HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4163 'FILED FOR RECORD
099 JILIN 24 Pfd 1 29
ORDINANCE NO. 4163 WASHINGTON CO AR
K. HARNESS
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZ99-7 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.98 ACRES LOCATED AT
2680 JOYCE STREET AS REQUESTED BY NEAL
PENDERGRAFT.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS :
Section 1 . That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From R-1 , Low Density Residential to R-O Residential Office for the real property
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 18ih day of May 1999.
APPROVED:gk*�14`i
y:
Fred Hanna, Mayor
By
Heather Woodruff, City Cl
99057310
i
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RZ99-7
A tract of land in the NEIA of the NEI/4 of Section 25, Township 17 North, Range 30 West in
Washington County, Arkansas, being more fully described as follows: Commencing at the
Northeast comer of said Section 25; thence SOI ° 12'01 "E 914.61 feet; thence S89 °05'27"W 277.51
feet; thence S01 ° 12'01 "E 350.55 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence SOI ° 12'01 "E 55.0 feet;
thence S89°05'27"W 480.85 feet, thence N00°39'57"W 536.68 feet; thence N88047'59"E 206.91
feet; thence S15 °57'56"E 85.35 feet; thence N89°02'07"E 201 .44 feet; thence along a curve to the
left having a radius of 50 feet, a central angle of 23 '48'47", and an arc distance of 20.78 feet (chord
= S10°42'23"W, 20.63 feet); thence SOI ° 12'01 "E 380.03 feet; thence N89 °05'27"E 50.0 feet to the
Point of Beginning, containing 4.98 acres, more or less.
ALSO A RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT for Ingress and Egress over a tract of land in the NEIA
of the NEIA of Section 25, Township 17 North, Range 30 West in Washington County, Arkansas,
being more fully described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Section 25 ;
thence SOI ° 12'01 "E 914.61 feet; thence S89°05'27" W 277.51 feet; to the point of beginning; thence
S01 ° 12'01 "E 350.55 feet; thence S89°05'27"W, 50.00 feet; thence NOl ° 12'01 "W 361 .05 feet; thence
along a curve to the right having a radius of 50.0 feet, a central angle of 217 °07'34", and an arc
distance of 189.51 feet, (chord = S72036'07"E 94.80 feet); to the point of Beginning, Containing 0.5
acres, more or less.
99057311
F'AYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Janet Strain, Planning File Clerk
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: May 24, 1999
Attached is a copy of the Ordinance rezoning RZ 99-7 for your records. Please distribute a copy
to your CAD draftsman to update your rezoning map. The original will be filed with the county,
then microfilmed and filed with the city clerk.
CC. Clyde Randall, Engineering
Ed Connell, Engineering
File
99057312
1, Kathleen Hamada, Circuit Clerk and Ex-officio
Recorder for Washingidn County, Arkansas, do hereby
certify that thld Inatrumam wee filed for record in my
office as indidgIdd hereon and the) dame is. now duly
recorded with the aoke6wl9dg6Mbnt and certificate
thereon In Record Book and Pago as indicated thereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed the seal of said Court on the date indi-
cated hereon.
Kathleeg Harness
Ci• d-1erM e d Exofficio corder
i
c� � r ► - U u " Oid �lib3
MI (CROPTLMED STATE OF ARKANSAS JUN 0 7 1999
County of Washington } SS' gNAWCE 6p
I, JEFF JEFFUS, hereby certify that I am the publisher of THE
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES, a daily newspaper having a second class
mailing privilege, and being not less than four pages of five columns each,
published at a fixed place of business and at fixed (daily) intervals
continuously in the City of Fayetteville, County of Washington, Arkansas for
ORDINANCE NO. 4163 thence N89 05.27-E 50.0 feet to
the Point of Beginning, wain- more than a period of twelve months, circulated and distributed from an
AN ORDINANCE REZONING ing 4.98 acres, more or less. established place of business to subscribers and readers generally of all
. THAT PROPERTY DESCRI-
BED IN REZONING PETITION ALSO A RIGHT OF WAY classes in the City and County for a definite price for each copy, or a fixed
T�NING APP PARCEL CON-
EASEMENT for Ingress and price per annum, which price was fixed at what is considered the value of the
rtract land in
4.98 ACRES LOCATED AT heNE1/4 of theNE1/4 of Sec. publication, based upon the news value and service value it contains, that at
2680JOYCE STREET AS RE. tion 25, Township17 North,
OUESTED BY NEAL PENDEAR- Range 30 West in Washington least fifty percent of the Subscribers thereto have paid for their subscriptions
GRAFT. County, Arkansas. being more to the newspaper or its agents or through recognized news dealers over a
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE fully described as follows:
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CommencingP at at the Northeast period of least six months and that the said newspaper publishes an
OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARK corner of said Section 25; average of more than forty percent news matter.
AFI' thence SOt 12.01 'E 914.61 9 rty P
SAS: feet; thence S89 05'27' W
SaLiion I. That the zone dasei- 277'51 feet; to the point of be.
ginning; thence S01 12.01 -E . I further cert',%(�� ,that the legal notice attached in the matter of
lication ofthe following - 350.55 feet0 thence S89
bed Property is hereby changed 05-2'7'W, 50.00 feet; thence IIIAAAlll 000///L/(�� y
as follows: NOt 12'010W361 .05 feet; o -
From R-1 , Low Densis Resi- thence along 'a curve to the /
• tlential to R-O Residential Of- right having a radius of 50.0
- rice for the realpropertydescri- feet, a central angle of 217 was published in the regular daily issue of said newspaper for
07'34', and en arc distance of
bed in Exhibit 'A' attached 189.51 feet, (chord = S72 consecutive insertions as fol S:
hereto and made a pan hereof. - 36'07'E 94.80 feet): to the point
of Beginning, Containing 0.5
,$aCtcn . That the official zon- acres, more or less. The first Insertion On the da Of 19
Ing map of the City of Fayette-
ville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning the second insertion on the da Of 19
• change provided in Section 1 y
above.
