Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6946Page 1 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6946 File Number: 2025-2483 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A 4,850 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF A TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT LOCATED NORTH OF 3600 NORTH GREGG AVENUE CONTINGENT ON THE DEDICATION OF A REPLACEMENT TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT TOTALING 5,534 SQUARE FEET AND OTHER CONDITIONS WHEREAS, a developer would like to vacate approximately 4,850 square feet of the existing tree preservation easement located on City-owned property at the northeast corner of North Gregg Avenue and West Van Asche Drive to allow a proposed development to tie into an existing sewer line; and WHEREAS, the developer has offered to dedicate an additional 5,534 square feet of tree preservation easement and satisfy other conditions recommended by the Urban Forester. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines that the developer adjacent to the City-owned property (Parcel No. 765-28354-000) that is covered by a dedicated tree preservation easement has proven to the City Council’s satisfaction that the vacation of a portion of the tree preservation easement, as shown in Exhibit B to the staff memo attached to this Ordinance, is in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville and therefore grants the request to vacate the existing tree preservation easement as to those 4,850 square feet. Section 2: The vacation and abolishment of the 4,850 square feet of tree preservation easement shall not be effective until the following conditions are satisfied: 1. Dedication of approximately 5,534 square feet of tree preservation easement on Parcel No. 765-15772-010, as shown in Exhibit B to the staff memo attached to this Ordinance, which will occur with the easement plat submittal for the proposed development. 2. Removal of all invasive species prior to the dedication of the new tree preservation easement. 3. Planting of 22 mitigation trees with three (3) year maintenance or bonding agreements within the proposed tree preservation easement. Ordinance: 6946 File Number: 2025-2483 Page 2 _______________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor _______________________________ Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer 3$66('DQG$33529('RQ'HFHPEHU $SSURYHG$WWHVW 7KLVSXEOLFDWLRQZDVSDLGIRUE\WKH&LW\&OHUN7UHDVXUHURIWKH&LW\RI)D\HWWHYLOOH$UNDQVDV $PRXQW3DLG Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 www.fayetteville-ar.gov CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2025-2483 MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2025 TO:Mayor Rawn and City Council THRU:Keith Macedo, Chief of Staff Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Jessica Masters, Planning Director FROM:Willa Thomason, Urban Forester SUBJECT: VAC-2025-0026: Vacation (3600 N. GREGG AVENUE/COMMERCIAL REALTY, LLC, 172): Submitted by COMMERCIAL REALTY, LLC for property located NORTH OF 3600 N. GREGG AVENUE in WARD 3. The property is zoned UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE AND P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 17.3 acres. The request is to vacate a 0.10-acre portion of a tree preservation easement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAC-2025-0026 as shown in the attached Exhibit 'B', with the following conditions: A (5,534 sq. ft.) tree preservation easement totaling 5,534-square feet shall be dedicated on parcel 765-15772-010, as shown in Exhibit B; All invasive species shall be removed prior to the dedication of said tree preservation easement, as well as within any other tree preservation easements to be dedicated in line with the associated development; 22 mitigation trees shall be planted within the 5,534 sf tree preservation easement prior to dedication (as calculated by dividing the square footage of the area to be vacated (4850 sf) by 218 sf base density forestation per acre); The proposed vacation and dedications will occur with the easement plat submittal for the proposed development. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of N. Gregg Ave. and W. Van Asche Dr., approximately 0.3 miles north of the Fulbright Expressway. In 2008, the City acquired the property on parcel 765-28354-000 from the original developer. At the same time, a tree preservation easement (TPE) was dedicated, and several utility easements were shown on the plat, including a 30-foot wide “exception for sewer easement” (Exhibit D). Between 2008 and 2010, improvements included the construction of a retaining wall along the east side of the property and the installation of a sewer line running across the TPE; however, likely due to the economic downtown an recession in the late-2000s, work was never finalized and the sewer line easement was not recorded. The Twin Creeks development needs either to vacate a small portion of the existing TPE to tie into this existing sewer line or to directionally bore a new line underneath the TPE. Directionally boring a new sewer line would not involve a TPE easement vacation or utility easement dedication as repairs to the previously-installed main would also be conducted via directional boring; however, Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 www.fayetteville-ar.gov the applicant's preference is to test, repair, and utilize the existing line, following a partial vacation of the TPE. Request: The applicant proposes to vacate 4,850 sf, or 0.1 acres of a 15.4-acre tree preservation easement on the property that was dedicated in 2008. DISCUSSION: The property and proposed development has access to an existing sewer main along N. Gregg Ave. Per Engineering Division evaluation however, this line is a force main that the developer cannot tie into. As an alternative, both Engineering and Utilities staff expressed support for utilization of the existing sewer line within the existing TPE, given that long-term maintenance of that line will be more efficient than maintenance of a new directionally bored line. Aerial imagery of the site shows the portion of the existing TPE west of the Razorback Greenway and east of the subject property's wall consists of a young stand of trees which began to establish after 2008. Urban forestry staff visited the existing TPE and noted primarily small, first-successional species such as honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos) in the area to be vacated. Invasive species including privet (Ligustrum japonicum) and bush honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) are also present. The proposed easement area consists primarily of immature mesic species such as black willow (Salix Nigra) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The site is situated within the Scull Creek corridor, and most of the site features hydric soils. As stated in Ordinance 6896, and amendment to UDC §167.04(L)(2) adopted on July 15, 2025, “The geographic extent and location of tree preservation easements, once recorded, may only be vacated in whole or in part with the express approval of the City Council. Applicants requesting such action shall bear the burden of proving to the City Council's satisfaction that such modification or abolition is in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville and its residents and businesses.” Staff believe the increase of roughly 680 sf of tree preservation easement for the City following the proposed vacation and dedication of a new tree preservation easement, in conjunction with the following conditions of approval to improve the condition of the dedicated easement, will justify this vacation. The Urban Forestry Advisory Board reviewed this proposed vacation at the November 4, 2025 meeting, and voted in favor of the proposed dedication and the conditions to remove invasive species from and plant mitigation trees within the new tree preservation easement to be dedicated on parcel 765-15772-010. Staff have not received any other public comment on this item. