Loading...
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GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CUP 06-1892 AND TO DENY CUP 06-1892 BECAUSE APPLICANTS HAVE WITHDRAWN THEIR REQUEST WHEREAS, the applicants have withdrawn their request for CUP 06-1892.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