PASSED AND APPROVED the third insertion on the day of 19 —
this 18th day of May
. . 1999.
the fourth insertion on the ay of 79 —
APPROVED:
by: %
Fred Hanna, Mayor i
' I er1General Manager
ATTEST: Sworn to and subscribed before me on this `1 day of
By: 041
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk 191 1
DESCRIPTION
aj./ v
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
HZ99-7 Srarurirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Notary Public
A tract of land in the NEI/4 of•
Catherine Sall r
the NEI/4 of Section 25, Town- My t'iOmmISS10n Expires: '
ship 17 North, Range 30 West ' Washingtor. Coun 1
in Washington County, Arkan- 1 ry
sas. being more fully described , My Commission Cs
01/27!0
as follows: Commencing at the ttttUC(<tt[tRttUtttt«ttt<K(
Northeast corner of said Sec- Fees for Printing................................
lion 25; thence SOI 12'01 'E .......................$
914.61 feet; thence S89
� 05'27'W 277.51 feet; thence Cost of Proof.............................................................$
- S01 1 350.55 lent to the
of Beg I ^
Point of Beginning; (hence S01
12'01 'E 55.0 feel; thence S8989
- 05'27'W 480.85 leer, thence Total..........................................................................$
N00 39.57-W 536.68 feet;
thence N88 47059'E 206.91
feet; thence S15 57'56-E 85.35
- leaf; thence N89 02.07-E
201 .44 feet; thence along a
• curve to the left having a radius
of So feet. a central angle of 23
48'470, and an arc distance of
20.78 feet (chord = S10
142'23'W, 20.63 feet); thence
•
. Sol 12'010E 380.03 feet;
yl
X Agenda Request
STAFF REVIEW FORM
Contract Review 1 7�
Grant Review D
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of May 18 , 1999 .
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning Public Works
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUESTED : To approve an ordinance for RZ99-7 submitted by Neal
Pendergraft for property located east of 2680 Joyce Street . The property is
zoned R-1 , Low Density Residential , and contains approximatley 4 . 98 acres . The
request is to rezone the property to R-O , Residential Office .
COST TO CITY :
Cost of this request Category/ Project Budget Category/ Project Name
Account Number Funds used to date Program Name
Project Number Remaining balance Fund
BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget Coordinator Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW : GRANTING AGENCY :
Ac ountg Manager Date ADA Coordinator Date
i l
Ci/t n Date Internal Auditor Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission
recommended to City Council that the rezoning be approved with a vote of 5 - 3- 0 .
Commissioners Forney, Hoffman , and Hoover voted against the rezoning .
Commissioner Estes was not present .
- 30 - 99 Cross Reference
ision He Date
Ddi,r . Director a New Item : Yes No
Adm n ' tr ti e Services Dat Prev Ord/Res# :
Dir r
May r Date'/ Orig Contract Date :
I
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
Page 12
RZ99-7: REZONING
PENDERGRAFT, pp176
This item was submitted by Neal Pendergraft for property located east of 2680 Joyce Street. The
property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 4.98 acres. The
request is to rezone the property to R-0, Residential Office.
Mr. Neal Pendergraft was present on behalf of the project.
Commission Discussion
Pendergraft: I' m representing myself and the three other owners of the property. As you know,
Dr. Smith and I own the property immediately to the east that is Paradise Valley. Prior to
purchasing this property that is at issue now, I look back at the zoning regulations and it appeared
to me that R-0 zoning with medium to high density housing which is what is across the street
where I believe most of our objections are coming -- I also appear as one of the owners of the
property next door. We have no objection to the property being R-O. I feel like the people that
have the most at risk here would be the people that are actually on the north side of the street, Dr.
Smith, Dr. Hudson, and the Lades. I stated in my application that none of those people have any
objections. Dr. Hudson and Dr. Smith are here. They can speak for themselves as to whether or
not they have any objections. I was a little puzzled by the trouble that this had when it went
through the first time and I tried to explain in a letter what took place there when this came up
and I believe it was 96- 13 . When we rezoned the paradise valley property, the people objecting
then had concerns about not building cheap duplexes on the property that is now Paradise Valley
and in the last part of the minutes, Swifty Reynolds, who was then on the Commission asked if I
would enter into a Bill of Assurance that we wouldn't put any duplexes on this property. I have
no interest in going into the residential market, I immediately agreed to that for the Paradise
Valley property. I did have some confusion as to why now they are objecting to this request. All
of the inquiries we have had about purchasing the property have been from individuals who want
R-0 property. I don't think it is properly suited for R- 1 . As much as the people objecting may
say that they live in an exclusive residential area, that quite simply is not the fact. If you look
going east on Joyce Street, there is commercial property there. There is R-0 property there.
Immediately across the street from them, I have R-0 property.
Johnson: Does staff have anything to add to the applicant' s presentation or any questions?
Conklin: Mr. Pendergraft is correct. This did go before the Planning Commission on June
10, 1996. It was tabled at that meeting. On July 22, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a
tract that was 6.37 acres; a tract larger than this one. Planning Commission recommended R-0
zoning. It then went to the City Council on November 19, 1996. At that time, the applicant
requested that the property be rezoned R- 1 . That is the reason why the property is zoned R- 1 at
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
Page 13
the request of the applicant in 1996. This property is shown on our 2020 Future Land Use Map
as office and staff has recommended residential office zoning for this piece of property.
Pendergraft: I mentioned to every potential purchaser that there probably would be objection
from people who lived across the street and they should be prepared to go through a large scale
development with the Planning Commission and deal with the tree issue and that they may be
better served by putting berms, trees, landscaping, or something along Joyce Street. They should
anticipate that their access being from Sunbest Place which was built by myself and Dr. Smith
and the Lattas and consider putting their parking in the back. Now that is not a condition of my
contract of sale but everyone who has looked at that property is considering Sunbest Place to be
the access to the property.
Public Comment
Ted Brewer residing at 2607 E. Joyce Blvd. which is directly across the street from the property
in question spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
Bob Shaw residing at 2633 E. Joyce Blvd. spoke in opposition to the requested rezoning.
Harvey Smith residing at 2600 E. Joyce Blvd. spoke in support of the requested rezoning.
Loyde Hudson residing at 2488 E. Joyce Blvd. spoke in support of the requested rezoning.
Robert Frans residing at 2517 E. Joyce Blvd. which is across the street from Dr. Hudson spoke in
opposition to the rezoning request.
Further Commission Discussion
Johnson: There are 2 observations that I would make. First, looking at what is allowed in
an R- 1 zone - City Wide Uses By Right, Government Facilities, Single Family and Two Family
Dwellings, Offices, Studios and Related Services, and Professional Offices. There are other of
things allow by conditional uses if approved by the Planning Commission. The other
observation is that on the General Plan 2020 this stretch of Joyce Street on the north side is
shown to be offices in that location.
Hoffman : Staff, in looking at the one mile diameter zoning map on page 6.30, could you tell
me of the six R-0 properties, are those full or leased to capacity or are they vacant.