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 3. Staff Review Form, 4. (Exhibit A-1) Pages 1-4 from 2009-01-12 - Agendas - Final, 5. (Exhibit A-2) 2009-01-12 Minutes, 6. (Exhibit B) Proposed Tree Preservation Dedication Area, 7. (Exhibit C) Twin Creeks (Lot 20 2009 Plans) Page 16 for City Sign Off, 8. (Exhibit D) Waterline Sewer 1468_asbuilt001, 9. (Exhibit E) Consent of Owner Form - Mayor Signature 11.10.2025, 10. (Exhibit F1) Tree Preservation Abandonment - Legal Description, 11. (Exhibit F2) UFAB Tree Pres Easement Application (Executed), 12. Additional Information - Signed Petition to Vacate Page 1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Legislation Text 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 File #: 2025-2483 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A 4,850 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF A TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT LOCATED NORTH OF 3600 NORTH GREGG AVENUE CONTINGENT ON THE DEDICATION OF A REPLACEMENT TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT TOTALING 5,534 SQUARE FEET AND OTHER CONDITIONS WHEREAS, a developer would like to vacate approximately 4,850 square feet of the existing tree preservation easement located on City-owned property at the northeast corner of North Gregg Avenue and West Van Asche Drive to allow a proposed development to tie into an existing sewer line; and WHEREAS, the developer has offered to dedicate an additional 5,534 square feet of tree preservation easement and satisfy other conditions recommended by the Urban Forester. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines that the developer adjacent to the City-owned property (Parcel No. 765-28354-000) that is covered by a dedicated tree preservation easement has proven to the City Council’s satisfaction that the vacation of a portion of the tree preservation easement, as shown in Exhibit B to the staff memo attached to this Ordinance, is in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville and therefore grants the request to vacate the existing tree preservation easement as to those 4,850 square feet. Section 2: The vacation and abolishment of the 4,850 square feet of tree preservation easement shall not be effective until the following conditions are satisfied: 1. Dedication of approximately 5,534 square feet of tree preservation easement on Parcel No. 765- 15772-010, as shown in Exhibit B to the staff memo attached to this Ordinance, which will occur with the easement plat submittal for the proposed development. 2. Removal of all invasive species prior to the dedication of the new tree preservation easement. 3. Planting of 22 mitigation trees with three (3) year maintenance or bonding agreements within the proposed tree preservation easement. 11/26/2025 Submitted Date No -$ -$ V20221130 Budgeted Item? Does item have a direct cost? Is a Budget Adjustment attached? Total Amended Budget Expenses (Actual+Encum) Available Budget Item Cost Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget -$ -$ No No -$ -$ Project Number Budget Impact: FundAccount Number Project Title City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2025-2483 Item ID 12/16/2025 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only VAC-2025-0026: Vacation (3600 N. GREGG AVENUE/COMMERCIAL REALTY, LLC, 172): Submitted by COMMERCIAL REALTY, LLC for property located NORTH OF 3600 N. GREGG AVENUE in WARD 3. The property is zoned UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE AND P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 17.3 acres. The request is to vacate a 0.10- acre portion of a tree preservation easement. N/A for Non-Agenda Item Action Recommendation: Submitted By Willa Thomason DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (630) Division / Department Comments: Purchase Order Number: Change Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Approval Date: Original Contract Number: Exhibit A=1 aye ,vi„le AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 12, 2009, 5:30 p.m. Room 219, City Administration Building ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item — Chair B. Presentation of Staff Report C. Presentation of request — Applicant D. Public Comment E. Questions & Answer with Commission F. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion & Vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8257 If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Public comment occurs after the Planning Staff has presented the application and will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Members of the public are permitted a maximum of 10 minutes to speak; representatives of a neighborhood group will be allowed 20 minutes. The applicant/representative of an application before the Planning Commission for consideration will be permitted a maximum of 20 minutes for presentation. Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. He/She will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Open dialogue will not be permitted: please ask any questions, and answers will be provided once public comment has been closed. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2009 Planning Commissioners Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Porter Winston Audy Lack Christine Myres Jeremy Kennedy Jill Anthes 1lie TENTATIVE AGENDA ATaye RKANSAS The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 12, 2009, 5:30 p.m. Room 219, City Administration Building The following items will be considered: Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the Monday, December 8, 2008 meeting. 2. LSD 08-3133: (TWIN CREEKS VILLAGE/VAN ASCHE, 172): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 20, CMN BUSINESS PARK II PH. III, NE OF GREGG AND VAN ASCHE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.85 acres. The request is for four 7500 s.f. office buildings with associated infrastructure. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 3. LSD 08-3167: (CULLS II, 717): Submitted by CLAY GROTE HGM CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 585 W. WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 2.69 acres. The request is for 24,250 s.f. of office and warehouse space. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 4. ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS FINAL PLAT MODIFICATION, 600): Submitted by BURKE LARKIN FOR THE BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS Subdivision on the NORTH SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, WEST OF CLINE AVENUE. The property is zoned R-PZD 05-1979, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is to modify condition of approval No. 19 from the final plat approval regarding a vegetated buffer on the east property line. Planner: Andrew Gamer Unfinished Business: 5. CUP 08-3158: (WILKINS / S. ARCHIBALD YELL, 523): Submitted by COLLIN WILKINS for property located at 275-2 SOUTH ARCHIBALD YELL BOULEVARD. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a Tattoo Shop in the DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL, zoning district. Planner: Dara Sanders New Business: 6. RZN 08-3180: (MOUNTAIN RANCH PH.1/5 LOTS, 478): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at LOTS 118,94,95,96,97 IN THE MOUNTAIN RANCH S/D PHASE I. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RT-12, Residential Multi -family, 12 units per acre. Planner: Dara Sanders THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO JANUARY 26, 2009 7. VAC 08-3181: (KIRK ELSASS / ROCKCLIFF RD.): Submitted by KIRK ELSASS for property located at 619 N. ROCKCLIFF ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on the subject property. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 8. CUP 08-3173: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 719-758): Submitted by I.SCHWARTZMAN, S. ANDERSON SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC for property located BETWEEN 200 & 400 WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.37 acres. The request is for 2 tandem lots. Planner: Dara Sanders 9. LSP 08-3172: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, 719-758): Submitted by I.SCHWARTZMAN, S. ANDERSON SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC for property located at BETWEEN 200 & 400 WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.37 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 4 tracts of 3.86, 5.53, 8.04, and 3.94 acres. Planner: Dara Sanders 10. CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484): Submitted by KRISTIN KNIGHT for property located at 550 W. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. The request is to renew the 3 year Conditional Use Permit for a temporary parking lot on the subject property. Planner: Andrew Garner 11. CUP 08-3176: (T-MOBILE / WILLIAMS DRIVE, 486): Submitted by KAYLA KRAMER CLS GROUP for property located at 325 WILLIAMS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.45 acres. The request is for a co -location by T-Mobile on the existing Cox Communications tower on the subject property. Planner: Andrew Gamer 12. R-PZD 08-3170: (THE COVES @ WALNUT CRSG. PH.III, 555): Submitted by MIKE ANDERSON for property located at THE WESTERN EDGE OF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS AND NORTH OF HWY. 62. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 10.51 acres. The request is for review of a Zoning, Land Use and Development plan with 38 single-family lots. Planner: Jesse Fulcher All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. Planning Commission Exhibit A=2 January 12, 2009 Page 1 of 18 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 12, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: December 8, 2008 Approved Page 3 LSD 08-3133: (TWIN CREEKS VILLAGE/VAN ASCHE, 172) Approved Page 3 LSD 08-3167: (CULLS II, 717) Approved Page 3 ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS FPL MODIFICATION) Tabled Page 4 CUP 08-3158: (WILKINS / S. ARCHIBALD YELL, 523) Approved Page 5 RZN 08-3180: (MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. 115 LOTS, 478) Tabled Page 10 VAC 08-3181: (KIRK ELSASS / ROCKCLIFF RD., 449) Tabled Page 11 CUP 08-3173: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, 719-758) Approved Page 12 LSP 08-3172: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, 719-758) Approved Page 12 CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484) Tabled Page 14 CUP 08-3176: (T-MOBILE / WILLIAMS DR., 486) Approved Page 15 R-PZD 08-3170: (THE COVES AT WALNUT CROSSING, 555) Forwarded Page 17 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available.for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 2 of 18 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Jeremy Kennedy Audy Lack Christine Myres Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Vice Chair Audy Lack called the meeting to order. Commissioner Lack requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present with the exception of Commissioner Trumbo. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 3 of 18 Consent. - Approval of the minutes from the December 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. LSD 08-3133: (TWIN CREEKS VILLAGE/VAN ASCHE,172): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 20, CMN BUSINESS PARK II PH. III, NE OF GREGG AND VAN ASCHE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.85 acres. The request is for four 7,500 s.f. office buildings with associated infrastructure. Planner: Jesse Fulcher LSD 08-3167: (CULLS II, 717): Submitted by CLAY GROTE HGM CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 585 W. WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 2.69 acres. The request is for 24,250 s.f, of office and warehouse space. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 4 of 18 Old Business: ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS): Submitted by BURKE LARKIN for the Bungalows at Cato Springs Subdivision on the NORTH SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, WEST OF CLINE AVENUE. The property is zoned R-PZD 05-1979, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is to modify condition of approval No. 19 from the final plat approval regarding a vegetated buffer on the east property line. Planner: Andrew Garner Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant had requested this item be tabled to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 5 of 18 CUP 08-3158: (WILKINS / S. ARCHIBALD YELL, 523): Submitted by COLLIN WILKINS for property located at 275-2 SOUTH ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a Tattoo Shop in the DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL zoning district. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, discussing findings of economic impact and compatibility that have been expanded since the previous planning commission meeting. Based on the application and review of the request, staff recommends approval of the project request, with conditions as listed in the staff report. Collin Wilkins, applicant, discussed traffic issues brought up at the previous meeting. At the last meeting it was said that this intersection is a deathtrap. I strongly disagree. The approach is 50' wide between the curb cuts, there is plenty of room to pull in and out. Visibility is not an issue. I only have on average 3-5 customers per day, so I don't understand the traffic issue. Regarding property values, as discussed in the staff report property values surrounding Knight Times tattoo have gone up since that business has been there. That tattoo shop did not drive down the surrounding property value, so that's not an issue. Regarding the contamination issue, the only way you are going to get contaminated is if I use dirty needles. He discussed State health regulations, inspections, licensing equipment. He discussed disposal of needles; used needles go in a sharps container and are disposed of at a medical store. The contamination factor is not a factor. He discussed the name, and originally wanted Southside Tattoo, but it was used elsewhere. He has spent $900 on the name of business and sign, and can't afford to change it. He is not happy with the look of the temporary signage on the side of the building and will be removing that regardless of tonight's decision. Regarding character, he is not sure if they're talking about the name of the business or the clientele. Going rate for a tattoo is $100/hour, so trouble -makers aren't going to be flocking to my shop because it's a tattoo shop. I feel this is a form of discrimination on my business, and the comments don't hold water. In the staff report there is evidence to contradict every complaint made. He discussed signatures on a petition in the neighborhood that approve of his being there. The facts disprove these complaints. Public comment: Alan Ostner, President of Jennings Plus Neighborhood Association, the neighborhood area is across the street from Lowlife Tattoo. I was here last time. I won't reiterate everything I said. I had a petition last time of property owners who don't think this establishment is compatible. I don't know Mr. Wilkins. I don't have a problem with the establishment, I have a problem with the location. The Fayetteville Unified Development Code allows Use Unit # 17 as a Conditional Use; so it's not a form of discrimination. Conditional Use Permits get denied all the time. The staff report says there are all sorts of businesses around it, including restaurants, and auto parts stores, but they're all a quarter -mile away. I can't see any of that from here. He discussed Bungalow Babies (daycare) one house up the street. I have concern with Lowlife Tattoo being next door. I have conflicting opinions about part of the staff report. I appreciate the research on other cities allowing this use as a use by right, but we don't. Why didn't the City Council and the people of Fayetteville say this use should be