0940)
Subject: CUP 06-1892 (planned conversion of Butterfly House property on
Rockwood Trail by Temple Shalom)
Date: February 10, 2006
The North Sequoyah Neighborhood Association urges the Fayetteville City Council to reject the
recent Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-1892 for use of the
Butterfly House by Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas as their synagogue.
This memo represents the position of the North Sequoyah Neighborhood Association. It is based
on opinion statements compiled by members of the Association, of the almost 100 households in
the near vicinity of the Butterfly House that were represented in the compilation, and calls to
your attention the fact that approximately 90% of those households opposed the conditional use
represented in CUP 06-1892. No individual or family names are associated with specific points
in this memo because it represents the collective position of the Association as an entity.
I. A primary point of opposition criticized the ad hoc retrofit of a single-family residence and
the resulting retrofit of the neighborhood, enforced by an after -the -fact mixed -use planning
philosophy that the most of our neighbors feel is inappropriate in this particular geographic
setting.
While recognizing that places of worship and other cultural opportunities addressed by the CUP
process are certainly an integral part of community life, the North Sequoyah Neighborhood
Association respectfully notes that other places of worship currently in the midst of Fayetteville
neighborhoods generally grew up along with the neighborhood rather than going in after a
residential neighborhood had enjoyed many decades as a quiet, thriving, single-family area.
II. Along with obvious traffic safety fears, many of our neighbors strenuously object to the
intrusion of a parking lot into the middle of a longstanding single-family residential community.
Although the Planning Commission's conditions prohibited the use of parking lot lights on poles
in this case, many of the nearest neighbors point out that vehicles lights in the parking lot would
present visual intrusion into neighboring homes and that the planned vegetation, including five
trees, would take many years to reach a size adequate to provide effective screening of the
parking areas.
Most of our neighbors simply believe that a 90' x 62' parking lot should not suddenly be
imposed in the middle of any established and thriving residential area anywhere.
III. Further, it is the opinion of the Neighborhood Association as a whole that even though
Planning Commission conditions for the CUP included grass pavers for the parking lot and
specifically limited the number of vehicles to be parked on the property —there will surely be
occasions when more than the maximum allowed number of vehicles will unexpectedly arrive
and will need places to park.
In such cases it is doubtful that officers of the congregation would turn people away due to
parking lot limitations, with the result that such overflow vehicles would be unsafely parked on
Rockwood Trail, on Sequoyah Drive, on Crest Drive, and in private driveways of nearby homes.
Further, members of the Neighborhood Association, who deal frequently with vehicles illegally
parked on streets, voiced very specific and serious concerns about accountability, reporting, and
enforcement of the Planning Commission's various requirements, particularly concerning
parking, if the use is allowed.
IV. Objections voiced focused on traffic safety on the already -taxed Rockwood Trail, which
has many hidden driveways, several blind hills, no shoulders, no gutters, and no sidewalks, as
well as a hazardous jog in the street at the blind hill immediately adjacent to the Butterfly House.
One adjacent property owner reported that he was asked by a congregation representative if he
(the neighbor) would allow the removal of vegetation on his property to improve Butterfly House
sightlines.
We call your attention to the fact that a recent traffic count revealed an average of 1150 vehicles
per day on Rockwood Trail for the days studied, and approximately 400 of those vehicles
illegally traveled at speeds ofgreater than 39 mph at the site on the blind hill where Temple
Shalom proposes to locate synagogue egress and ingress.
The average speed of vehicles during the three-day traffic count (February 3, 4, 5) was 39 mph,
which is well in excess of the posted 25 mph used by Planning Commission staff in their
recommendation that the CUP be approved. The Neighborhood Association also respectfully
points out that this traffic count was conducted at the neighborhood's request, after the Planning
Commission had already approved the CUP without the benefit of a traffic count.
VI. Another point made by some of our Neighborhood Association members is that, although
the congregation stated that their group is small and slow -growing and that only Fayetteville
residents would attend services at the Butterfly House, many neighbors are certain that greater -
than -anticipated growth would occur simply because of the attractive nature of the Butterfly
House itself. While the Association sincerely wishes good health and vitality to Temple Shalom,
and appreciates the diversity that this congregation provides to our community, many neighbors
fear that such growth would create problems and resentment as the congregation expanded and
became unable to effectively deal with the CUP restrictions on the property in which the Temple
is investing more than $1 million.
VII. It is emphasized, too, that Don Connor, co -president of the Root School Neighborhood
Association, stated that the Association that he represents also opposes the Conditional Use
Permit.
In closing, the North Sequoyah Neighborhood Association respectfully requests that the
Fayetteville City Council recognize the validity of the opposing and expressed concerns of the
overwhelming majority of the neighborhood and repeal Conditional Use Permit 06-1892.
2
City Clerk - Temple Shalom C yConditional_Use Page 1
From: Alison Jumper <alisonjumper@yahoo.com>
To: <bthiel@cox.net>, <ward2_post@ci.fayefteville.ar.us>, <rrhoads@hallestill.com>,
<donmarr@swbell.net>,<ward3_pos2@ci.fayetteviile.ar.us>,<ward4_posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<I Ij o rd a n 7@ h of m a i l. co m>
Date: . Tue, Feb 14, 2006 5:18 PM
Subject: Temple Shalom Conditional Use
I live at 733 N. Crest Dr., the southeast corner of Rockwood Trail and N. Crest Dr, which is diagonally
across Rockwood to the east from the Butterfly house.
I have attended neighborhood meetings as well as the Planning Commission meeting at which this
conditional use was approved.
I am writing in opposition of the conditonal use permit for 1100 Rockwood Trail for Temple Shalom. I
strongly believe this is the wrong location for this use. Of most concern to me is safety. That particular
location for a parking lot aand increased traffic is very dangerous. Traffic coming down the hill is generally
traveling very fast. One has to stay on the brakes down entire hill to remain at the speed limit. The parking
exit is currently sited at a particulary awkward location, where sight distance is not good and speeds are
very fast. Traffic turning into the parking would be turning left against traffic speeding down hill.
In addition, I am concerned about the addition of a parking lot, even if it is grass pave. I am familiar with
the product and believe it is a good alternative to asphalt, but the concern lies with a parking lot being
added to a purely single family neighborhood.
Statements were made at neighborhood meetings that alterations to the home and land would be
insignificant and easily "undone" so that if someone wanted to revert it back to a single family residence,
they could do so easily. I do not agree that a parking lot could be reverted back, especially as it is
proposed (being below street level) very easily and would actually deter it from ever being single family
again.
Please consider this correspondence in opposition when hearing the appeal from the neighbors of the
conditional use at 1100 Rockwood Trail.
Alison Jumper
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
CC: <city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
City Glerk - Buttefly hhouse CUP 06-1892 Page 1
From: <sspencer98@cox.net> -
To:<city_cIerk@ci.fayetteviIIe.ar.us>
Date: Sat, Feb 11, 2006 1:13 PM
Subject: Butterfly house CUP 06-1892
Dear City Council member,
I live six houses down from the "Butterfly house." There is no question that the majority of the neighbors
oppose converting this private home into a temple.
There is no question that the temple could find a host of other locations that would not require a
conditional use permit and would be less expensive, allow growth and flexibility.
I can sympathize with the home owner trying to sell his home, but I don't think that the city or the
neighborhood has an obligation to help him make a sale.
This house is unique in Fayetteville because of Fay Jones. I believe the conditional use permit came
about because the homeowner is asking too much for this house. This home needs someone to buy it and
landscape, build a driveway, remove the storage shed and dogrun, upgrade the interior of the house, etc.
If market forces prevail this will occur and then the house will be worth much more than a million, be an
asset to the community, preserve a Fay Jones home,and leave the neighborhood intact.
Please do not approve CUP 06-1892.
Steve, Karen, Abby and Cole Spencer
562 N. Sequoyah Drive
•l
From: Mike Saitta <msaittal @cox.net>
To:<city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Rockwood Trail Conditional Use Permit
Please
distribute
to each
of the aldermen
considering the "Butterfly
House"
issue on
the City
Council agenda
next week.
Rather than be repetitive, I would like to bring to the attention of
the city council members a note I sent to the Planning Commission last
month. I suppose the issue of how our city planning department ever
decided this would be an appropriate project remains unresolved.
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed conditional use
permit at 1100 Rockwood Trail. I live less than 1/4 mile from the
property in question and have done so for almost ten years.
This project, as described, is unnecessary, unsafe and unwanted by the
neighbors; in addition, the assumptions about future growth are not
credible. Unnecessary because there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of
properties in the two -county area suitable for such an activity that
are not located in a residential neighborhood and would not require any
variance at all. Have each of these properties been examined and found
lacking? Granting of a variance from the existing zoning requires
exceptional circumstances and a demonstration that no other suitable
solution exists. This proposal meets neither of these criteria.
Unsafe because the proposed location is an already dangerous stretch of
Rockwood, where traffic routinely travels at 2-3 times the posted speed
limits despite several blind curves and vertical drops. This block also
becomes essentially a one lane road during the spring and summer with
the overgrowth of brush along the side of the street. This particular
house is perhaps the worst possible choice in all of Fayetteville
purely from the safety standpoint. Additional traffic, particularly
with people unfamiliar with the area, coupled with frequent cars
turning in and out of the property, will create dangerous conditions
for everyone. Four-way stop signs at the intersections surrounding the
property, along with sidewalks connecting Sequoyah and Crest might help
to alleviate this to some degree. If the commission chooses to approve
this CUP, it should be contingent on these improvements being completed
at the Temple's expense prior to occupancy.