Conklin: Starting at the top of Zion Road, I believe that property is currently vacant on
Randall. I don't think there is any development up there. The R-0 that is on Hwy 265 , that is
Charter Vista and Youth Bridge. There could be some parcels that are undeveloped but there is
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
Page 14
the medical offices and HealthSouth.
Hoffman: Going west toward Parkview, there are three parcels over in that area.
Conklin: I believe that is developed with the medical clinic and west of Parkview there are
Dr. 's offices and Collier's Drug Store in that location.
Hoffman: That you for refreshing my memory on that. The reason I asked is that we not
only have this rezoning tonight but I think we have another 2. I'm curious if there is a need
based on the sale of the existing zoning.
Pendergraft: I can respond to the Paradise Valley property. There was a comment that a part of
it was empty. The reason being is that we have a planned use development in process. I think
Commissioner Ward will explain that we have turned down several potential tenants because we
are looking for a certain size of building in there. The fourth building we plan to build in there is
not ready to be built yet. We don't feel there is the need or the size building requested.
Hoover: Staff, can the 2020 Plan that is laid out -- what was the criteria? I can understand
the commercial at intersections.
Conklin: We looked at office development along the north side of Joyce. We did extend
that further to the west. That was one of the reasons we showed those on the 2020 Plan as office.
We thought it was appropriate at that time with the Master Street Plan designating Joyce
Boulevard as an arterial.
Hoover: Because of the type of street.
Conklin: The street and the existing development patten in that area.
Hoover: On R-O is there a height limitation?
Conklin: That is based on additional setback. The higher you go, you have additional
setbacks.
Hoover: There's no maximum height you could be. I am just concerned in this situation
that someone might want to put a 4 or 5 story building right there. It wouldn't be very
appropriate.
Conklin: "There shall be no maximum height limits in R-0 districts pro-vided however that
any building which exceeds a height of 20 feet shall be setback from any additional or boundary
line of any R- 1 , R-2, or R-3 district an additional distance of 1 foot for each foot of height in
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
Page 15
excess of 20 feet." Any additional height over 20 feet, you also have additional setback which is
a 1 : 1 ratio.
Johnson: Wouldn't this development come back before us as a large scale so that the
Commission would see and have a say over the height of the building?
Conklin: It would come back as a large scale development. As long as they met the
ordinance requirement, they could potentially build a two story building.
Odom: Is Dr. Dill involved in any way?
Pendergraft: There are only 4 people involved. That is myself, my sister, Laurie Mason, Mike
Hill and David Johnson. We are the four co-owners.
Ward: I feel like it' s less obtrusive to have an R-0 zoning along an arterial street. The
few residents out there are backing up to a golf course.
MOTION
Mr. Ward made a motion to approve RZ99-7.
Mr. Marr seconded the motion.
Johnson: The affect of this motion should it carry would be to recommend this to the City
Council.
Forney: I think this is a tough call. Rezonings are one of the most important things we do.
This is situation where we have a couple of conflicting influences. On the one hand, if you think
we should follow our General Land Use Plan which does indicate that this should be Residential
Office. On the other hand, we should consider this as a matter of timing. Is this the right time to
rezone? Is there a need for additional R-O? I appreciate Commissioner Hoffman' s adjoining
zoning clarification. The concern I have while I think that this should ultimately go R-0 and it is
appropriate is that I am a little concerned that we are setting a trend of path where relatively less
expensive land is rezoned further out from existing zoned land which is not yet developed. We
do have a good bit of existing R-0 land which is closer to the center and is also adjacent. There
is cheaper property further out. We intend to encourage more spread, more sprawl, and more
traffic problems. I think we need to mull this over.
Odom: Call the question.
Roll Call
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501 ) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
FROM: Brent Vinson, Associate Planner
DATE: April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7.00: Rezoning (Pendergraft, pp 176) was submitted by Neal Pendergraft for property
located east of 2680 Joyce Street. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential , and
contains approximately 4.98 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-O, Residential
Office.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends the requested rezoning . from R-1 to R-O based on the findings included
as part of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: YES Required
Approved Denied
Date: April 26, 1999
Comments:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: YES Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6. /
BACKGROUND :
The applicant .requests the rezoning of 4.98 acres of Low Density Residential property on East
Joyce Blvd. to Residential-Office. The property is currently owned by Neal Pendergraft, Lauri
Myers, and Michael Hill, et al. The property owners purchased the property with the intent of
developing professional offices. The property is currently under contract for sale pursuant to the
property being zoned R-O. The prospective purchaser also intends to build professional offices.
Staff would encourage the prospective purchaser to consider locating parking lots behind the
development along Joyce Blvd.
The previous property owners obtained a lot split to create this property and three other adjacent
properties from one parent property. One condition of the lot split was that Sunbest Place (street)
be constructed to provide appropriate frontage to all four properties. (The properties created in
this lot split are shown on the parcel map provided in this packet)
On November 19, 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Perry Crawford brought this property to City Council
requesting rezoning from A- I to R-O. There was much opposition at the time from the
townhouse owners against this rezoning. The City Council rezoned the property to R- 1 . One
townhouse property owner from across the street, Ted Brewer, stated that the townhouses
property owner' s association was not in objection to the R- 1 zoning but feared this rezoning
would be used as a stepping stone to reach an R-O rezoning. (Please refer to the City Council
minutes included in this packet.)
Mr. Pendergraft has submitted a letter responding to the opposition against the proposed '
rezoning. (Please refer to the applicant' s letter regarding the history of previous actions on this
property and surrounding properties.)
ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Two single family residences exist north of the property, zoned R- 1 and owned by
Dr. and Mrs. Harvey Smith and Mr. and Mrs. Dick Latta.
South: Six duplexes exist south of Joyce Blvd. on property zoned R-2. The duplexes
abut Paradise Valley Golf Course.
East: R-O offices (Paradise Valley Center) existjust east of Sunbest Place. The offices
include three dentist' s offices, a computer training company, and the local office
for Alltel.
West: A single family residence owned by Dr. Arlene Hudson is located to the west.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6. 2
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: Joyce Blvd. is a Principal Arterial with 110' of right of way (55' on both sides
from the centerline of the road). Joyce Blvd. has recently been widened two four
lanes.
Water: A 36"
waterline exists
along
the north side of Joyce Blvd on the southern border
of the
property.
Sewer: An 8" sewer line exists along the north side of Joyce Blvd. on the southern border
of the property.
LAND USE PLAN:
General Plan 2020 shows this area as Office. The area to the south of Joyce Blvd. is shown as
Residential surrounded by Open Space/ Recreation.