allowed by right in this zoning district? I don't feel it is compatible next to upscale retail establishment that will be coming in with Mr. Ball. I don't feel this tattoo parlor is a touchstone for future development in this site. I think this is an incompatible use and I wish for you to turn it down Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 6 of 18 it tonight. Rebecca Latourette, citizen, owns property at 205 W. South St., half -block from this business. This business has demonstrated a lack of regard for compliance by starting this business and continuing to operate without a permit. A person is entitled to call their business whatever they want, but the fact of the matter is this business is not permitted by zoning. I don't know if this person is the owner of the building or renting, but it might have made a difference. I understand this business is open until 11:00 PM, which may impact people that live nearby. Whether the signatures on the applicant's petition are owners or renters makes a difference. I cannot compare this business to Knight Times, because that's surrounded by businesses. It is not the same with this piece of property, which is surrounded by residential housing. I am asking you to turn down this request for Conditional Use Permit. J.R. Ball, citizen, stated he owns building to the southwest at 118 W. South St. I bought the building in 2008. I have mixed emotions about this. I am opposed to it because of what I'm trying to do with this building. On the surface the business seems clean, and I've seen no problems while we've been under construction. However, the perception of the public moves me to be opposed to this. We have 5,000 square feet we are turning into retail/fashion design and art studio, art shows, etc. The renovations are costing a lot of money. I have to be in opposition. Dede Peters, citizen, owns an art gallery on Mountain Street. She quoted a study from 2006 showing that 36% of Americans aged 18-25 have a tattoo, and 40% of Americans between 26 and 40 have a tattoo. So tattoos are mainstream and no longer underground. If the City required a business license, this could have been avoided. I believe tattoo shops, currently considered as Use Unit 17, should be Use Unit 15, like the barber shop. There are some salons in town that offer cosmetic tattoos and are allowed under their use unit. Tattooing requires skill, it is entrepreneurial, provides income tax, is a local business contributing to the local economy. The tattoo industry falls in the creative sector, the 3`d largest economy in the State. As a person doing business downtown, I feel it's vital to have retail on the street level, and continue to be hospitable to the entrepreneurial spirit. With the amount of people that have tattoos today, I feel some of the opinions expressed are prejudiced, uneducated, and elitist. Richard Russell, citizen, stated he lives at 401 S. College and has seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood since 2001. I was encouraged when planning got involved in the area. I was a beneficiary of the rezoning, and the fresh look at the area. During these years, I've seen quite a few cases of people leaving and coming in, improving the area. I believe we should take some time and let the planning take shape into reality. I haven't had long enough to see the good that can come from that careful and extended effort. For some reason, this use is not allowed, so let's be considerate of that and work with some things that are allowed. Christy Zweig, neighbor, stated she lives directly behind the building Mr. Ball bought. I have two tattoos, but still don't think it's appropriate. I have invested a lot of money in my nearby property. The owner of this business has said he doesn't have enough money to even change the name, so obviously it's not a thriving business. Regardless of what it is, we don't need a business that's not thriving. It won't be compatible with Mr. Ball's development, with the retail going in there. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 7 of 18 Susan Pocrivnak, citizen, lives on West Fourth Street, discussed pierced ears coming into style in the 1960's. It was an anomaly then, but now quite common. Things change. She discussed tattoos and the neighborhood area. The tattoo shop looks the nicest in the area. I think "Lowlife" is tongue- in-cheek and supposed to be funny. It's an art form. She stated that she is in support of the request. Bob Stack, citizen, stated he was a retired real estate agent. I would like to see this approved. Mr. Ball is doing a great job with what used to be next door. Tattoo is an art and conforms to the neighborhood. As for the previous comment about having invested lots of money in nearby property; when that money was invested, there was an adult novelty shop next door. This didn't just happen. I think it's compatible. I don't see a big difference between this shop and a barber shop across the lot. Laverne Cooper, citizen, stated she uses the corridor a lot. I noticed this portion of town was looking better. A few days later, we see "Lowlife" on the building. We thought it was graffiti. I don't think it's compatible with the neighborhood. No more public comment was received. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the needles don't mix with the regular trash. Wilkins described the needle disposal process. Needles go into the sharps container and never touch the trash; never go near it. Commissioner Cabe asked if we can hold the fact that he opened a business without a permit against him. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated it is not one of the specific conditions. The major consideration is compatibility. Once we began the Conditional Use Permit process, enforcement of the violations were suspended. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed business licenses, Certificates of Zoning Compliance. If businesses apply for a sign permit, building pennit, etc., staff requires a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. It's the best mechanism we've found for catching businesses that are operating without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Commissioner Cabe asked for clarification about Conditional Use Permits and whether the use is technically "allowed." Williams stated that it is not a use by right, where you would automatically have a right to put in the use. It's certainly not illegal as long as the Planning Commission would grant the use. It's a use that's questionable, where City Council feels it should sometimes be allowed and sometimes not be allowed. That's why they make it a Conditional Use, to let the Planning Commission review the situations. The real issue is general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties within the district. It's not defined very precisely because I don't think it can be. It's something where you have to listen to the neighbors and use your own judgment on. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 8 of 18 Commissioner Winston asked if this is in the Fayetteville Arts District boundary. Pate stated that for the most part it follows the downtown district boundary. Commissioner Anthes described boundaries of the Fayetteville Arts District as being the downtown district, plus a finger that includes the Mill District and down 61h Street to incorporate some studios there. The district also extends south to the former Jefferson School. Commissioner Winston asked if the boundary runs down Archibald Yell Blvd. Commissioner Anthes said she does not recall, specifically. Commissioner Winston asked about the boundary of the Walker Park neighborhood. Pate stated that the northern boundary of that neighborhood was along Archibald Yell. Commissioner Anthes asked about space currently used on the site as storage. is storage a use allowed in downtown zoning right now? Pate stated that it was, as long as it was ancillary to another use. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff has looked into storage at that location. Is it ancillary? Sanders stated that they have, and it is an ancillary use. Commissioner Anthes stated that although Mr. Wilkins may not have done himself any favors with his neighbors by selecting the business name he did, the name of the business is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Another thing that has been distressing me from the general discussion tonight is the implication that a tattoo artist is an undesirable that will make neighborhoods lose their value and corrupt their children. Tattoo artists are licensed professionals; they do apprenticeships, take written exams, pay license fees, and are subject to regular inspections by the State Health Department. I feel we need to take them on that professional level and not ascribe a negative perception to them that may be prejudicial or incorrect. There have also been comments made tonight about how the investment of dollars in this small business is somehow unequal to or of less worth than other investments made in the area. I don't think that is correct, either. We see many Conditional Use Permits come through after the fact, but I find it's most often because of not knowing the City procedures, rather than a blatant disrespect for the law. I'd like staff to tell us what is included in Use Unit 17 besides tattoo shops, because individual uses aren't called out for as permissible or impermissible, they are together in a group, and the flavor of that group is what makes it a use by right or a conditional use. Pate read the uses included in Use Unit 17 from the Unified Development Code. You will often see some of the included uses in other Use Units, which often poses a challenge in similar situations. Commissioner Anthes stated that it solidifies her point. I was one of the Commissioners who evaluated the Downtown Master Plan zoning districts, and we went through it use unit by use unit Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 9 of 18 and made recommendations to City Council about what we thought should be allowed by right and what should not be allowed. I believe my vote would have been that this was a use unit that provided an intensity of use that shouldn't be automatically approved in the Downtown General zoning district, and that intensity of use is tied to things like the car lots and uses like the cabinet shop and car repair and businesses that would make a lot of noise and may be a nuisance to the neighborhood. I don't think this particular shop with two employees and 3-5 customers per day meets the kind of intensity that would be too much to handle in Downtown General, which is a very eclectic and mixed -use area. To not approve this just because you don't like this type of business well, some people don't like lawyers either, but it's not a reason you don't allow them in your neighborhood. Regarding the findings on compatibility, while the Planning Commission does evaluate use, a lot of times that use is tied to building form, and issues of traffic and access and development. In this particular case, it's a business occupying an existing building that's not being renovated over 50% of its value, and therefore a lot of the things that we have leeway with don't kick in for this particular project. Can staff reiterate what the specific findings under compatibility are? Pate discussed the findings listed in the staff report. Commissioner Anthes stated she agreed with staff s findings, and finds for general compatibility, since the building is not being altered but is being cleaned up. For me it comes down to whether a licensed business, subject to regular inspections by the State Health Department, can be a good neighbor in this location, and for myself, I find that is yes, and I will be voting to support this application. Commissioner Lack stated he finds in favor of compatibility with this establishment. The discussion about the Cultural Arts District enforces that. This use is an enhancement of that district. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Graves voting no. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 10 of 18 RZN 08-3180: (MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. 115 LOTS, 478): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at LOTS 118,94,95,96,97 IN THE MOUNTAIN RANCH S/D PHASE L The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RT-12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 12 UNITS/ACRE. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, stated that the applicant has requested this item be tabled to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 11 of 18 VAC 08-3181: (KIRK ELSASS/ROCKCLIFF RD.): Submitted by KIRK ELSASS for property located at 619 N. ROCKCLIFF RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on the subject property. Commissioner Lack stated that the applicant has requested we table this item, which is the intent of the Commission this evening, but I understand there is a member of the public who will not be able to be at the next meeting, so we will hear a brief staff report and open it for public comment. I would ask if you are also here for this item, but you will be able to be here or intend to speak at the next meeting, to please hold your comments until then. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, gave a brief staff report, describing the existing drainage easement and drainage pipes across the street. Drainage does flow through the lot. It is the applicant's intent to fill much of the lot and develop a single-family home, however, the existing drainage easement does encumber the property and his ability to develop it. Staff has raised some concerns with the method of fill, and placing a new pipe within that area and altering the natural drainage channel. The applicant has asked the item be tabled to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Staff will be meeting with the applicant to discuss issues in the meantime. Mary Cobrick, citizen, stated that adjacent property owners had no comments and she was surprised by that. This is a spring -fed creek. I looked at Fayetteville's ordinances regarding intermittent/perennial streams, found that it needs a 25-foot perimeter strip; it also says that construction equipment may not ford streams. How are they going to put pipes in without fording the stream? Also, under the land alteration requirements 169.06(B), it says that in no case shall the City Engineer waive or modify any of the minimum erosion control requirements given in 169.04. I think you need to see the lot to understand the issues. It's very steep and would require a tremendous amount of fill and would possible pollute the stream. It's true the stream is short, but not too far away it joins a muddy run-off area. This is a precious little bit of nature used by wildlife. I can't see the City going against its own erosion control and land alteration requirements. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1, with Commissioner Kennedy recusing. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 12 of 18 CUP 08-3173: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 719-758): Submitted by I. SCHWARTZMAN, S. ANDERSON SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LLC for property located BETWEEN 200 & 400 WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.37 acres. The request is for 2 tandem lots. LSP 08-3172: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 719-758): Submitted by I. SCHWARTZMAN, S. ANDERSON SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LLC for property located BETWEEN 200 & 400 WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.37 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 4 tracts of 3.86, 5.53, 8.04, and 3.94 acres. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report for both the Conditional Use Permit and Lot Split. She described the request to create tandem lots and the surrounding area, discussing that the proposed lot width is compatible. She discussed the sewer variance. Because the sewer is a half - mile away and for four houses, the sewer extension not recommended. She recommended approval with five conditions listed in the staff report for the Conditional Use Permit, and nine conditions with the Lot Split, Ira Schwartzman, applicant, stated that four lots proposed would create four wonderful home building sites. The front lot that faces Willoughby Rd. features a ravine that runs through a good portion of it. It would reduce the value for property if it is cut through. In terms of the sewer, we feel if we had to incur the burden of running the sewer line half a mile for four pieces of property, it would not be feasible. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated that on the Lot Split conditions regarding impact fees, will this be subject to sewer impact fee? Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated it would not. Commissioner Lack asked, regarding condition of approval #9, the lot split approval would be valid for one calendar year — is that a term to construction? Pate stated that lot splits are good for one year from the date of approval. If it's not stamped by our office and filed with the County within one year, it has expired and needs to come back through. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the Lot Split request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 13 of 18 a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 14 of 18 CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484): Submitted by KRISTIN KNIGHT for property located at 550 W. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. The request is to renew the 3-year Conditional Use Permit for a temporary parking lot on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. He discussed the history of site and the previous Conditional Use Pennit for the temporary parking lot permit and the current landscaping variance requests. Staff finds in favor of continued use of parking with site, however, the parking lot should be brought into compliance with City Code, in terms of landscaping. He described conditions of approval. Rob Sharp, applicant, stated he represented Mansfield Properties. His client's original intent was to park on the property as an intermittent way to fund the renovations on the historic train station and to prepare the property for a mixed -use development including a structured parking deck. Because of the real estate and lending environment, the decision was made to wait until things look better to do the project. He described other things happening in the area including the Walton Arts Center, the City lot, parking enforcement, etc. He discussed that adding the islands, etc. would decrease parking by 21 stalls which would have a negative impact on the area. We would like to find a way to make this work, perhaps two weeks to work with staff. I don't believe it's good policy to take away parking in that area. No public comment was received. Commissioner Myres asked staff if there was any problem with tabling this for two weeks. Garner stated he had no problem with it, he hasn't been able to talk to the applicant in detail about the request. Commissioner Anthes remembers the discussion of this item three and a half years ago. I rather reluctantly voted for the un-landscaped lot at that time, acknowledging that downtown needed parking, development of the site was coming, and the lot was a temporary solution. While parking policy isn't a Planning Commission decision, the built environment is something that we're charged with. I know that these are hard economic times, and yet the appearance of one of the most important intersections of downtown also contributes to economics -- in that it goes to the perception of the area and the care being taken with Dickson Street. This site is highly visible, and it may be a very long time until the built project is viable. This lot in either configuration, with the spaces it has now or the spaces allowed by right, is not going to solve the parking problem downtown. So I'm concerned about staffs recommendation for making the greater number of spaces than allowed by ordinance permanent, instead of being permitted by conditional use. I believe that excess parking should be provided in places other than in one of the most visible intersections in the Entertainment District. I am also concerned about the 25' build -to zone being observed. Everything is so close to those sidewalks now, and the sidewalks are also very narrow. Pedestrians walk in the street, and there is no overflow since the fence is so close. I appreciate that the applicant is willing to work with staff further. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 15 of 18 Motion• Commissioner Cabe made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 16 of 18 CUP 48-3176: (T-MOBILE/WILLIAMS DRIVE, 486): Submitted by KAYLA KRAMER CLS GROUP for property located at 325 WILLIAMS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.45 acres. The request is for a co -location by T-Mobile on the existing Cox Communications tower on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Current Planner, gave the staff report. The request is to install cellular antenna on the existing telecommunications tower. Because the Planning Commission has not approved the cellular use on this tower previously, it does require Planning Commission consideration. Based on findings, staff is recommend approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Garth Hancock, applicant, discussed T-Mobile's entry into area. They are pleased to have found an existing tower to utilize. No public comment was received. Commissioner Myres stated she had no problem with the request. Cellular antenna on the existing tower is a reasonable request. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes stated she just confirmed with Attorney Williams that the tower was not previously approved by the Planning Commission because it was in place before approval was necessary. A follow-up question to staff is, how does putting an exterior antenna array at this site differ from where you have requested that new towers be erected with stealth technology, such as the flagpole design? Pate stated that there is a specific section in City Code that discusses existing towers. As of two years ago we modified that section of the code. Before we modified it, any existing tower could be utilized for co -location with administrative approval. An application was brought forward for a site off of College Avenue for Smith 2-Way Radio that was utilizing an existing radio tower, or replacing an existing radio tower with a cellular antenna. There was a concern brought up at that time and we did amend our ordinances to require cellular antenna if it's a new use, a new type of antenna on an existing tower, it would require a Conditional Use Permit. We do allow it on existing structures even though there are not buildings, things of that nature, we pernlit those by co -location administratively all the time. But with newer existing towers, there is a very specific section that talks about that. Commissioner Anthes asked that because of the utility nature of this site, which already exists, staff feels this is an appropriate addition? Pate stated he thinks so. The alternative in this area is a new tower at probably a different location or expanding the size of this location. We felt utilizing an existing facility and infrastructure there Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 17 of 18 would not create additional visual impact in that area. That's not to say we won't have another tower in that area in the fixture, since I can almost guarantee we'll see another tower request on Mt. Sequoyah in the future, but at this point in time I think it was a good move. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 18 of 18 R-PZD 08-3170: (THE COVES AT WALNUT CROSSING PH. tlt, 555): Submitted by MIKE ANDERSON for property located at THE WESTERN EDGE OF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS AND NORTH OF HWY. 62. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 10.51 acres. The request is for review of a Zoning, Land Use and Development plan with 38 single-family lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing previous development approvals, and current request. Based on the findings, staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Kim Hesse, applicant, described the project. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated that in looking at the Tree Preservation plan, it seems there are fence row trees and alley construction seems to decrease viability of alley and tree preservation. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed right-of-way going to the property line and staff s recommendation. Hesse stated the existing overhead electric line goes over trees, so those aren't counted as preserved. She also discussed the alley. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval with conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting etas adjourned at 7.28 PM. 1�II � .fit 11 Proposed 4,850 SF of area to be -� abandoned Existing 8" Sewer Line i 11L1I` J7 1 -$-- 1195 --_ - 1/65 1180 -:1175 ai .off; 1170 wx n we • _ r IF - 1165 1160 t+ 4 Exhibit C mux �Sx ZR f� < �> w w I /! ®.rsnwcnora nxo l>snxa r6or�1�� 0 tl �o amtg � W SEWER PROFILE 'ff - --- 1190 1185 1175 Fs 1165 -1 00 0+00 1+00 2+00 ]+00 4+00 5+00 Z W LL W Z City' Approval 3° 3-24-09� unurr PLAN AND PROFILES ML MAND CONSULTM'G ®' EIMMEERR ma MCE JCB#002140. ewxcum�ea� 1/1 1274 611E J(IB N0. 13' 13 s or 6"µ.n� I ' 1 I Existing 8" ; I Sewer Line Exhibit D"a£4NFE5fi; - ff gH r B I -•= �- Proposed 4,850 SF of area to be �1 �IH�MM,MMil r �. Z NHp YZyZ 4 txYcc>wH —�- - / FWOPDSFJJ FE4NFES G W W LU e s �f 4FtiS.a�w ov TS8'S - 4� LLto \I oz ivi/ AM 1EB11NG RpCEDUP� --_ J J f��Gv o �Jw a ma �r -ao w LU ¢ w /• / s 1: ILL_ O � Record — - -- - d Drawings filed with the city "0 after construction of the sewer and water line per these plans. These were pulled from the City's GIS. 1150 1185 11 &5 � .._..-.�. I '-"' __ /Oj McCLELLANO CGNSULTING q�y�s Enh tlao ; % LLAwuap __ 11gU —^'�'x' "'ENGINEERS INC UTILITY e r =• n va PLAN AND 1I?5 r -1 1175 rMCEJOe#082144 PROFILES um gg » ttr:�. zz - 6t. 6's;} 'r54' -s2 ,tFS cnry r:.nxnu �r.nw.accxvRmmmc Z RECORD DRAWINGS a104E 1274 No. „8 13 Exhibit E Jessie Masters Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2025-0891 Item ID N/A City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 11/6/2025 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (630) Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Mayor's signature is requested on a consent of owner form. This is for an applicant -requested partial vacation of a tree preservation easement on City -owned property adjacent to a proposed development at Van Asche and Gregg Avenue. Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? No Does item have a direct cost? No Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No Budget Impact: Total Amended Budget Expenses (Actual+Encum) Available Budget Item Cost Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Fund Project Title $ $ - V20221130 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Approval Date: Consent of Owner Form PROPERTY OWNER(S) /AUTHORIZED AGENT. By signing below, I/we certify under penalty of perjury that I am/we are the owner(s) of the property that is the subject of this application and that I/we have authorized this application and consent to its filing. PLEASE NOTE. • Property Owners: Attach additional info/documentation if necessary. • Authorized Agents: If signing on behalf of a Property Owner, a letter from each Property Owner must be provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on their behalf. Tree preservation easement vacation for Twin Creeks Preliminary Plat at Gregg and Van Asche (VAC-2025-0026 and PPL-2025-0003) Property Owner 1: X Molly Rawn, Mayor City Of Fayetteville Name of person signing [printed] Entity/Company signator legally owns or represents mayor@fayetteville-ar.gov 479-575-8330 Contact Email Contact Phone 113 E. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, AR 72701 Mailing Address November 07, 2025 Property Owner Signature Date Property Owner 2: (if needed) X Name of person signing [printed] Entity/Company signator legally owns or represents Contact Email Contact Phone Mailing Address Property Owner Signature Date Property Owner 3: (if needed) X Name of person signing [printed] Entity/Company signator legally owns or represents Contact Email Contact Phone Mailing Address Property Owner Signature Date Property Owner 4: (if needed) X Name of person signing [printed] Entity/Company signator legally owns or represents Contact Email Contact Phone Mailing Address Property Owner Signature Date Exhibit F1 Pronosed Tree Preservation Abandonment - Descrintion: A THIRTY FOOT (30') WIDE AREA BEING LOCATED EAST OF LOT 20, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2006 AT PAGE 34913 AND BEING A PART OF PHASE III OF THE CMN BUSINESS PARK II TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, SAID THIRTY FOOT (30') WIDE AREA IS LOCATED IN THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, SAID AREA BEING FIFTEEN FEET (15') ON BOTH SIDES OF A CENTERLINE MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT AN IRON PIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 20, BEING ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GREGG AVENUE (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W); THENCE S 87°16'28" E 473.32 FEET, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 20, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 20, THENCE N 02°00'29" E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 20, 69.85 FEET TO AN EXISTING 8" SEWER LINE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A THIRTY FOOT WIDE AREA BEING FIFTEEN FEET ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FOLLOWING CENTERLINE; RUN THENCE S 89°24'02" E, ALONG SAID EXISTING 8" SEWER LINE, 161.7 FEET TO AN EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE AND THE POINT OF TERMINATION. SAID AREA CONTAINING 0.111 ACRES OR 4,850 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. Exhibit F2 City of Fayetteville - Tree Preservation Easement Vacation Request Application Applicant Information • Name: Steele Crossing Investment III, LLC Property Address or Parcel Number: 765-28354-000 Phone Number: 479-935-4397 Email Address: Paxton@ commercial realtyl1c . com Section 1: Circumstantial Description 1. Please describe in detail the circumstances requiring the vacation of this tree preservation easement, including any development plans on -site. A existing 8" sewer line was built as part of Twin Creeks Village New Office Buildings F,G,H T-r plans submx—Meid and approved by the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission January 12, 2009 (see attached Exhibit C). The attached record drawings show a 30' wide area "Exception For Sewer Easement"; however,, no recorded easement has been located. In order tQ_maintain and use the existing 8" sewer line the tree preservation area over and parallel will have to be a an oned. If this�t approvea, we war have install a new 8" sewer next to the existing 8" sewer still requiring us to cross the tree preservation area without the benefit of an easement. Section 2: City Benefit 3. Describe how vacating this tree preservation easement will benefit the City of Fayetteville: Once the existing 8" sewer line is ready and approved for use the city will be able to maintain the line. If this isn't approved, we will have to install a new 8" sewer next to the existing 8" sewer still recruirincr us to cross the tree preservation area without the benefit of an easement for maintenance. Section 3: Evaluation of Easement Proposed for Vacation 4. Size of easement (sq. ft or acres): Approx . 