Unwanted by the neighbors because of the traffic, noise, light
pollution and horrible precedent outlined by other opponents. Please
also remember that hundreds of families have purchased or improved
homes on Mount Sequoyah secure that the zoning laws would protect them
from this type of intrusion into their neighborhood. Who is going to
reimburse them for the loss of property value that will accompany this
permit? What is to stop the next enterprise from purchasing a lot in a
100% residential neighborhood and moving in? The president of the
Temple has been quoted as saying they won't come if there is
significant neighborhood opposition. Let's help them live up to this
promise.
Even if we somehow can ignore all of these concerns and justify a
variance for the current temple size, the property and the neighborhood
have no margin to accommodate any additional growth by the temple,
either in mission or population. I would predict that before long, we
will be back before the commission on the slippery slope of additional
parking, additional lighting, additional buildings, all of which will.
seem like small incremental changes, but collectively serving to erode
the neighborhood we live in.
I encourage you to put a stop to this now
Thank you,
Michael Saitta
CC: <mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
City Clerk -Saving Mt. Se uoyah Page 1
From: James Culberson <culbersons@sbcglobal.net>
To: victoria sowder <vsowder@beta-rubicon.com>, Michael Beckers
<michaelb@airwaysfreight,com>, Pam Delaney <pdelane@uark.edu>
Date: Sun, Feb 12, 2006 4:23 PM
Subject: Saving Mt. Sequoyah
Dear parties concerned,
Sure enough, the newspaper got in on putting us down. Now they have made a Holy War out of our
simply not wanting a church and a parking lot in the middle of our neighborhood. The issue has never
been what kind of church proposes to inhabit the Butterfly home on Rockwood Trail, but that the almost
anonymous consensus of our neighborhood on Mt. Sequoyah is: We don't want any church or
commercial business at that location!
I have tried to analyze why the planning commission and the Gazette are acting like we are 'uppity'. Is
it because of where we live? Is it because we love where we live? It's like we're being punished for being
content with our neighborhood and the way it is today. For the first time in 37 years, I feel afraid for the
future of our beautiful town.
President Bush recently said,"We love our freedom, and will fight to keep it." I'm in strong agreement
with that attitude. We should not be persecuted for excercising our rights as citizens, to protect and
preserve what is ours.
I resent that Joe Ratner of Bentonville, the Barber Group of Texas, and Lowell Grishom of (not our
neighborhood) Fayetteville are trying to show us what is right for us. We already know what is right.
All the churches we hear about in neighborhoods are on the outer perimeters and are on main streets,
not in the middle of a narrow, hilly road with limited visibility. We are being asked to compromise the
safety of our neighbors and children for the sake of a cultural entity's added pleasure.
If there was ever a time that City Planning and City Council need to excercise good common sense, it
is now. We'll wake up someday to wonder what happened to our wonderful neighborhoods, mountains,
and trees. Fifty years ago, someone cut the maple trees down on highway 71 to widen the road. Too bad
they didn't have the common sense to replant them so our children and grandchildren, etc., could have
enjoyed a beautiful College Ave. Preservation is progressive. A new idea doesn't mean that it is a good
idea. Please give this serious thought because it could be your neighborhood next.
Sincerely,
Emmie Stiles Anderson
From: James Culberson <culbersons@sbcglobal.net>
To: "bthiel@cox.net" <bthiel@cox.net>, "city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us"
<city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, "Iljordan7@hotmail.com" <Iljordan7@hotmail.com>,
"mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, "rrhoads@hallestill.com"
<rrhoads@hallestill.com>, "ward2_pos1 @ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <ward2_posl @ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
"ward2_pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <ward2_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
"ward3_pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <ward3_pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
"ward4_posl @ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <ward4_posl @ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: butterfly home
Dear Elected Officials,
I can only hope that you are reading the mails, and with an open mind. I think by now you have heard
many of the many more valid reasons cited by Mt. Sequoyah neighbors, as well as other concerned
Fayetteville residents, why we oppose the conditional -use zoning of the Butterfly home on Rockwood
Trail. Please do not assume that we distinguish between the Jewish faith and the Methodists', or the
Baptists', or the Catholics'. This issue has never been about that, and I am so infuriated with those people
who are knowingly misconstruing the well-spoken, intelligent comments and pleas of my neighbors. In my
opinion, these officials and journalists have proven to us all that they are not really capable of listening,
which is a huge responsibility they assumed when taking office and jobs- The words coming out of our
mouths in no way say that we are opposed to the Jewish community. Period! The truth has been turned
into a lie by several people who need to shine in the politically
correct spotlight! Does this make them more popular? No, not in the eyes of the public, who thought we
were supposed to be fairly represented. The last planning commission meeting was a good example of
just that mistake. Our words fell on deaf ears for the most part, and we could tell what was happening.
Can you imagine the frustration and disbelief we have experienced over this? Absolutely everyone is
talking about it, and we know we were cheated. If this attitude is thrown at us again by City Council in the
Feb. 21 meeting, it will be more than we can take. The general public should not be regarded as
insignificant and unworthy. That is so wrong!! The majority should have a voice, and I think we all know
that is right. Our city officials were elected to represent us, and to help us. Can we count on you for that?
Thank you for your hard work.
Sincerely,
Patti Culberson
g City Clerk - CUP 06-1892 (planned conversion of Butterfly House property) Page 1
From: Sharon Wimberly <smwimberly@yahoo.com>
To: <bthiel@cox.net>,<Ward1pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<ward2posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <rrhoad@HallEstill.com>,<ward3pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<ward4posl @fayeteville.ar.us>, <Iljordan7@hotmail.com>, <mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<city_clerk@ci.fayettevi l le.ar.us>
Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2006 4:49 PM
Subject: CUP 06-1892 (planned conversion of Butterfly House property)
Dear Mayor & council persons:
I concur with all the points in the memo of 2/10/06 sent to you from Victoria Sowder of the North
Sequoyah Neighborhood Association in regard to the above mentioned permit.
Please consider our position and reject this measure.
Thank. you,
Sharon Wimberly (Ms. F. Ervan)
1106 E. Ridgeway
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.
02120/2006 17:43
THE 13ECKET. t•UND
......................•.........._... _. .
Date: 02/20/2006 17:43
NO. OF PAGE: 11 (include this page)
To: Name:
Hon. Dan Coody & City Council Members
Department
City Clerk's Office
Company:
City of Fayeteville AR
From: Name:
Roger Severino
TEL & FAX:
(TEL) (202) 349-7230
(FAX) (202) 955-0090
E -Mail:
rseverino@becketfund.org
Department
Legal Counsel .
Company:
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Address:
1350 Connecticut Ave. N.W Suite 605
Washington DC, 20036
Comment:
Dear Clerk,
Kindly forward this legal opinion letter to Mayor Coody, all City. Council members and
City Attorney Williams
Many thanks. -
I . -. I.
02120200617:43 P 2)11
THE BECKET FUND
rOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
BOARD or ADVISORS
February 20, 2006
Hon. Wilimn P.9an
FormerAnomey Gerrcel
Hon. Dan Coody,
of the Unfed States
Mayor of Fayetteville
Prof. Stephen L. Ceder
tae Law schooi
Hon. Members,
Fayetteville City Council .
1t Emsence
Francisemdma[Geotge,O.MJ,
113-W. Mountain -
Archbishop of Chicago
Fayetteville, AR 72701,
Prof. Mary Am Glendon
Hand LewSchoot
Re: Applintion oldie ReliSusband-Useand-Institutlenalzcd-Persons-Actof
HMch
otaea states s valor
200O (RLUIPA) to Temple Shalom, Fayetteville, AR
(R{n.h)
Hon. Henry J. Hyde
Dear Mayor Coody and Council Members:
Unfed States Represertathre
(R-Irmo}s)
We are writingtoprovide'youwithour legal opinion regardingtheapplication
Prof Douglas Kmiec
Peppmdme Lae school
ofthe City of Fayetteville landuse ordinances to the -Temple Shalom Congregation, and
the consequences dithat application under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Pm?. Dmtgraa Leycoc*
Mwt:dyof T°'ms Lm, whoa
Persons Act (RLUIPA) andthe United States Constitution We have been contacted by
Rev. Richard Jetm Neuhaus
Darla Newman, who has provided us with background on the Congregation's situation
R Insttke of Refie
h- addition, we have reviewed the record —including relevant zoning ordinances and
and Public i
city attorney opinions —concerning the Congregation's application for a Conditional
Eunice Kennedy SMNd
Founder and Flanoney chairman,
Use Permit which asks for permission to use its "Butterfly House" property forreligiours
special Olympics international
assembly and worship. It is our opinion that if the City Council fails to approve the
Smgmrt shrive'
Congregation's application for a Conditional Use Permit for religious uses on their
Speci lost ica of the
property, the City may be subject to liability under federal law.
Dr. Ronald B. Sobel
Senior Rabbi, Congregation Enwa.Ei
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is an international, interfaith, public
aRhe city of NewYodr
interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.