RZ 99.00-6.00 FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The Land Use Plan (General Plan 2020) shows this area as Office, therefore a
zone of Residential -Office is consistent with the plan.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is justified at this time to meet the goals of the Land
Use Plan for office development.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning would not appreciably increase traffic danger or
congestion.
4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density
and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and
sewer facilities.
Finding: The proposed zoning would not increase the population density and would
not undesirably increase the load on the water and sewer facilities.
Planning Commission Meeting
April26. /999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.3
If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted
under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning
even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why
the proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
Planning Commission Meeting
April26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.4
f � vi r•lYl inY` / .d: CY' f-� j! !i�a' t '+n } 1. -. v •.• w.�
f .Y\ � 4- v il-a (t' 1'�p^{{T�.f y. '__'((�1♦J�.'�!� /if . . ui.'ali •atI I •{at lrr l! f2'.,l e.? �i�
.' • �I �.Fai. Wr.Y'.�fAJJ I I 1 21.1V!1i;1!f; - '•� i -'Y�}y
1n11aY •'If iiwl•if Va '<LL 1�2 • IIA.�
f.a. JVt�I L•1 a'Y � y �•� '•`,L.� � .15!, .�}�Tu �yr(•�I .i � ��� v�• izfa•1 'ti?.X -. ^i y372 i
�� ^4S'}�j�'•f•�'iL` Li• _.. Y "'aµY�.,�{��' ✓ `�+`. S./a , ` • lY' f`c t Ate!•.• j2' -i••t a. ' irj��
T'I•V r✓ ( A'i Y ♦� lt(1�)� y+�� �f��F J ✓ •t ♦ ` '!'t
I W/� 4Y!'`v, �.Ct{•^•'Y�.-TC t • li'f.��1 at f ,1 �•. '' ~I f.
n ��Jl�'}�-It;M1�(�PJ r/�l 91K�$ � x�..<�}'�]{C��AurYA .+ Y�l ♦ � •n
{ •' \ • i, �•^ ! .. >. ' .• rLa.i-']i1 SIt..•t"PI'}se.Ti ]ICY S}`lr •_ u \✓' t '\�• r r 1
'i.`h l' t •l i3ic^ 'Ft '$�'� .,l 1 ♦ r r.ar r ��wi 4 lyptt t �U r� e. .f' 1• v. ( ._._.
.'>.. Y`'Tly `!iL� ] 'rvU^'._ u i . . AL'+I le T il• t:
'i, v"Y) %'�i♦'_�•'� r G[ u :Sm'?e4�'lr•'••ul2! %('� Ji r VI": Jl --4'� s. )r yt •1 `illi i +v T." a rt' < 1 ' : n-1nsY'.r.ty��at.>'xF�*%14 N•Eik•r� ie"` �ew"±si 1 �lir jyl •Rl� .i i-u f'.ibi '. •G ' I - 1 a. G•-.
I�L �W'I:LL',lY {'yr-•� ilt4 i t r uRl�"f �i 1,-r•Ir �"r4'T1 `.} fii)-" I( •'.. f • f}Ix I Y •:I' ,J -I
{')•� .1:./�6,rY k; '{l�i11 . 4₹{jS "4 s♦H� • SV .�1 'r - 1 ,-♦,.':. .� . i
• .. e r... y Iri . _ ,1 - e• IIiX•
Y r '• ` S!' `g -..�.» - ?' , + 'lfl: . '!i f t 1
+. Ir J 3 1 . a A e1 a
H �'h'N 4 1 '4+J 1 51 uu r lili l4jl4� T.�)1{vy{ } .. <I w nw•x •' 1 • )
I r flylY}'L Lu. J[;f1�_,Sfaa uT�1YTr�f •[ ^iS^a R`t'I'3��1-�y� r n.♦4Y �'i r \ l .r• y
t �t' 1 y' tl YI. aC .nL+ • .- [d t! Jr., [--YYt ♦ ^ . f
J^I ti4 f' ., .'
•' nP♦ (1flSl.-rylalxt'. ., f1 , • II 1 1 e ` If • •I .q..1
fA I. 1 Y.. V.
FT.I \• •• t T1 S n '�' Ya�' faf �Jl 1 rf a
r .awn' 1Hf �F I :��(fi \ ]i tS..f r•1 y (. i• ta f'' I • :..s_:-
-z
I }
Cs ..
.1
'*-;
111.I•^ ..' 1 ♦ . -teat• I�'tlarY l ��
4 i i Yli/i'3 V r a. -fT- _ ,. rruYV ` ' • 'C;
.•J .f aJr i.. ,�IYI .n'T. !ls w-iwv.U] ur '"• •
r '•i (' 'ia ( yy l• 'r ;{ a .Y ( .-.n ^� s lJt77 t ._' u ♦ " 4 - 1..• r•
♦_ •-____-•_,I _Y: • •r ."i ' t r •i i rf l.} a ti '•[rl• w 1 ••'' J -
t -_,!. Ia}.il Yi•rYr • •I • n•:a'- 4-': Y1 TL..� )
r.+l--"w' Lati'1� ' i. ttt -a. Cir 4i •w: .nr fr( ryP.r r-4,,.
•__
) •-
j _TYYa�i cn'w U'1�,� t ai rt. .fir w��-1'1.7:• y� rvc �I v^JI J Iry ' i� l'
.J:• r i}Iry 6. 1.. u+.,n; �uM1 ` v �} �a\YJSa .�m Yi Qf .I:Y 1 •.. \ ..
h • n'�'k tt t i r• M1 ..''a 6'�St(.. f• ���. ty ral it 1 � r rail
'l .e ^y l..rw r -r+.. .-.,Ib IvtY TY rta. uit ' • !v � l ?Ir•.!:
i a!'": {f fl is nM• t VYC� '!�M1 ( .•'w1?V}IF r. F ` r r /,'-\',�
f l r La•
a '`FAf • y ra +v •I' I "'i ••1 J oa �*-4'r.a fr l r°4 • ,1 r qtr•
I •I la v. a a•l'• ' _4J--.