4,850 Square Feet 5. Species of trees in easement: A couple of bradford pears, locusts and invasive species 6. Health of trees in easement: Describe the general condition: Bradford Pears are in good condition. Remaining trees are smaller and in ok condition. 7. Does the easement proposed for vacation provide any of the following benefits orfeatures? (Check all that apply and provide supporting details where applicable) ❑ a. High quality of trees Describe: ❑ b. Large tree size (>18" in diameter for large species trees; >8" in diameter for understory species trees) Provide measurements or description: ❑ c. Wildlife habitat Describe habitat function: ❑ d. Heat island reduction contribution o Is the current easement surrounded by concrete? ❑ Yes ❑ No o Explain how it reduces heat: ❑ e. Stormwater reduction benefits Explain: ❑ f. Connection to important habitat or natural area Describe: Section 4: Proposed Tree Preservation Easement (If Applicable) 5. Are you offering anew tree preservation easement? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, complete the following. a. Size of proposed easement (sq. ft or acres): Approx. 5,534 Square Feet b. Species of trees in proposed easement: Sycamores, Oaks, bradford pears, cedar, locust c. Health of trees in Proposed Easement: Describe the general condition: good and healthy d. Does the proposed easement help mitigate heat island effects? ❑ Yes ® No Explain: e. Does it address stormwater drainage issues? ® Yes ❑No Explain: It is adjacent to Mud Creek and will prevent the area from further development. f. Does it connect to any important habitat or green corridor? MYes ❑No Explain:It is adjacent to the Razorback Greenway and Mud Creek. Supporting Documentation Checklist M Site plan showing current and proposed easement areas Exhibit B ❑ Tree inventory or arborist report (if available) ® Photos of current easement and proposed easement location Photos 1-7 (9 total) IN Any additional relevant documentation Exhibit A-1, A-2, C and D Applicant Signature: ('Z— �`—— Date: October 15, 2025 Photo #1 - Standing on West MH looking East into existing tree preservation area. Photo #2 - Standing on East MH looking West into existing tree preservation area. Photo #1 (a) - Standing behind West MH looking East into existing tree preservation area. Photo #3 - Looking west over existing sewer line and within existing tree preservation area. Photo #4 - Looking west over existing sewer line and within existing tree preservation area. Photo #5 - Looking north into proposed area to be dedicated. Photo #5(a) - Looking west into proposed area to be dedicated. Photo #6 - Looking east into proposed area to be dedicated. Photo #7 - Looking NE into proposed area to be dedicated Additional Information Received Date Received: MM/DD/YYYY Time: 00:00 (AM/PM) From: Name & Title To: Name & Title Agenda Meeting Date: MM/DD/YYYY Civic Clerk Number: Ex. 2025-994 Forwarded to City Attorney’s Office and Department Head  $0 -HVVLH0DVWHUV3ODQQLQJ'LUHFWRU &LW\&OHUN V2IILFH   1$   š”KK±Œ”K™K“¥Cœb‹±        91±9YK±(C«Kš›K¥^onK±$^š«±2oC_W±$‹{xb™™^‹±CG± 9YK±(C«Kš›K¥^onK±$^š«±$‹ Ebn± <K±šYK±¡GK”™bWKG±DK^W±Cpo±›YK±‹¦K’™±‹L±œYK±’KCo±K™›C›K±CD¡š›bW±œYK±KC™KyK›±YK’KbCL›K’±™‹¡WYœ±›‹±DK± CDCH‹KG±CG±¤CECœKG±o¬^W±^±šYK±-&±±‹L±7KEšb‹±±9‹§™Yb±±.‹’ŸY±5CWK±±<K™œ±$^š¬±‹L± )C¬K›šK¥bpoK±!’lC™C™±C±z£bE^Cn±E‹’‹’Cš^‹±K›bb‹±š‹±¥CEC›K±C±KC™KyK›±¨YbEY±^™±HK™E’bDKG±C™±Tno‹¦™ ± 4vgKMcgtvD__gv '! vqM;?v4dB5v6?M]GvR_75g?<v?5egv_FvR_gv$!vd?7_d=?=vMZv `R5gv 6__Pv%!!+v5gv`4GAv'(0#'v5V>v6@N\Gv5va5dgv_Ev`I4e?vMNNv_FvhJAv7U[v 6keM\Aeev`5dPvMNv g_vhK?v7Mgtv_DvF5t?gg?oMRRB ve5M<v gKMdgtv D__gv '!v vqM=?v5c?5vMevR_75g?=v M]vgK?v V?u )v_Dve?8jM_Vv$-vg_q]fLM`v#-vV_dgLvd5VG?v'!vq?fgvq4fLM]Gg_Vv7_lVgtv 5dQ5Vf5ev f5N<v5d?5v6AM]GvFMFiABVvFBAiv #* v_Wv 6_gJveM<Afv_Fv5v9?Xh?dRM]BvT_d?v `5diN8lR4dRtv<Ae7dM6?<v5evF_RR_qe1v 8_TT@V7M]Gv4gv4VvMd_Vv`M]v5gvgK@ve_mgKq?egv9_dV?dv_Dve5M<vR_gv$!v6BMVGv_Vv gL?v?4egv dMGLg_Dq5tvRM]?v_DvGd?GGv5vpBVl?v o4dM56RBv qM<gLvc q 2v gL?V9@vev /.#+ %/v?v(.''%vFAAiv5S_VHviLAvf_liLvRMV?v_Fve5N<vR_iv%!vh_vhLAve_niLB5eiv :_dV?dv_Dve5M=vR_gv$!vgK?V7@vVv!$!! $0v Bv4R_VGvgK?v?4egvRMV?v_Dve4M=vR_gv&"v,0/* D@@gvg_v5Vv?sMejM]Gv/ve?q@dvRM]@v5V<vgK@v`_M]gv_Dv6@GMW^M]Gv_Fv4vgLMdgtvD__gv qM<?v5dA4v6@MWGvFMDiAAXvDBAiv_Wv6_hKveO;Bev_DviJAvF_RR_rM\Gv8?Vg?cRMWA3vdmWv iLAY8@vev/0%( !%v?v5R_VGve5M<vBsMeiMVGv/v eAr?dvSMW?v#+#.vFAAgvi_v5XvAsMehNVG e?q?dvU4VL_R?v5V;vgL?v`_M]gv_Dvg?cUMW4gM_Vv e5M<v4dB5v 7_Vj5M]MWGv!###v57d?ev _dv(/*!vebl5dCvFA?ivT_dBv_dvR?eev :YCœ±œYK±CD¢œš`X±“KCp±K™šCšK±CQKEœKH±D­±™CaH±CDCH‹{Kš±‹L±šYK±KC™K{K±C“K±Co™‹±$b›­±‹L±*C­KšœK¥`onK±Ž–‹K“¯± ¢™KG±D­±šYK±¢DobE±T”±C±K’^‹G±‹L±{C­±«KC”™±CG±šYCœ±œZK±¢Do`F±bœK’K™š±CG±©KoP”K±©‹¢oH±‹š±DK±CG¥K’™Kp­± CRKEšKG±D®±œ\K±CDC‚G‹ƒ|K„œ±‹M±›YK±‹’a‹…±‹L±›YK±CD‹¥K±GK™E’cDKI±KC™KyKœ± ;\K±K›eœd‹„K”™±”C®±œYC›±œ[K±$eœ®±‹L±+C®KœšK¥duwK±"”mC…™C™ ±CDC†H‹…±C„G±¥CECšK±œ[K±CD‹¥K±GK™E”eDKG±”KCq±K™œC›K ± ™¢DkKEš ±\‹©K¥K’ ±š‹±œYK±Kªd™œd„W±£šfq^š¬±KC™K}K‡š™±C„H±™K§K”±KC™K~K„œ™±C™±’K‘£g’KG ±C…I±š\C›±›[K±CD‹¥K±IK™E’hDKH± ’KCn±K™šCšK±DK±¢™KG±U”±š]Ke’±’K™KEš^¥K±DK…KSš±C…G±£”‹™K±C™±†‹¦±C”‹¥KI±D¬±rC©± =,'6'*16'±œYK±¢GK”™bWKH±Kœbœb‹K“™±’K™KEšVop­±Ž“C¯±œYC›±œYK±W‹¥K˜bX±D‹G­±‹L±›YK±$b›­±‹L±*C­Kš›K¥iopK± "’mC…™C™ ±CDC„H‹†±CˆG±¥CECšK±š\K±CD‹¥K±IK™F’eDKG±’KCs±K™œCœK±™ DkKEš±š‹±™C^G±£žeueš®±CI±™K¦K’±KC™KKˆœ™±C‡G±œZCœ± œdœtK±œ‹±™CeI±”KCu±K™›CšK±™‹£W\œ±œ‹±DK±CDC…G‹„KG±E‹…š^„£K±š‹±DK±¥K™œKI±e„±š\K±E£””K‡š±”‹K’œ®±‹¦„K’™±C™±”‹¥^JKG±D®± nC© ±CG±C™±›‹±›]Cš±C”^E£nC’±vCG±š\K±‹¦„K”™±DK±O—KK±O—‹z±š\K±KC™K}K…š™±‹N±œ\K±£DneE±U’±š\K±£™K±‹L±™CeH±CtuK®± %CšKG±œ\d™>HC¬±‹N±?@@@@@±°±±AB   3”^‰šKH±/C€K± #±   7^WC›£’K± 4•hŠšKG±0C€K± 8jX‚Cœ£”K± Z %KEKyDK–  12/26/2025 Ordinance: 6946 File Number: 2025-2483 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A 4,850 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF A TREE PRESERVATION EASE- MENT LOCATED NORTH OF 3600 NORTH GREGG AVENUE CONTINGENT ON THE DEDICA- TION OF A REPLACEMENT TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT TO- TALING 5,534 SQUARE FEET AND OTHER CONDITIONS WHEREAS, a developer would like to vacate approximately 4,850 square feet of the existing tree preservation easement lo- cated on City -owned property at the northeast corner of North Gregg Avenue and West Van Asche Drive to allow a proposed development to be into an exist- ing sewer line; and WHEREAS, the developer has offered to dedicate an additional 5,534 square feet of tree preservation easement and sat- isfy other conditions recom- mended by the Urban Forester. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT OR- DAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Coun- cil of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines that the developer adjacent to the City -owned property (Parcel No. 765-28354-000) that is covered by a dedicated tree preservation easement has proven to the City Council's sat- isfaction that the vacation of a portion of the tree preservation easement, as shown in Exhibit B to the staff memo attached to this Ordinance, is in the best in- terest of the City of Fayetteville and therefore grants the request to vacate the existing tree preservation easement as to those 4,850 square feet. Section 2: The vacation and abolishment of the 4,850 square feet of tree preservation easement shall not be effective until the following conditions are satisfied: 1. Dedication of approxi- mately 5,534 square feet of tree preservation easement on Par- cel No. 765-15772-010, as shown in Exhibit B to the staff memo attached to this Ordi- nance, which will occur with the easement plat submittal for the proposed development. 2. Removal of all invasive species prior to the dedication of the new tree preservation easement. 3. Planting of 22 mitigation trees with three (3) year main- tenance or bonding agreements within the proposed tree preser- vation easement. PASSED and APPROVED on December 16, 2025 Approved: Molly Rawn, Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton City Clerk Treasurer This publication was paid for by the City Clerk -Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Amount Paid: $171.76 December 21, 2025 563759