John M.rampleur Jr, M.D.
The Becket Fund litigates -1n support -of-these principles in state and federal courts
Bryn Mom, Pemw#ar a
throughout the United States, both -as primary counsel and as amicus curiae. In
particular, we have been intensely involved in litigation under RLUIPA (and
corresponding constitutional protections) involving discrimination or the burdening of
religious exercise by local land use regulations and. officials. We successfully
represented the plaintiffs in the first case resolved under RLUIPA, Haven Shores
Community Church v. City ofGrand Haven, No. 1 c00 -CV -175 (W.D. -Mich. 2000).
Since then, we have brought successful suits under RLUIPA in courts across the
country, including in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 605
Washington, DC 20036-1735
202-955.0095 Fax 202-955.0090
www.necketNndorg
.
02/202006 17:43 Page a ..... .... ... .. .. .. _.....
....._. 3111
2/20/2006
Page 2
The principles embodied :in RLUIPA enjoy broad, bipartisan support. . The legislation sailed
virtually unopposed'through bothhouses of an otherwise sharply divided Congress, and was signed
into, law on September 22,2000. RLUIPA's remarkable success in the legislative process can be
attributed to strong support from anexceptionally. diverse coalition of religious and civil rights
groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way to the
National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations ofAmerica'
The requirements of RLUIPA are; forthermostpart, parallellothe protections provided by
the Free Exercise Clause ofthe First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment oft -United States Constitution. Thus, actions That violate RLUIPA are likely to
violate the Constitution as well. RLUIPA has four main provisions: a "Substantial Burden" -
provision, a "Nondiscrimination" provision, an "Equal Terns" provision and an "Exclusion and
Limits" provision. The Substantial Burden provision establishes that a local zoning regulation
cannot substantially burden religious exercise unless that burden is the -least restrictiveareans of
f irtheringa compelling governmental interest 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(aX-1) Z The Nondiscrimination -
provision forbids discrimination "on the basis of religion or religious denomination." 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(b)(2). The Equal Terms clause bans "treat(ing) a religious assembly or institution on less
than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution- 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1). And the
Exclusion and Limits. provision_ prohibits municipalities from "totally exclud[ing] religious
assemblies from ajurisdiction." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3).
It is our opinion that each-ofthese provisions would beseriously by a.decisionto
deny the Congregation's application for a Conditional Use Pent so that it may use its property for
religious assembly and worship..
Denying the £orrefation's Avpiication Would- Violate RLUIPA's Substantial
Burden Provision
Turning to RLUIPA's provisions in more detail, RLUIPA's Substantial Burden provision
provides in relevant part as follows:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in
' Numerous courts -of appealhave-recognized that RLUIPA's a constitutional exercise of
Congress's authority. See Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299' (11'" Cir. 2004); Midrash Sephardi, Inc.
v. Town ofSurfsrde, 366 F.3d 1214 -(11th Cis 2004). See also Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek
Orthodox Church v. City ofNew Berlin, 396 F.3d 895 (Its Cit. 2005) (noting that RLUIPA is an
"uncontroversial -use" of Congress's power to enforce the Fast and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantee
of free religious exercise).
2 "The term `religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion; whether or not compelled by, or
central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7) (emphasis added). Moreover, "[tihe use,
-building, or conversion o€ rcal-property-for-the putpeso of religious exercise shall be considered to be
religious exercise of the person or entity that uses orintends to use the property for that purpose." Id.
02@0@006 17:43 _ - Page 4111
• 2/20/2006
Page 3
a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise
-of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the
government demonstratesthat. imposition of the burden on that
person, assembly, or institution —
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
•(BJ is the least -restrictive means of furthering -that compelling
governmental interest
This provisionrefleets the Supreme Court's conekrsion, originally.outlined in Sherbert v. Verner,
374 U.S. 398 (1963), and later reaffiitmed inEmploymentDiv. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), and
Church oftheLukumi BabaluAye, Inc.- v. City ofHialeah, 5081±8.520(1993), that govenuuent-
imposed burdens on religious exercise must be subjected to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny
-when they are imposed by systems -of S'individualized assessments." in other words; pursuant to
both the First Amendment and RLUIPA,.strict scrutiny applies -where burdensare applied on a
• discretionary,'case=by-case basis; as is practically unavoidable in the zoning context' The City
Attorney has admitted that wide discretion is present in .this case, where a Conditional Use
application isbth eforeis-Council.`
The denial of the Congregation'.s applicationforaplace ofxeEgiousassemblyandworship
would substantially burden its abilityto engage in fundamental religious.activities. Courts have
repeatedly found -that denyingthe-members-ofa-religious body the abilityto use their property to
conduct core religious practices -of worship constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise.'
Indeed,, the facts of a recent United States Court of Appeals decision bear a striking
similarity to -the present application before the Council and thereforewarrant particularly close
examination. In that case, a Greek orthodox church applied to the city to rezone its property "from
residential to -institutional so that -it could build its• church." Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek
Orthodox Church v. City ofNewBerlin, 396 F,3d 895, (7th Cir. 2005). Although the church, (like
the Congregation -in -this ease) was willingto adoptmeasureathat would prevent the property -from
' See, e.g., Freedom Baptist Church v. Townshi - Middletown 204 F. Supp.
p of 2d 857,_ 868 E.D.(
Pa. 2002); Cottonwood Christian Ctr. v. Cypress Redev. Agency, 218 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1221 (C.D.
Cal. 2002).
a "Basically such:peimits lcamdhionatusej mayissue.whenThe appropiiate mwildpal agency finds
that certain conditions or requirements have been satisfied. That determination involves the exercise of
discretion ...." -1/2-7/06 Memo -f mar Kit-Wfflizr t u Coun.2 at3.(quoting-Ru1 ing Pines v. tittle)ath,
73 Ark. App. 97, 101 (2001).
' See, e.g., Guru NanakSYkh-Soe'yaf-YubaCiry-v. CountyofSuwer; 326 F. Supp 2d I140.(E.D.
Cal. 2003) (county's denial of permit to build temple substantially burdened Stich believers' religious
exercise); Cottonwood, 218 F. Supp: 2d at1226 (finding-substantialbmdenbecause "[p]reventing a•
church from building a worship site fundamentally inhibits its abiilityto practice its religion"); Murphy v. -
Zoning Comm 'n of Town of New Milford, 148 F; Supp.-2d 373' (Ii Conn: 2001) (restrictions on.ability
to hold prayer meetings in home constituted substantial burden).) DiLaura v. Ann Arbor Charter Tp., 30
Fed Appx. 501; 510 (6m Cir. 2002y(denial'nfzoningvatiance thatpreventedindividuals from
assembling on land for religious purposes constituted substantial burden): -
02!20!2006 17:43 .... Page 5/11 1:
2/20/2006
Page 4
being used for any use other than a house of worship, the city refused to approve the rezoning. Id.
The Court held that this refusal violated RLUIPA's substantial burden provision:
The Church in our case doesn't argue that havingto apply for -what amountsto a
zoning variance-ta be allowed to'build in a residential area is a substantial
burden. It complains.instead about having either to sell the land that it boughtin.
New Berlin and find a suitable ahemativenarcel-vrbesubjected to unreasonable
delay.by having -to restartthe permit process tosatisfy the Planning Commission
about a contingency for which -the -Church-has already provided complete
satisfaction....
The burden here was substantial. The Church couldhavesearched:around for
other parcels of land (though a lot more effort would have been involved in such
a search than, as the City would have it, calling up some real estate agents), out
could have continued filing applications with the City, but in either case there
would haverbecti delay, uncertainty,, andexnense. Thatthe burden would not be
insuperable would not make it insubstantial.:The.plaintiff in the Sherbertcase,..-
whose-religion-forbade-herto-work on Saturdays, could have foundajobthat
didn't require her to.work then had she -kept looking rather than giving up after -
her-thirdapp] icationforSaturday4essworkwas tumed_down. But the Supreme
Court held that the fact that a longer search would probably have turned up
something didn't -make- the -denial of -unemployment benefits ter her an
insubstantial burden on the exercise of her religion.
Id. at 900a901: (emphasis -added): Deuyurgthe-Congregation's application fora -Conditional Use
Permit would .similarly require a finding that the Council had substantially burdened the -
Congregation's religious exercise; ,
It is no answer -to -suggest thatthe-Congregation-is free tobavethe-city limits orfmd some
place to worship on land with a different zoning designation or that their current arrangements for
worship space are -adequate. Not only does RLUIPIA prohibit a city from. closing 4 borders- to -a
houseofworship, but requiring the Congregation's members to abandon their current property
would impose an additional -burden -on- their religious exercise as they would have -to begin the
search process anew, just -as in the Sts. Constantine & Helen case.6 The Congregation currently
worships in truncated form ata Unitarian Universalist churchas amafter ofneoessity, not because it
is consistent with religious preferences. In fact, a lack of a synagogue poses obstacles to the full
religious expression ofthe congregation.''Therehasireenvccasion(an&wilfiein thefuture)whem
6 RLUIPA's protections extend to a wide variety of real estate arrangements, protecting all
claimants who have an "ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the
•regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000co-5(5).