I•II .-? I 11
_.w• ..1
Imo.:
�.�/_ • -• 'r—- -
• :•___rITJt -- - >�rYv.: Oe�- .-.t T., ,• •� to a•u
r' j'.. .l )'t�a•M�-.li-• rvti^['2:•a b•'-Kr4 [ n•__w.} I .ISM - w...`--. '' y' '-:;'v
`X1 1 a �..Lt .l. .ua•1
�L�^Ni}vru--0S t,? Taw n � 1 ••��!F. �yyr. 'l..✓ I y.
a� • •I lyl /r -t f4ti 3✓xI r• r._ M1 i'[ ��17�,J•�ry mil'• �. 1-•R i -. • . u .. -_
'_ t`ll;ar�+ �,•?I LLl..-, . .]� �✓i s�9s5,1J. 1-Fstlr uJ � .- r 'a..._
P 1 - Z�.C• N� ('i. •l tat e; ` )M1L.'`Y-'i ]ttf I'iC "J'alf • r ♦ Y4....tM1
• '11•�"• Iln ..ti X_st il♦ y 1 an.1\ Y. a t^I r. r t "R'_RlR)^l�+ r .
li( •. • '♦. ,42}Y j`Fi. 'y{•(\.iY r � ♦ lL a.N.�. '•'a_ .
_• I •- ,- "•J- •i�r.Y i_ 'I i\".,'.l1''•!.•%-flT( a�Ylj•
- - L r2
-�...--.-�..KA- � !:� a...:i• hag. LtNN �..-. �. - ... j
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1996
Page 18
RZ96-12 CANTERBURY PLACE
PERRY/VERNAL CRAWFORD - N OF JOYCE W OF CROSSOVER
The next item on the. agenda was
the rezoning request
for Canterbury
Place submitted by Northwest Engineers for
Perry F.
And Vernal L. Crawford
for property located
north of Joyce
Boulevard and west of Crossover. The
property
is zoned A -t and contains 13.93 acres with 14 proposed lots.
The request is a rezoning to R -t.
RZ96-13 CANTERBURY PLACE
PERRY/VERNAL CRAWFORD - N OF JOYCE W OF CROSSOVER
The next item on the agenda was the rezoning request for Canterbury Place submitted by Northwest Engineers on
behalf of Perry F. And Vernal L. Crawford for property located north of Joyce Boulevard and west of Crossover.
The property is zoned A -I and contains approximately 6.37 acres with 9 proposed lots. The request is a rezoning to
R -O.
Staff recommended approval of RZ96-12 from A -1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential which would be
consistent with General Plan 2020 as well as being consistent with the residential zones to the east and west.
Staff recommended approval of RZ96-13 from A-1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential Office which would be
consistent with General Plan 2020 as well as allow for a mix of uses, and compliment the adjacent residential
property while discouraging commercial strip development patterns along major highways.
Discussion ensued regarding the plat as distributed which contains an error at the demarcation line. Ms. Little stated
lot 16 would be residential only. r'
Mr. Richard Brown, a resident of North Crossover, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning and expressed
concerning regarding tree preservation. Ms. Little stated that R -O would require 20% preservation and R -I would
require 25%.
Mr. Robert Shaw, a resident on East Joyce, spoke in opposition of the proposed R -O rezoning but he supported the
R -I zone and he expressed concern regarding traffic, and devaluation of property values.
Mr. Ted Brewer, a resident on East Joyce, spoke in opposition of the proposed R -O rezoning and he expressed
concern regarding traffic. Further, he presented a petition opposing the rezoning (on file in the Planning Office.)
Mr. Jim Lindsey, Realtor, spoke in opposition to the R -O zone and he expressed concern regarding compatibility
with existing zoning and devaluation of property value.
Mr. Dick Wise, a resident on Joyce, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Bob Franz, a resident on Joyce, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Jack Bale, a resident on Joyce, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning.
MOTION
Mr. Allred made a motion
to approve the RZ96-12 rezoning 13.93 acres from A -I,
Agricultural to
.-I,Low
Density Residential.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
1.5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.6
-
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1996
Page 19
W. Odom inquired as to who owned the subject property and Mr. Jones stated that Dr. Crawford was selling the
parcel to Charlie Sloan and Mike Hill.
Mr. Head stated he -was involved in the financing of this transaction and he stated he would abstain.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1. Mr. Head abstained.
MOTION
Mr. Reynolds made a motion to deny RZ96-13 rezoning 6.37 acres from A-1, Agricultural to RO, Law 9etiitu_
Residential, o p c -e
The motion failed for lack of a second.
MOTION
Mr. Allred made a motion to approve RZ96-13 rezoning 6.37 acres from A -I, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density
Residential. Mr. Alfred stated the neighborhood had indicated they would support R-2 and he recognized it was a
deviation from the General Plan 2020.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
Ms. Johnson inquired if R-2 zoning would allow any office development and Ms. Little responded Unit 25 would
allowed under conditional use upon appeal to the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Jones stated he was aware that rezoning approval required five positive votes and he inquired if he had the
option to table the request. Ms. Johnson stated the request could be tabled. Discussion ensued and Mr. Jones
requested the roll call.
Discussion ensued regarding staff recommendation since the R -O rezoning request failed. Ms. Little stated staff
recommended R -O and she expressed concern regarding rezoning to R-2 because of the high density allowed in that
zone.
Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 3-2-1. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Tucker voted against the motion
and Mr. Head abstained.
MOTION
Mr. Tucker made a motion to approve RZ96-13 rezoning 6.37 acres from A -I, Agricultural to R -O, Residential
Office.
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
MOTION
Mr. Allred made a motion to table the request until the next meeting to allow the developer and staff time to
revaluate and formulate a new plan and new staff recommendation.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
1.6
Planning Commission Meeting
April26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendcrgraft
Page 6.7
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 22, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the
City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds, Lore[ Hoffman, John Forney
and Gary Tucker
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Sugg, John Harbison, and Conrad Odom
STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers and Sharon Langley
INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER
Ms. Johnson introduced Lore! Hoffman, a new Planning Commissioner. explaining she replaced Gary Head.
APPROVAL OF THE JULY 8. 1996 MINUTES
The minutes were approved as distributed.
OLD BUSINESS:
RZ96-13: REZONING REQUEST FOR CANTERBURY PLACE
PERRY F. & VERNAL L. CRAWFORD - N OF JOYCE & W OF CROSSOVER
The first item on the agenda was a rezoning request for Canterbury Place, submitted by Northwest Engineers for
Perry F. and Vernal L. Crawford for property located north of Joyce Boulevard and west of Crossover Road. The
property is currently zoned A -1, Agricultural, and the request is to rezone the property to R -O. Residential -Office.
The property contains 6.37 acres.
Ms. Johnson reminded the Commission this matter had been reviewed at the June 10 meeting and it had been tabled.
She noted staff had previously recommended approval of the rezoning request. She stated the staff report had
contended the rezoning would be consistent with General Plan 2020. She pointed out they had, at the June 10th
meeting, rezoned a portion of the tract R-1, Low Density Residential. She advised the staff report stated the R -O
would allow a mix of uses, compliment the adjacent residential property and discourage commercial strip
development.