7 -Through a lotofhard work the Corrgrepjtion-hassluwly gmwnto its present size of 50 families
over 25 years and would like to continue the slow -growth pattern or at least preserve its current
-membership. H6wewr, the factremains-tharTempleShalomlacks a. temple and. some potential new
members have explicitly refused to join because of that -fact. Asir any religious organization, members
--..- .. .... ...._ ... I. _ .. ....... . ........... ii i . . . .. I .......... , ....... ...... .... . ..---.. _..._--------
02/20/2006 17A3 Page 6111
2/20/2006
Page 5
visiting rabbis or Lubavitchers cannot perform certain Jewish religious ceremonies at the borrowed
Unittarian church because it has not been specifically and properly dedicated according to Jewish
law. In contrast, Butterfly House will be fully under the control of Temple Shalom.and will satisfy
these religiousrequirements, .thereby -allowing -the Congregation.to.praetice-the full range ofits
religious beliefs in a waythat is not presently possible for the Congregation. Indeed, anotherfederal
court recently ruled in favor of a Jewish Congregationurfactual circumstances nearly identical to
this.case: See Congregation KolAmi v. Abington, No. 01-1919, 2004 WL 1837037 (E.D. Pa. Aug.
1.7,2004). In-KolAmi, like here, a township denied -a -Jewish -congregation the ability to develop
and operate its property so that it could establish a permanent home for a synagogue. Because of
that denial :.that -congregation, like the Congregation in this case was forced to limp along at
inadequate rented sites. The court held that this was a substantial burden under RLUIPA. Id. at * 9
("Underthe statute (RLUIPAj, developing and-operating.a place:of worship ... is free exercise.
There can be no. reasonable. dispute that the Ordinance -and the denial of the variance, which.have
effectively prevented the Plaintiffs from engaging=in this `free exercise,' create a substantial burden
within the meaning of the Act").
We are- not -aware- of any interests -drat the- City -might -have- sulfrcient.to-.impose such
substantial burdens on.the Congregation's religious exercise. RLUIPA and the FirstAmendment
provide that the state may only substantially burdenreligious exercise when the imposition ofsuch
burden.is the least restrictive means offurthering a compelling government interest Courts have
repeatedly held -that "in this highly sensitive constitutional area, 'only the gravest abuses,
endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation." Sherbert v. Verner,
374U.S. 398.406 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (19-72) ("only those interests of
the highest. order-. and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free
exercise of religion."):
From our. review of.the-record; we understand -:that -the primary interests identified by
opponents of the Congregation are traffic concerns and compatibility with -the neighborhood.. See.
1/27/06 Memo from Kit Williamsto However;courtshaverepeatedlyconcludedihat
traffic, though understandably legitimate concerns for a municipality, do not meet theltighthreshold -
of a "compelling" governmentinterests Nor does -the -bareassertion by some' Congregation
come and go, but the ability to at least replace members that leave is substantially burdened by the lack of
apermanrnt. house ofworshipfor.theCongregation. .. -
a See, e. Whitton v; Cit
y ry of Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400, 1408 (8°i dr. 1995) ("[Al municipality's
asserted interests in traffic safety and aesthetics;-wluk significant; have neverbeerrhehixo be compelling.");
Curry v. Prince George's -County, Md; 33 F. Supp. 2d 447,452 (D. Md. I 999)("Again, while recognizing
aesthetics-andtrafficsafety to be 'significant govemmentintensts,'. none•of these cotulsfound thoseinterests
suiiicientlycompeliingtopasstheapplicablestrictscrutinytest.");McCormackv.TownshipofClinton,872 -
-F: Stipp. 1320, 1325-n.2 (D.N.J:1-994)-(" [N]o court has everheld that [aesthetics andtraffic safety] forma
compelling justification for a content -based restriction onpolitical speech"); -Village ofSchaumburg v. Jeep
Eagle Sales Corp., 676 N:E.2d200, 204'(111: App. 1996y(findingthat "[t]aafc safety and visual aesthetics
are not the sort of.compelling state interest required to justif -a content -based restriction on expression");
NatronalAdvertistng Ca. v: City of Orange; 861 F.2d 246; 249 (0 tar.1988)-(interests in traffic safetyand
aesthetics, while 'substantial,'' fell shy of 'compelling.'"); Lofius v. Township of Lawrence Party 764-F.
Supp. 354, 361-(W:D: Pa. 1991y("wedoubt1hataesthetics orxesidential quietude is sufficiently compelling•
02120/2006 17:43
Page 7111
2/20/2006
Page 6
opponents that the Congregation would be incompatible with . the surrounding residential
neighborhood provide a sufficient reason -to substantially burden the Congregation's religious
exercise.. Not a single court has ever held that such aesthetic concerns constitute a compelling
government interest'.
Moreover, any assertiorr that homes of worship -an -inconsistent with residential districts
contradicts a weThestablished line of precedent holdingthat houses ofworship may not be excluded
from residential neighborhoods 3°
to ever justify a content -based restriction... on freedom of expression"); Love Church v. Evanston, 671 F.
-Supp. 515, 519 (N.D. M. 1987); vacated based on standing, 896f.241082 (716 Cir. 1990) ("While traffic
concerns are legitimate, we could hardly call them compelling."); AmericanFriends.ofSoc'y ofSt. Pius v.
Schwab, 417 N.Y.S:2d991; 993 (N.Y;A.D.1979j('lC]onsiderations of the surrounding area and potential
traffic hazards' :.. are outweighed bythe constitutional prohibition against the abridgement of the free
exercise of religion andbythe public benefit andwelfare which is itself an attribute of religious worship in a
community."); State ex reL Tampa Company ofJehovah's Witnesses, etc. v. Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78, 79 (Fla
1950) ("The contentionthatpeople-congregaturgfarreligious purposes cause such congestion as to create a
traffic hazard hasverylittle insubstance tosupportit Religious services are normally for brief periodstwo or. -
three days in theweekandthis at hourswhenaffic is-atits lightest:"); New HopeBaptistChurch v. City of
Hackensack; No. L-2873-03, at 35-36 (Super. Ct, Bergen Co. N.J. Oct. 22, 2003) (asserted interests
concerning traffirandpari' .' - as-abasisfordenyiug chinch pent - are not compelling under RLUIPA):
Y See, e.g., Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater, 985 F.2d 1565, 1569-70 (11"' Cit. 1993) (holding that
"interest[] in aestlIcti -... isnotrcompellarg-govetmn mrintr co ); XXL ofOhio, Inc. Commerce V. Cityq'
Broadview Heights, 341 F;Supp.2d 765, 789-90 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (internal, citations omitted) (rejecting
"aesthetics" andpmtectiuwof beighboncaodcharacter as ircompielling government interest); Castle Hills,
2004 WL 546792, at *16 (W.D. Tex. 2004) (preserving neighborhood privacy concerns not a compelling. -
governmentintemest); Ohio CitizenAcuon v. CiryofMentor-On-The-Lake, 272 F.Supp.2d 671, 685 (N.D.
Ohio 2003) (interest in protecting residents' privacy did not rise to the level of compelling interest);
• Cottonwood, 218 F. Supp: 2d-at:l22728 purvlyacsthcticbanns, such -as the elimination of blight, arc not
compelling); King Enterprises, Inc. v. Thomas Township, 2002 WL 1677687, at *18 (ED. Mich 2002) -
("Although 'safety' and 'aesthetics'.atesubstantial government interests, theyarc not compelling ....");
Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County, 995 P.2d 33, 41 (Wash. 2000) (furthering "aesthetic and -
culnual interests' isnotacompeffing interest); Keeler v Mayor of Cumberland, 940 F. Supp. 979,896 (D.
Md. 1996) (holding that.such important interests as -safeguarding the heritage of a city and fostering civic
beauty are not compelling); Alpine Christian. Fellowship; 870 F: Supp. -at 994 (holding that avoiding
additional "noise impacts" of religious school not.a compelling. interest); Society of Jesus v. Boston -
Landmarks Comm., 564 N.E. 2d 511,-574(Mass; 1990) ("Thegovetmitentinterest in historic presentation,
though worthy, -is not sufficiently compelling to justify restraints on the free exercise of religion, a right of -
•prunary importance."). See also Congregation Comm.. v. City Council ofHaltom City, 287 S. W.2d 700,
704-05 (rex. Civ App. 1956) (`.'Neither is mere inconvenience to neighbors... a valid reason to deny a -
church -the right to exist in a -residential district It is hard to visualize a church being constructed in a
residential district without inconveniencing.someone. To restrict churches to areas where no one will be
inconvenienced would be; -in effect, exclu&Wchurches from residential districts.").
'" See, e.g., 2 A. RATHKOPF & D. RATHKOPF, THE LAW OF ZONING AND PLANNING
§ 20.01[2][aj, at 20-3 (4th ed. 1985) ("The majorityviewis tharfaclities forrehgious -or educational uses
... may not be excluded from a residence district in which location of such use is sought"); R.P. DAMS,
ZONING REGULATION AS AFFECTING CHURCHES, 74-A.₹.:R2d-377§ 2[a] (1960, Supp. 2000)
02/20/2006 17:43 Page 6111
2/20/2006
Page 7
In addition, there are a myriad of ways to address legitimate concerns absent a flat refusalto
pemritthe-Congregationto useitsproperty forreligious assembly under any circumstances. Such a
refusal will certainly not be. considered the .'least r'estrictive.nneans" of achieving a proffered.
compelling-interest.r' Accordingly, a -denial of the -Congregation's application to use the property
for religious worship would raise serious issues under RLUIPA's Substantial Burdens provision.
•Denying -the Congregation's Application Would Seriously Implicate RLUIPA's Non-
Discriminalion Provision
RLUIPA's non-discrimination provision•provides-that "No government shall impose or
implement a land use regulationthat discriminates against any assembly or institution onthe.basis
of:religion.orreligious denomination." 42U.S.C. §2000cc(bx2). The overwhelmingmajorityof
the houses of worship presently located Fayetteville are Christian. To deny this Congregation's
application to bethe first Jewish•synagoguenrFayettevifle(particularly if based on allegedeoncears
of incompatibility with the neighborhood) when Christian churches are located in other residential: -
zones within -the city would- legitimately give rise to serious concerns under RLUIPA's non-
discrimination provision.
Denying the Congregatlon's Application Would :Seriously Implicate RLUIPA's
Equal Terns Provision
(!'[C]hurches may not... validly be excluded from residential areas as an absolute and invariable rule;").
Cases are legion in support of this general proposition. See, e.g., Islamic. Center ofMiss., Inc. v. City of
Starkville, 840 F.2d 293, 300'(51h Cir. 1989) (noting dig. on federal constitutional grounds; "state' cowl
decisions have held that mmucipalities.may not-completety-exclude•facilities for.rehgious-use from such
[residential] districts"); State v. Maxwell, Gi7.P:2d 816,820 (Haw. 1980) ("The wide majority of courts-
hold-thatttiigious usestnaynot=be-excludcdfronrresi tiatdistricts."); Board ofZoningAppeals v.
Schulte, 172 N.E.2d 39,44 (Ind. 1961) ("The law is well settled that the building of a church may not
bepi residential district:'").(quotingBaard.ofzoning Appeals v. Decatur Co. ofJehovah'c
Witnesses, 117 N.E.2d 115, 119 (Ind. 1954)); Diocese ofRochester v. Planning Bt ofBrighton, 136
N.E:2d 827,-934(N.Y. 1956) ("his well establshed.nrthis countryihat a zoning ordinance -may not
wholly exclude a church or synagogue from any residential district."); Congregation Committee v. City
Council.ofHaltom City, 287 S.W:2d700,-704 (Tex: 1956) ("a-city.cannotlegally exclude-.achurch from
a residential district by a zoning: ordinance"); O'Brien v. City of Chicago, 105 N.E.2d 917, 921 (10.
1952) ("'We do -not believe it is'a7noper function -of govemment-to niterfere in the -name of the public to
exclude churches from residential districts for -the purpose of securing to adjacent landowners the benefits -
of exclusive residential restrictions.'") (quotingState.cc rel Synod of Ohio v. Joseph, 39 N.E.2d 515,
524 -(Ohio 1942)); State ex rel. Roman Catholic Bishop v. Hill, 90 P.2d 217 (Nev. 1939). Cf. Boyafian
v. Gatzunis, 212 F.3d-1, 9 (1" Cit. -2000)-(noting-that."-[aln impressive bodyofcaselawand scholarly
texts and articles supports th[e] conclusion" that "religious institutions, by their nature, are compatible -
withevery other type of land use and- hus willnotxletract from the quality -of life in any neighborhood").
° This is.particutvly the case'with respect to any alleged'concem'over inadequate parking in light
ofibc fact that the Congregation has addressed the issuc-ofashorage of available parking on its property
bymaking arangements-with nearby property owners to provide for off -site parking.
WI2020a6 17:43 Page 9/11
2/20/2006
Page 8
RLUIPA's Equal Terms provision bans"treai[ing] a religious assembly or institutionon less
than equal'tenns.with a'nonreligious assembly or institution. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(bx1). Under
conditional uses allowed in residential zones,houses of worshipfall under. the designation .of
"cultural and recreational facilities."- U.D:C.-§-162{It(D)(2). This designation implicitly
acknowledges that some or all of the listed uses are comparable to each other, as indeed they are.
• Among the - listed- uses -, at the very least, auditoriums; churches, museums, community centers,
private clubs or.lodges; and theaters all share the common feature ofproviding assembly spaces. All
• ofthese uses are conditionally allowedin Fayetteville residential zones, yet-RLUIPA mandates that
religious institutions canbe treated no worse than any nonreligious assembly under zoning law.
Thus, if Fayetteville allows or has -allowed, -for example a -single elks lodge (or any of the above
assemblies), to locate in a residential, zone; it cannot suddenly claim that a synagogue is
"incompatible"with the character ofihe neighborhood orthattraffic isnow a pressing concern, asit
would be -treating a religious use on:less than equal terms with -a nonreligious one. Midrash
Sephardi v. Surfside, 366 F.3d'12 F4,1219 (11th Cir. 20(Y4) (holdingthat "excluding churches and
synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms
provision of RLUIPA."); Konikov v. Orange County, 410 F.3d 1317, (11th Cir. 2005) (holding
that if gatherings for Cub Scout' meetings; sports -watching, and birthday celebrations are allowed in
residences, gatherings for Jewish religious services must be as well; "groups that meetwith similar
frequency are in -violation -of -the -Code only if -the purpose -of their -assembly is religious. This
treatment of religious assemblies on less than equal terms than nonreligious assemblies constitutes
an equal terms violation."). .
Denying the-Conereraalmfs-Analication WouldViolate-RLUIPA's Exciusion:and-
Limits Provision
Finally, RLUIPA also provides that:
EXCLUSIONS AND'LIM1TS;—No-gmremmcntshalt imposeorimplement
a land use.regulation-that-
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies -from -a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures
withirra jurisdiction.
-42 U.S.C. § 2000ec(b,)(3-). -This-prevision-codifies the -First Amendment rule that prohibits -
municipalities. from "effectively denying.[land users] a reasonable opportunity" to do whattheFirst .
Amendment protects within theirborders-" FreedonrBaptist, 204-F: Supp. 2d -at 871 (quotation
omitted). Moreover, the Exclusion and Limits provision, like the First Amendment itself, prevents a -
municipalitytfrom defending an -exclusionary land -use -ordinance on -the -basis that citizens -may
exercise their First Amendment rights in some other jurisdiction.. Id. ("[One] is not to have the -
exercise of -his -liberty of expression :in- appropriate -places abridged on the plea that it may be
exercised in some other place.") (quoting Schad v. Borough ofMt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76-77 -
(1981)).
Here; there is a question as-to-whethera-denial-of the Congregation's application would
violate RLUIPA's Exclusion and Limits provision. It appears that Fayetteville does not specifically
allow houses-ofworship to operateas-ofrightunderany residential zoning code designation but are
01200617:43
Page tOfN
2/20/2006
Page 9
potentially allowed as a.conditional "cultural. and recreational" use. There is a question as to
whether excluding a house of worship from a residential -zone for being "incompatible'-' with the
character ofthe neighborhood.violates RLUIPA's prohibition on "unreasonably limiting] religious -
assemblies, institutions or structures within a jurisdiction." Since a denial here maybe interpreted
as an effective denial for all residential zones; the questions particularly salient consideringthat the -
overwhelming majority of Fayetteville's land is zoned residential in some form.12
RLUIPA grants municipalities discretion, via a safe harborprovision, to take measures to
avoid -applying their land use ordinances in such a way as to violatethe Act. Specifically, Section
5(e) of RLUIPA provides:
A government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of
[RLUIPA] by changingthe policy or.practi a thatresultsin a -substantial
burden. on religious: exercise; by retaining the policy or practice and -
exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing
exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially
burden religious exercise, or by -any other means that eliminates the
substantial burden. -
42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(e) Here, the Councitmaytake advarrtage oftlris-safe harbor provision —and
avoid the violations of. RLUIPA discussed above —by using its discretion to approve the
Congregation's applicatiorfor aConditionaf Use Permit: .
Conclusion
We recognize, of course; that RLUIRA is a relatively young law (enacted -September 22,
2000), and thus the Council may not have been fully awareoftheAct'sscopeandapplication. We
contact you now so that the City Council-mayproeeed withthe benefit of more completeknowledge
on how.the obligations ofRLUIPA and the Constitutionapply in this situation. We also invite you -
to visit our website dedicated to -the Act, www.rluipa.com. .
Thank you for your time. We welcome any inquiries.
Sincerely,
The Becket FundforReligiuus Liberty.
As revealed by s even a ummay.glance at Fayetteville's zonmgmap. See
flap•1/www.faygrssrg/website/Zoning_FAyyviewer:hml.
02/20/2006 17:43
.:........
Page 11/11
Derek L. Gaubatz, Esq.
Director of Litigation
The BeeketFunddforReligious Liberty..