Ms. Little advised staff had two additional items: ( I) the president of the Home Owners Association, Ted Brewer,
had contacted staff and stated they had not received mailed notification of the meeting (however, he believed an
adequate number of the residents were aware of the meeting); and (2) she wanted to review Neighborhood
Commercial with the Commission. She explained Neighborhood Commercial would allow buildings 2,000-3,000
square feet in area within residential areas. She went on to say the building would have to be strictly residential in
character. She contended a tract of 6.37 acres would not fit under the Neighborhood Commercial category.
Ms. Johnson stated Joyce Street was classified as a major arterial and was scheduled to be widened to 4 lanes within
the next two years. She added the right-of-way would be left at 80 feet and there would be a 10 -foot trail on the
north side of the street. She reminded the Commission the 10 -foot trail was a new trail width for the City and the
developer of the project would have to bear one-half the cost of the trail.
Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, pointed out the rezoning request did conform with the 2020 Plan. He noted the
Commission had worked quite some time forming the 2020 Plan. He advised the developers planned a subdivision
with single-family residential lots at the rear and professional offices similar to the offices to the east of the subject
tract at the front of the tract. He stated the City was spending close to a million dollars to widen Joyce Boulevard for
Planning Commission Meeting
April26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.11
t..
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1996
Page 2
a major arterial. He contended it made sense to have office buildings along the street, in building up the
infrastructure, rather than single-family homes. He also pointed out the zoning across the street was R-2 and the R -O
would be a logical transition from R-2 to R-1.
Mr. Ted Brewer, 2607 Joyce (immediately across the street), reminded the Commission the property owners on the
south side of Joyce Boulevard had objected to the rezoning district of R -O and had filed a petition of objection. He
advised they were still opposed to the rezoning. He contended the rezoning was not consistent with the residential
environment on the south side of Joyce Boulevard. He informed the Commission the residents on the south side of
Joyce had purchased their property because it was in a premier residential area and they wanted to reserve both the
residential atmosphere and their property values. He also noted the adjacent property had gone up for sale which he
believed was reflective that the Commission was going to approve the rezoning. He contended consideration of this
request was no different than any other major arterial going thru Fayetteville.
Mr. Bob
Shaw, 2633
Joyce, complained he had to
read the sign on the property in order to get notification of the
meeting.
He advised
that, when had purchased the
property 10 years earlier, the entire area was residential in nature.
He contended
the area residents wanted the area to
remain residential with no offices.
Neal Pendergrdit, one of the applicants, and also owner of the property immediately to the east, advised he had
purchased the subject property because it was shown as R -O property in the 2020 Plan and so he could protect the
integrity of the development he had started next door. He pointed out they had received many positive comments on
how they were complying with the tree ordinance. He stated there was always the chance, when purchasing property
adjacent to agricultural property, that the agricultural property would be rezoned. He advised their intent was to put
in office neighborhoods, keeping the trees and constructing nice buildings. He stated he was looking for good
tenants for his buildings, ones that would not be high traffic businesses.
Gary Tucker asked what type of access was planned for the offices to Joyce Street.
Mr. Pendergraft advised that was something the engineering would have to draw up but he did envision 2 access
points.
Mr. Jones advised the access would be worked out at the preliminary plat process. He stated he believed there would
be one main access point to the subdivision and perhaps two of the lots would have access to Joyce directly. He
stated they would work with the.city and Planning Commission at the preliminary plat stage.
Jerry Allred expressed concern that R -O allowed multi -family housing.
Mr. Jones contend there were no plans for multi -family housing; their only plans were for offices. He asked what
type of density was allowed under R -O.
Ms. Little advised duplexes were allowed as a use by right and apartments were allowed by conditional use.
Bob Reynolds asked if the owner would be willing to offer a Bill of Assurance that only offices would be constructed
on the property.
In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised the Commission could accept such a Bill of
Assurance but only if it was voluntarily offered.
Mr. Pendergraft stated that, while he could not speak for his partners, they had no desire to construct duplexes on the
property and he would offer a Bill of Assurance that no duplexes would be constructed.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergrajt
Page 6/2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1996
Page 3
In response to a question from Mr. Jones, Ms. Johnson explained that, when the developer had discussed only
offices, the Commission assumed that only offices would be constructed; but, if they merely rezoned the property,
there was no assurance that only offices would be constructed. She stated the zoning classification was broader than
just offices and, if they rezoned the property to R -O, they could not require just offices to be constructed at a later
date. `
Mr. Pendergraft advised he had no intention of putting any residences of any type on the lots. He stated he would be
happy to draft a Bill of Assurance stating there would be no duplexes or apartments on the lots. He asked, however,
how they would handle an apartment in connection with an office for someone who would be in town periodically.
Ms. Little stated the Bill of Assurance would have to be carefully crafted in order to allow an apartment within an
office.
Upon request of Mr. Allred, Ms. Little read the uses by right allowed in R -O zoning: governmental facilities: single
family and two-family dwellings; offices, studios, and related services; and professional offices.
Mr. Allred stated the rezoning concerned the land use, not land development and he was concerned about
construction of duplexes.
Mr. Forney stated he did not share Mr. Allred's concern regarding duplexes. He pointed out there was R-2 zoning
across the street. He stated he would not encourage duplexes but could not see how it would he more objectionable
than R -O zoning.
Mr. Mired stated that, if there were assurances the duplexes would be of high quality, he would have no objections.
He pointed out, however, that when discussing rezonings, there were no assurances.
Mr. Forney stated he shared Mr. Allred's concern but pointed out there was R-2 on the south side of the street. He
asked how deep was the R -O zoning in the 2020 Plan. He contended they had the worst of both worlds --on the
south side residential facing commercial and on the north side residential facing commercial. He explained he would
rather see a depth of residential lots on the north side of the street.
Ms. Little pointed out immediately to the east of the subject tract was an R -O parcel which was greater in depth than
the proposal. She also noted further to the west were some R -O parcels which were greater in depth. She asked if
Mr. Forney was saying that lots 4 and 17 (on the proposed rendering) would be better suited to R-1.
Mr. Forney stated he believed lots 4, 21, I8 and 17 were all going to be office properties with access on a street
which had residential properties on the other side of the street. He advised that, while he sympathized with the
residents, he would follow the Land Use Plan which anticipated office on the north side. He explained the intentions
on the General Land Use Plan was to make a buffer of office space along a high traffic road and then behind have
residential properties. He asked if the adjacent R -O lots had stub -outs to residential areas.