202-955.0095
cc: Kit Williams, Fayetteville City Attorney
Darla Newman
2/20/2006
Page 10
02/20/2006 17:43
THE BECKET. FUND
Date: 02/20/2006 17:43
To: Name:
Department:
Company:
From:
Comment:
NO. OF PAGE: 11 (include this page)
Hon. Dan Coody & City Council Members
City Clerk's Office
City of Fayeteville AR
Name: Roger Severino
TEL & FAX: (TEL) (202) 349-7230
(FAX) (202) 955-0090
E -Mail: rseverino@becketfund.org
Department: Legal Counsel
Company: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Address: 1350 Connecticut Ave. N.W Suite 605
Washington DC, 20036
Dear Clerk,
Kindly forward this legal opinion letter to Mayor Coody; all City Council members and
City Attorney Williams
Many thanks.
Page 1111
SCANNED
Page 2111
I ^.
f
THE BECKET FUND
rOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
BOARD OF ADVISORS
February 20, 2006
Hon. Waiam P.Barr
F«merAltomey General
Hon. Dan Coody.
of the United States
- -
Mayor of Fayetteville -
Prof. Stephen L. Carter
Law School
Hon. Members,
Fayetteville City Council
His Eminence
Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.,
113 W. Mountain
Archbishop of Chicago
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon
Harvard Lew School
Re: Application -of -the -Religious -Land -Use and-Fnstitutionalized-PersonsAetof
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator
2000 (RLUIPA) to Temple Shalom, Fayetteville AR
(R-tkah)
Hon. Henry J. Hyde
Dear Mayor Coody and Council Members:
United States Representative
(R-tinois)
We are writing to provide you with our legal opinion regarding the application
Prof. Douglas IUrvec
Pepperdine Law School
of the City of Fayetteville land -use ordinances to the Temple Shalom Congregation, and
the consequences of that application under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Prof. Douglas Laycock
Universdy of Texas Law School
Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the United States Constitution. We have been contacted by
Rev Richard John Neuhaus
Darla Newman, who has provided us with background on the Congregation's situation.
President, Insidute of Re5gion
in addition, we have reviewed the record —including relevant zoning -ordinances and
and Pubbe Life
city attorney opinions —concerning the Congregation's application for a Conditional
Eurcce Kennedy Shiver
Founder end Honorary chairman,
Use Permit which asksfor permission to use its "Butterfly House" property for religious
Special Olympics International
assembly and worship. It is our opinion that if the City Council fails to approve the
Sargent Shriver
Congregation's application for a Conditional Use Permit. for religious uses on their
cnampIcsian l the Board,
Special Olympics lrtamationat
the City may be subject to liability under federal law.
property, } J
Dr. Ronald B. Sobel
Senior Rabbi, Congregation Emanu-El
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is an international, interfaith, public
of the Ciy of New York
interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.
John M.Templemr4Jr-M.D.
The Becket Fund litigates in support of these principles in state and federal courts
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
throughout the United- States, both as primary counsel and as arnicus- curiae. In
particular, we have been intensely involved in litigation under RLUIPA (and
corresponding constitutional protections) involving discrimination or the burdening of
religious exercise by local land use regulations and officials. We successfully
represented the plaintiffs in the first case resolved under RLUIPA, Haven Shores
Community Church v. City ofGrand Haven, No. 1:00 -CV -175 (W.D. Mich. 2000).
Since then, we have brought successful suits under RLUIPA in courts across the
country, including in -Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 605
Washington, DC 20036-1735
202-955-0095 Fax'. 202-955-0090
iwwbeckedund.arg
Page 3/11
C
2/20/2006
Page 2
The principles embodied .in RLUIPA enjoy broad, bipartisan support - The legislation sailed
virtually unopposed through both houses of an otherwise sharply divided Congress, and was signed
into law on September 22, 2000. RLUIPA's remarkable success in the legislative process can be
attributed to strong support from an exceptionally diverse coalition of religious and civil rights
groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the .American Way to the
National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations ofAmerica.'
The requirements of RLUIPAare,- for the -most -part, parallel to the protections provided by
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the -United States Constitution. Thus, actions that violate RLUIPA are likely to
violate the Constitution as well. RLUIPA has four main provisions: a "Substantial Burden"
provision, a "Nondiscrimination" provision, an "Equal Terms" provision and an "Exclusion and
Limits" provision. The Substantial Burden provision establishes that -a local zoning regulation
cannot substantially burden religious exercise unless that burden is the least restrictive means of
furthering a compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1).` The Nondiscrimination
provision forbids discrimination "on the basis of religion or religious denomination." 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(b)(2). The Equal'l'crms clause bans "treat[ing] a religious assembly or institution on less
than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution- 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1). And the
Exclusion and Limits provision_ prohibits municipalities from "totally exclud[ing] religious
assemblies from ajurisdiction." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3).
It is our opinion that each-ofthese provisions would be seriously implicated by a decisionto
deny the Congregation's application for a Conditional Use Permit so that it may use its property for
religious assembly and worship.
Denying the Congregation's Application Would -Violate RLUIPA's Substantial
Burden Provision
Turning to RLUIPA's provisions in more detail, RLUIPA's Substantial Burden provision
provides in relevant part as follows:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in
' Numerous courts -of appeal -have -recognized that RLUIPA-is a constitutionalexercise of
Congress's authority.: See Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299 (11 t° Cir. 2004); Midrash Sephardi, Inc.
v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (111° Cir. 2004). See also Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek
Orthodox Church v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895 (7a' Cir. 2005) (noting that RLUIPA is an
"uncontroversial -use" of Congress' -s -power to enforce the First -and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantee
of free religious exercise).
2 "1 he term `religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion; whether or not compelled by, or
central to, a system of religious belief" 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7) (emphasis added). Moreover, "[t]he use,
building, or conversion- of real -property -for -the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be
religious exercise of the person or entity thatuses or -intends to use the property for that purpose." Id.
2/20/2006
Page 3
a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise
of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the
government demonstrates -that imposition of the burden on that
person, assembly, or institution --
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the leastrestrictivemeans of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.
This provision reflects the Supreme Court's conclusion; originally outlined -in Sherbert v. Verner,
374 U.S. 398 (1963), and later reaffirmed inEmploymentDiv. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), and
Church oftheLukumi BabaluAye, Inc. v. City ofHialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). that goventment-
imposed burdens on religious exercise must be subjected to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny
when they are -imposed by systems of `-`individualized assessments." In other words, pursuant to
both the First Amendment and RLUIPA,-strict scrutiny applies where burdens are applied on a
discretionary, case=by-case basis; as is practically unavoidable in the zoning context.' The City
Attorney has admitted that wide discretion is present in this case, where a Conditional Use
application is before -this -Council.'
The denial of the Congregation's application for a place of religious assembly and worship
would substantially burden its ability to engage in fundamental religious activities. Courts have
repeatedly found -that denying the -members -of a -religious body the ability to use their property to
conduct core religious practices -of worship constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise.'
Indeed, the facts of a recent United States Court of Appeals decision bear a striking
similarity to -the present application -before -the Council and therefore warrant particularly close
examination. In that case, a Greek orthodox church applied to the city to rezone its property "from -
residential to -institutional so that it could build its church." Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek
Orthodox Church v. City ofNewBerlin, 396 F3d 895, (7th Cir. 2005). Although the church, (like -
the Congregation -in -this case) was willing to adopt -measures that would prevent the property from•
' See. e.g., Freedom Baptist Church v. Township ofMiddletown,.204 F. Supp. 2d 857, 868 (E.D.
Pa. 2002); Cottonwood Christian Cir. v. Cypress Redev. Agency, 218 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1221 (C.D.
Cal. 2002).
° "Basically such-permits1conditionaluse] may -issue -when the appropriate municipalagency finds
that certain conditions or requirements have been satisfied. That determination involves the exercise of
discretion ...." 1127/06 Memo -from Kit Wilhams-to Council at3 (quoting -Rolling Pines v. Little Rock,
73 Ark. App. 97, 101 (2001).
' See, e.g., Guru Nanak Sikh Soc )y of Yuba Ci0rv. County of Sutter, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (E.D.
Cal. 2003) (county's denial of permit to build temple substantially burdened Sikh believers' religious
exercise): Cottonwood, 218 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (finding substantial burden because "[p]rcventing a
church from building a worship site fundamentally inhibits its ability to practice its religion"); Murphy v. -
Zoning Comm Fn of Town of NewMilford, 148 F. Supp.-2d 173(1). Conn: 2001) (restrictions on ability
to hold prayer meetings in home constituted substantial burden).) DiLaura v. Ann Arbor Charter Tp., 30
Fed. Appx. 501; 510 (61° Cir. 2002) (denial ofzoning variance that prevented individuals from
assembling on land for religious purposes constituted substantial burden).-
Page 5111
2/20/2006
Page 4
being used for any use other than a house of worship, the city refused to approve the rezoning. Id.
The Court held that this refusal violated RLUIPA's substantial burden provision:
The Church in our case doesn't argue that having to apply for.what amountsto a
zoning variance tobe-allowed to -build in -a- residential area is a substantial
burden. It complains instead about having either to sell the land that it bought in
New Berlin and find a suitable alternative parceborbe subjected to unreasonable
delay byhaving to restart the permit process to satisfy -the Planning Commission
about a contingency for which the -Church has already provided -complete
satisfaction...
'I he burden here was substantial: The Church could have searched around for
other parcels of land (though a lot more effort would have been involved in such
a search than, as the City would have it, calling up some real estate agents), or it
could have continued filing applications with the City, but in either case there
would have been delay. uncertainty; and expense. That the burden would not be
insuperable would not make it insubstantial. The plaintiff in the Sherbert case,
whose -religion forbade herto-work on Saturdays, could have found a job that
didn't require her to work then had she kept looking rather than giving up after
her third application forSaturday=less work-wasturned-down. But the Supreme
Court held that the fact that a longer search would probably have turned up
something didn't -make-the- denial- of unemployment -benefits- to- her an
insubstantial burden on the exercise of her religion.
Id. at 900 -90'1 -(emphasis -added). Denying -the Congregation's application fora -Conditional Use
Permit, would similarly. require a finding that the Council had substantially burdened the
Congregation's religious exercise. I -
It is -no answerto suggest -that -the -Congregation is free to -leave -the -city limits or find some
place to worship on land with a different zoning designation or that their current arrangements for
worship -space are adequate. Not only does RLUIPA prohibit a city from closing its borders to -a
house of worship, but requiring the Congregation's members to abandon their current property
would impose• an additional burden on their religious exercise as they would have to begin the
search process anew, just as in the Sts. Constantine & Helen ease.' The Congregation currently
worships in truncated form at a Unitarian Universalist church -as a matter ofnecessity, not because it
is consistent with religious preferences. In fact, a lack of a synagogue poses obstacles to the full
religious expression of the congregation.' There -has-been occasion-(andwill bein the future)where
6 RLUIPA's protections extend to a wide variety of real estate arrangements, protecting all
claimants who have an "ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the
regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5).
' Through clot of hard work the -Congregation -has slowlygrowm-to its present size of 50 families
over 25 years and would like to continue the slow -growth pattern or at least preserve its current
membership. However, the fact remains that Temple -Shalom lacks a temple and some potential new
members have explicitly refused to join because of that fact. As in any religious organization, members
Pape 6111
2/20/2006
Page 5
visiting rabbis or Lubavitchers cannot perform certain Jewish religious ceremonies at the borrowed
Unitarian church because it has not been specifically and properly dedicated according to Jewish
law. In contrast, Butterfly House will be fully under the control of Temple Shalom and will satisfy
these religious requirements, .thereby -allowing the Congregation to -practice the fullrange of its
religious beliefs in a way that is not presently possible for the Congregation. Indeed, another federal
court recently ruled in favor of a Jewish Congregation in factual circumstances nearly identical to
this case: See Congregation KolAmi w4 bington, No. 01-1919, 2004 WL 1837037 (E.D. Pa. Aug
17;2004). InKol Ami, like here, a township denieda-Jewish congregation the ability to develop
and operate its property so that it could establish a permanent home for a synagogue. Because of
that denial; that congregation, like the Congregation in this case was forced to limp along at
inadequate rented sites. The court held that this was a substantial burden under RLUIPA. id. at * 9
("Under the statute [RLUIPA], developing and operating a place -of worship ... is free exercise.
There can be no reasonable dispute that the Ordinance and the denial of the variance, which have
effectively prevented the Plaintiffs from engaging in this `free exercise,' create a substantial burden
within the meaning of the Act.").
We arenot aware of any interests -that the City might have -sufficient to -impose such
substantial burdens on the Congregation's religious exercise. RLUIPA and the First Amendment,
provide that the state may only substantially burden religious exercise when the imposition of such
burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Courts have
repeatedly held- that "in this highly sensitive constitutional .area, 'only the gravest abuses,
endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation." Sherbert v. Verner,
374 U.S. 398,406(1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205,215 (1972) (`only those interests of
the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free
exercise of religion."):
From-our-review:of the record; we understand -that -the -primary interests identified by
opponents of the Congregation are traffic concerns and compatibility with -the neighborhood. See
1/27/06 Memo from Kit Williams to Council at 4. However; courts have repeatedly concluded that
traffic, though understandably legitimate concerns for a municipality, do not meet the high threshold of a "compelling" government interest:8 Nor• does -the bare assertion by some --Congregation
come and go, but the ability to at least replace members that leave is substantially burdened by the lack of
apemranent house ofworship Tor- the. Congregation._.
B See, e.g., Whitton v. City of Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400, 1408 (81, Cir. 1995) ("[A] municipality's
asserted interests in traffic safety and -aesthetics, -.while significant, have never been held to he compelling.");
Curry v. Prince George's.County, Md., 33F. Supp. 2d 447, 452 (D. Md. 1999) ("Again, while recognvmg
aesthetics -and traffic safety to be 'significant government interests,' none of these courts-foundthose interests
sufficiently compelling to pass the applicable strict scrutiny test."); McCormackv. Township ofClinton, 872
F. Supp. 1320, 1325n;2 (D.N.J.1994) ("[N]o courthas everheld that [aesthetics and traffic safety] forma
compelling justification for a content -based restriction on political speech"); -Village ofSchaumburg v. Jeep
Eagle Sales Corp:, 676 N.E.2d 200.204 (Ill. App. 1996) (fmdingthat "[t]raffic safety and visual aesthetics
are not the sort of compelling state interest required to justify a content -based restriction on expression");
NationalAdvertising Co. v. City of Orange; 861 F.2d 246, 249 (9i' Cr. 1988) (Interests in traffic safety and
aesthetics, while `substantial,-' fell shy of `compelling."); Loftus v. Township of Lawrence Park, 764 F.
Supp. 354, 361 (W:D.. Pa. 1991) ("we doubtthatacsthctics or residential quietude is sufficiently compelling
Page 7)11
2/20/2006
Page 6
opponents that the Congregation would be incompatible with the surrounding residential
neighborhood provide a sufficient reasonto substantially burden the Congregation's religious
exercise. Not a single court has ever held that such aesthetic concerns constitute a compelling
government interest!
Moreover; any assertion that houses- of worship are inconsistent with residential districts
contradicts a well -established line of precedent holding that houses of worship may not be excluded
from residential neighborhoods.10
to ever justify a content -based restriction ... on freedom of expression"); Love Church v. Evanston, 671 F.
Supp. 515, 519 (N.D. 111. 1987); vacated based on standing, 896-F.2d-1082 (7°i Cir. 1990) ("While traffic
concerns are legitimate, we could hardly call them compelling."); American Friends of Soc y ofSt. Pius V.
Schwab, 417 N.Y.S.2d 991; 993 (N.Y.A.D. 1979) ("[CJonsiderafions ofthe surrounding area and potential
traffic hazards ... are outweighed bythe constitutional prohibition against the abridgement of the free
exercise of religion and -by the public benefit and welfare which is itself an attribute of religious worship in a
community."); State ex ref Tampa Company ofJehovah's Witnesses, etc. v. Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78, 79 (11a:
1950) ("The contention that people congregating for religious purposes cause such congestion as to create a
traffic hazard has very little in substance to supportit. Religious services are normally for brief periods two or
three days in the week and this at hours when traf&c is -at its lightest:"); New Hope Baptist Church v. City of
Hackensack, No. L-2873-03. at 35-36 (Super. Ct., Bergen Co. N.J. Oct. 22, 2003) (asserted interests
concerning traf lcand-parkmg- as a basis for denying -church permit- are not compelling under RLUIPA):
9 See, e.g., Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater, 985 F.2d 1565, 1569-70 (11'" Cir. 1993) (holding that
"interest[] in aesthetics... isnot-a compelling-govemmentinterest"); XxZ of Ohio, Inc. Commerce v. Citvof
Broadview Heights, 341 F.Supp.2d 765, 789-90 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (internal citations omitted) (rejecting
"aesthetics" and -protection of "neighborhoodcharacter" as acompellmggovernment interest); Castle Hills,
2004 WL 546792, at *16 (W.D. Tex. 2004) (preserving neighborhood privacy concerns not a compelling -
government interest); Ohio Citizen Action v. CityofMentor-On-The-Lake, 272 F.Supp.2d 671, 685 (N.D.
Ohio 2003) (interest in protecting residents' privacy did not rise to the level of compelling interest):
Cottonwood. 218 F. Supp: 2d -at -122728 (purely aesthetic harms, such as the elimination of blight, are not
compelling); King Enterprises. Inc. v. Thomas Township. 2002 WI, 1677687, at *18 (L.D. A4ich. 2002) -
("Although `safety' and 'aesthetics' -are substantial -government interests, they -are not compelling ....");
Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County, 995 P.2d 33, 41 (Wash. 2000) (furthering "aesthetic and -
cultural interests" is not a compelling interest); Keeler v. Mayor of Cumberland, 940 F. Supp. 879, 886 (D.
Md. 1996) (holding that such important interests as -safeguarding the heritage of a city and fostering civic
beauty are not compelling); Alpine Christian Fellowship 870 F: Supp. at 994 (holding that avoiding
additional "noise .impacts" of religious school not a compelling interest); Society of Jesus v. Boston -
Landmarks Comm., 564 N.E. 2d 5713574 (Mass: 1990) ("Thegovemmentinterest in historic preservation,
though worthy, -is not sufficiently compelling to justify restraints on the free exercise of religion; a right of
primary importance."). See also Congregation Comm: v. City Council of Haltom City, 287 S.W.2d 700,
704-05 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956) ("Neither is mere inconvenience to neighbors ... a valid reason to deny a -
church -the right to exist in a -residential district. it is hard to visualize a church being constructed in a
residential district without inconveniencing -someone. To restrict churches to areas where no one will be
inconvenienced wouldbe,-in effect,excluding residential districts.").