Ms. Little stated she believed the Smith/Dill property had a stub -out to the north and she did not remember if the
parcel to the west had a stub -out. She further stated there was quite a bit of undeveloped land on the north side of
Joyce Street and, at the time the property was subdivided, there would be an opportunity to create linkages. She
advised she believed it was better for residential traffic to pass thru office areas than office traffic passing through
residential areas.
Mr. Forney stated his concern was there was a street which was half office and half residential.
Ms. Johnson advised the decision was whether to rezone the property to R -O. She reminded the Commission the
developer had offered a promise that no duplexes would be constructed.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, /999
RZ 99=7 Pendergraft
Page 6.13
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1996
Page 4
Mr. Forney staffed his only question was the depth of the R -O zoning. He stated he would vote in favor of the R -O
adjacent to Joyce Street. He recommended the area designated as Lot 17 not be zoned R -O.
Ms. Johnson asked what problem they would cure if they did not rezone the area designated as Lot 17 to R -O.
Mr. Forney stated there were property owners on the south side of Joyce objecting to facing offices. He explained
that future residents in the northern area might also find it objectionable to face offices.
Ms. Johnson asked if that was not being ameliorated by the fact that all of the property was being rezoned
contemporaneously. She pointed out that any of the residents would be aware of the adjacent zoning.
Mr. Forney stated he saw this rezoning as a pattern -setter and he was concerned regarding the connection between
the office and the residential. He stated the issue was the depth of the R -O.
Ms. Johnson asked if the 2020 Plan contemplated the depth of the R -O.
After measuring the 2020 Plan, it appeared the depth was 600-660 feet. In response to a question from Ms.
Johnson, Mr. Jones advised the total north -south length of the subject property was 1,320 but that portion they were
requesting to be rezoned to R -O was approximately 500-550 feet.
Mr. Pendergraft advised that, if Lot 17 bothered Mr. Forney, he was willing to have it zoned R-1.
Mr. Jones pointed out the existing home would remain. He stated the existing home did control the streets and lot
layout.
Gary Tucker expressed concern they were establishing a pattern along Joyce Boulevard asking for Bills of Assurance
that there would be no multi -family units in R -O areas. He stated he did not see that duplexes were inconsistent with
development of the area.
Ms. Johnson explained the Bill of Assurance had been suggested because the owner had assured the Commission he
was not going to construct duplexes.
Mr. Tucker stated he just wanted to be sure they were not establishing a pattern for future development along Joyce
Boulevard.
Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe they were establishing any pattern.
Mr. Forney stated he had just been asking a question regarding the R -O depth. He explained he did not know the
right answer; that it could be a worse mistake to make a narrower band of the R -O because they would then have
individual driveways and accesses onto a high volume road. He explained he wanted the Commission to be clear on
how they handled the implications on the north side of Joyce.
MOTION
Mr. Forney moved to approve Rezoning Request RZ96-13.
Mr. Tucker seconded the motion.
Mr. Reynolds stated he would be more comfortable with the Bill of Assurance that no duplexes would be- constructed.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26. 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.14
444
CH Co n1 % Mtnu-tch
November 19,-1996
Ms. Porter referred to the lease for 25 years and concerns that it
was too long_. They first wanted it for 50 years. The reason for
a long-term lease is that in time we will go out and try to solicit
major funding for this project. To be taken seriously we need a
long-term lease. We are not asking the City for funding at this
time.
Katherine Barnhart, member of the Botanical Garden Society, stated
much of this work has been done. A landscape architect has been
hired. We have a master plan. We have looked at leases and other
botanical gardens. We have made role models. She agreed this
should not be entered into lightly.
Alderman Williams stated the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
has looked at this carefully.
William Giese, Zion Road, asked how many have looked over Lake
Fayetteville and the wooded hillside. He stated if they get the
103 acres, there will have to be 10 to 15 acres of concrete for
parking lots, roads, buildings, etc. If you are going to grow
exotic plants, you will have to cut trees to get sunlight. He
believed the view would attract more tourists than any botanical
garden. He stated this land was originally taken by the City for
a water supply and asked if this has been changed. His alternative
recommendation was to take an eyesore and do something with it. He
suggested Zero Mountain rock quarry. A sewer system could be part
of a botanical garden. He would hate to see Lake Fayetteville
destroyed.
Porter stated the society would like, to set examples of how not to
destroy the environment when developing an area. They do not plan
on mowing down trees to build the garden. Regarding parking lots,
they have been working with the landscape architect to have
permeable parking lots.
Mayor Hanna appointed Aldermen Williams, Trumbo, and Miller to the
committee. He stated City Attorney Rose would draw up a new
resolution before they had a meeting and staff would give a list of
items to consider from the City's standpoint.
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning 6.37 acres located
north of Joyce Blvd. and west of Highway 265 from A-1,
Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, as requested by Kurt
Jones on behalf of Perry and Vernal Crawford.
Mayor Hanna stated there was some legal business that needed to be
attended to first. City Attorney Rose had a resolution that needed
to be passed before the ordinance was considered.
16
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.16
445
November 19,.1996
4.
City Attorney Rose read a resolution meant to eliminate confusion
about this being taken from the agendaand the application being
withdrawn by the proponents.
Alderman Young stated the company he works for is presenting this
so he would not participate in the discussion and would abstain on
the vote.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 5-0-1 with
Daniel not present for the vote and Young abstaining.
RESOLUTION 121-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Rose stated the abstention went with the majority.
Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second
reading. Alderman Bassett seconded. Upon roll call, the motion
passed on a vote of 5-0-1, with Daniel absent for the vote and
Young abstaining.
Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the audience.
Kurt -Jones, 'Northwest Engineers, represented the owner. We did
decide to withdraw the request for the R -O zoning to get time to
evaluate the feasibility of developing this as a residential
subdivision. We have since prepared a preliminary plat for this
project contingent on this property being rezoned R-1, Single
Family Residential.
Alderman Hill asked if this is the exact same piece of property.
Jones replied it is. The property to the north was acted on. This
is the lower piece that had been requested R -O.
Ted Brewer, 2607 Joyce Street, asked for an explanation of the
resolution just passed.
Rose explained there had been confusion about whether or not this
needed to be taken back through the complete process, from the
Planning Commission on through. The City Council tried to figure
out a way not to do that since it had been well discussed a few
weeks back. We do have a provision in our ordinance which allows
the Council, on their own initiative, to take on rezbnings. To
make it clear that is what they are doing, they passed a resolution
Fbl
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.17
446 C
November 19,- 1996
a..
to this effect.