1 ° - See, e.g., 2 A. RATHKOPF & D. RATHKOPF, THE LAW OF ZONING AND PLANNING
§ 20.01[2][a]; at 20-3 (4th-ed. 1985) ("The majority view is that facilities for religious or educational uses
... may not be excluded from a residence district in which location of such use is sought."); R.P. DAVIS,
ZONING REGULATION -AS AFFECTING CHURCHES, 74 A.L.R.2d-377 § 21al (1960, Supp. 2000)
2/20/2006
Page 7
In addition, there are a myriad of ways to address legitimate concerns absent a flat refusal to
permitthe Congregation to -use its property for religious assembly under any circumstances. Such a
refusal will certainly not be considered the .'least restrictivemeans" of achieving a proffered
compelling -interest:" Accordingly, a denial of the -Congregation's application to use the property
for religious worship would raise serious issues under RLUIPA's Substantial Burdens provision.
Denying the Congregation's Application Would Seriously Implicate RLUIPA's Non -
Discrimination -Provision -
RLUiPA's non-discrimination provision provides that "No government shall impose or
implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis
of religion or religious denomination." -42 U.S.C: § 2000cc(b)(2). The overwhelming majority of
the houses of worship presently located Fayetteville are -Christian. To deny this Congregation's.
application to bethe first Jewish -synagogue in Fayetteville(particularly ifbased on alleged concerns
of incompatibility with the neighborhood) when Christian churches are located in other residential
zones within the -city would -legitimately -give rise to serious concerns under RLUiPA's non-
discrimination provision.
Denying the Congregation's Application Would Seriously Implicate RLUIPA's
Equal Terms Provision
(-'[C]hurehcs may not ... validly be excluded from residential areas as an absolute and invariable rule;").
Cases arc legion in support of this general proposition. See, e.g., Islamic Center ofMiss., Inc. v. City of
Starkville, 840 F.2d 293, 300 (5t° Cit. 1989) (noting that, -on federal constitutional grounds, "state court
decisions have held that municipalities may notcompletely exclude facilities for religious use from such
[residential] districts"); State v. Maxwell, 617 P.2d 816, 820 (I -law. 1980) ("The wide majority of courts -
hold that religious usesmay not -be excluded from tesidential-distticts."); Board of Zoning Appeals v.
Schulte, 172 N.E.2d 39, 44 (Ind. 1961) ("The law is well settled that the building of a church may not
be prohibited in a residential district.") (quoting Board ofZoningAppeals v. Decatur Co. ofJehovah's
Witnesses, 117 N.E.2d 115, 119 (Ind. 1954)); Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd. of Brighton, 136 -
N.E:2d 827,'834.(N.Y. 1956) ('It is well established in this country that -a zoning ordinance -may not
wholly exclude a church or synagogue -from any residential district.'); Congregation Committee v. City
Council of Haltom City, 287 S. W:2d 700;-704:(Tex 1956) ("a -city cannot legally exclude -a church from
a residential district by a zoning ordinance"); O'Brien v. City of Chicago, 105 N.E.2d 917, 921 (111.
1952) ("'We do not believe it is a -proper functionof governmentto interfere in the name of the public to
exclude churches from residential districts for.the purpose of securing to adjacent landowners the benefits -
of exclusive residential restrictions. ") (quoting State ex re/. Synod of Ohio v. Joseph, 39 N.E.2d 515,
524 (Ohio 1942)); State ex rel. Roman Catholic Bishop v. Hill, 90 P.2d 217 (New. 1939). Cf. Boyajian
v. Gatzunis, 212-F.3d-1, 9 (1" Cir:-2000)'(noting that"[a]nimpressive body of case -law -and scholarly
texts and articles supports th[e] conclusion" that "religious institutions, by their nature, are compatible -
withevery other type of land use and thus will -not detract from the -quality of life in any neighborhood.").
" This is.particularly the case with respect to any alleged concern over inadequate parking in light
of the fact that the Congregation -has addressed the issue of a shortage -of available parking on its property
by making arrangements -with nearby property owners to -provide for off -site parking.
2/20/2006
Page 8
RLUIPA's Equal Terms provision bans "treatfing] a religious assembly orinstitution on less
than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(I ). Under
conditional uses allowed in residential zones,. houses of worship fall under the designation of
"cultural and recreational facilities."- U.D:C. -162:01(D)(2). This designation implicitly
acknowledges that some or all of the listed uses are comparable to each other, as indeed they are.
Among -the -listed -uses; at the very least; auditoriums; churches, museums, community centers,
private clubs or lodges; and theaters all share the common feature of providing assembly spaces. All
of these uses are conditionally allowed in Fayetteville residential zones, yet RLUIPA mandates that
religious institutions can be treated no worse than any nonreligious assembly under zoning law.
Thus, if Fayetteville allows or has al lowed, for example a -single elks lodge (or any of the above
assemblies), to locate in a residential zone; it cannot suddenly claim that a synagogue is
"incompatible" -with the character -of the neighborhood or that traffic is now a pressing concern, as it
would be treating a religious use on less than equal terms with -a nonreligious one. Midrash
Sephardi v. Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11 '"Cir. 2004) (holding that "excluding churches and
synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms
provision of RLUIPA."); Konikov v. Orange County, 410 F.3d 1317, (11 '"Cir. 2005) (holding
that if gatherings for Cub Scout meetings, sports -watching, and birthday celebrations are allowed in
residences, gatherings for Jewish religious services must be as well; "groups that meet with similar
frequency are in violation of -the Code only if the purpose of their -assembly is religious- This
treatment of religious assemblies on less than equal terms than nonreligious assemblies constitutes
an equal terms -violation.").
Deming the -Congregation's -Application Wouht-Violate-RLUIPA's Exclusion -and -
Limits Provision
Finally, RLUIPA also provides that:
EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITS. --No government shall imposeorimplement
a land use regulation that --
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies -from -a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures
within a jurisdiction.
42 U.S-C. -§ 2000ec(bx3). This -provision -codifies the -First Amendment rule that prohibits --
municipalities from "effectively denying [land users] a reasonable opportunity" to do what the First
Amendment protects within their borders." Freedom Baptist, 204-F. Supp. 2d at 871 (quotation
omitted). Moreover, the Exclusion and Limits provision, like the First Amendment itself, prevents a -
municipality from -defending an -exclusionary land-use,ordinance on -the basis that citizens may
exercise their First Amendment rights in some other jurisdiction. Id. ("[One] is not to have the -
exercise of -his liberty of expression -inappropriate- places abridged on the plea that it may be
exercised in some other place.") (quoting Schad v. Borough ofMi. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76-77 -
(1981)).
Here; there -is a -question as -to -whether a denial of the Congregation's application would i
violate RLUIPA's Exclusion and Limits provision. It appears that Fayetteville does not specifically
allow houses of worship to operate as-ofright under any residential zoning code designation but are
Page 10/11
2/20/2006
Page 9
potentially allowed as a conditional "cultural and recreational" use. There is a question as to
whether excluding -a house of worship from a residential zone for being "incompatible'-' with the
character.ofthe neighborhood violates-RLUIPA's prohibition on "unreasonably limit[ing] religious
assemblies, institutions or structures within a jurisdiction." Since a denial here may be interpreted
as an effective denial for all residential zones; the questionis particularly salient consideringthatthe
overwhelming majority of Fayettevim. lle's land is zoned residential in some for1a
The Council -May Stiff -Take -Advantage of RLUIPA's Safe Harbor Provision
RLUIPA grants municipalities discretion, via a safe harbor -provision, to take measures to
avoid applying their land use ordinances-insuch a way as to violate the Act. Specifically, Section
5(e) of RLUIPA provides:
Governmental -discretion -in alleviating burdens on religious exercise,
A government may avoid the preemptive fbrce of any provision - of
[RLUIPA] by changing the policy or practice that results ina substantial
burden on religious -exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and
exempting the -substantially burdened religious -exercise, by providing
exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially
burden -religious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates -the
substantial burden.
42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(e): Here; the -Council may take advantage ofthis-safe harborprovision—and
avoid the violations of. RLUIPA discussed above —by using its discretion to approve the
Congregation's application -for a Conditional- Use Permit:
Conclusion
We recognize; of -course; that RLUIPA is a relatively young law (enacted September 22,
2000), and thus the Council may not have been fully aware of the Act's scope and application. We
contact you now so that the City Council -may proceed -with the benefit -of more complete knowledge
on how the obligations ofRLUIPA and the Constitution apply in this situation. We also invite you -
to visit our website dedicated to the Act www.rluipa.com. .
Thank you for your time. We welcome any inquiries.
Sincerely,
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
12 As revealed by even a summary glance at Fayetteville's zoning map. See
hupJ/www.faygisorg/website!zoningfAYhiiewerhtm.
From:
Clarice Pearman
To:
Pate, Jeremy
Date:
4.21.06 3:23PM
Subject:
Res. 74-06
Jeremy,
Attached is a copy of the above resolution passed by City Council, April 18, 2006 regarding CUP 06-1892.
Have a good weekend.
Thanks.
Clarice
CC: Audit