Brewer had no problem with this. Representing the homeowner's
association across the street from the property, he stated they had
no objections in the beginning to R -l. While they have .no
objection to R-1, they hope it is not a move to open the door to do
something else down the road. The association is in concurrence
with the R-1. He had no objections to going to the third reading.
There were no further comments from the audience.
Alderman Williams moved to go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Bassett seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a
vote of 5-0-1, with Daniel absent for the vote and Young
abstaining.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time.
Mayor Hanna called for the vote.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 5-0-1 with Daniel
absent for the vote and Young abstaining.
ORDINANCE 4006 IS FOUND ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
There were announcements about upcoming Water & Sewer Committee and
Environmental Committee meetings. The meeting adjourned at 8:50
p.m.
18
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6/8
T 1
4. S"Yti'r.-CI�ViIt a•-�( vI ` a.l
�yyy
�y♦�?�iJ'y�� '�,./LSY1 t ♦.` ' rnl,g• III 1� _•-i�14 1 r
r ')P ~1�Fl , I ` cak-Kz4'�'^'L4 ill
Y V�•!.f r Y 5 f I I . 1 I 1
_ v
` Zf¢ya iyY r R {a Y t n ICWC 'A(T n.J •,./ i,t
ai 11 na 'l `I�
r ♦. .1 1 r '. i. e 1 f, '. • •i1�Aay �./tlll ^_41 _ 1 1 •R� �lu lfvla la `♦/RI r/ �(•
' 1<' ^1`Vr♦ a ♦i• '^ ♦ 1. i 1.. ') ' lj :i Sltll ( y fr1.
4 ai 1J..II1 + f /. • .r • a .1 < ♦.1 1 - 1.1 . /
l r l ~
v (1••\)al Sal. ra r( 1 ti 5 I If • lY
•v[ti 1'�a�V ' l a\q. al }�/, '&.'t.. V
.. ` J a ♦v S 1! I %.I, • `T { i 1 I Yi. 1
flJi� ^ 1 t I Ia -11a.J <\ ..f �/ 1 a4 fl. • In
lVl f� Iul r^',r a • \ 'n J 1 a• a / \\�i w 1, / x • :::-..j..'
� l ♦
�.a•^♦ �(p�I � lwl♦4.91 lu �� 1 m•'. '! r J l Oir tlf I / q'•
_ : ..
)Ij_JC•S�'�V4•Il"v YVntl l a ♦ r 11 1 ar ^J �:. S♦ J'.I 1....
Pill
4 �Y I`! av v t l • I2. • :. ar ♦ vll._' .
r rli .%•Yl � i) rjyvrt� [.' 4`1 J �' 1r \ 4 1 V J Ilh� /<1 ♦ 1 l .`l f:.�`y\4 YT(1 . a' a+ JJL�}') 4 1 \IY `r a\ I V I I eL
1 I 11. 1 1 Of ` R♦
•
1 I ,n I ♦ 1 I f Lf♦� 1 yv�
1( W1IyJ,•V `i ♦ :♦•
I I � vl ♦ r r{ll �+ Ir a a � 1 OV-<„
tt14'alrr4i.+'el,t\1• I tl rr.r v lR r a! L L{ a, n
♦n$lY�llf `aF^Y'♦�x�YjOY J1 ( l I la ]• r J .n�
�^Til p~p� `a+Tlll yye v. r 1 i 1(.r 1r a • .l ' ♦.a YS Y v 1' •:�]-•Y'
jYr,�f l!- l ♦r14Y If i '.+ )1 P. 1 J^ \.l'I .a a •• r rt l: IJJI
+ql! ♦ yi 4'a^.y♦11. \ ♦ r` .l .4 1 M1 1/�\�F � AI F,j �i I t l r f i J i .. •( • ` 1 'k i ♦�'-:'.Ir'l'
♦ llll 1 \V•I♦' 4• 1\` '. I,�( !..• ✓ �` •ir
I( u4y��t}`�1([�1S�Iya �C `'I^I l J11 1 i ♦M1L 1''IM• i )r lrl •v ✓' 'J ,{�'0 ♦Y'ly _. "• < ♦• Ra� wad
Yi11Al.1 r.111 —1 lai♦",.111 I,♦r i!I \'r1 ♦l I`II1] I v\
S�•(v+M IS? .i'•; v ,•
rrlbl•• ♦ '. i r ,_:t:'-. 1I :. t. -S..-{,1
ate+:.
rJ[w"ilR j/ ±'irl a 1 •• 1 ' ( r• IIQf I'G L: Jm l 'Y J
<1!�GiyV\.rIRR�'� If1 itiYih rl R .,•-.. '' 4 f/4 \I J ♦ l •I.. Y_• . , ` 1 •
•j'`/J�.e'Q1J rl♦>�-V.], 1 r R/ a a 1 11 I(. r - I f •'H 1 -1 •�JX•�4nv1'K J r+. {).]f ItI L 1 .J r{ ♦ 1 _ ) • t• a
(L'er♦- , 1 44 I f I •
a v %
/1�J(I v�}•LJJ h/'.I1Y11}r1 1J-Sv \Y 111'/ I V <•
yL. li J r ♦ < v v a\T Ji 4 I n .\ �.
a/ u� .\)♦ 1 lJ +1 ; ' C'. r � r
isi Ss�,l 14` VIJT% .. )4': l 'a "i/''r a Jl. ♦ 1 1. L •' ,. /.1•/ 1
fs•Ci.SiN,y l✓yip.\ U I- I y' / 1 Tf .I) a'C •a. 1 I `♦ a.'-'•♦• 1 In ,\
•11 I :1 :j{ ' 1 e ._1 J r ,`i.. rr.
1 ^r. 1 a I• r 2.� ! v i i.,•. .
i�, •4.,\^< r,l ` r / ' •.i ]L 9 r •a ♦v 1. va'fr,:Jlj fl •I PI.
1 1' •-y_ri _ ♦ 66
Iv"IJY 11•r 1'.\'1 / 1
M1 T.inrt lff 1 I I; IlM1 -_1: 4- r>
"'-4:i 1 ! • ♦' . C
1 GQ'11 lK LLc_'
41 h1uaI r^Iu a / :a`
N ri l Fiala' { , 1.-.e'
r 1 •
/
O
y J'`L♦ ) 1 1. Iv. • .nl'. •i.I =1 1 1
a.n�4. ff]]I• -1a r
9r •9j'<'7Cwf'�,a�� : r �n4 �ro{Q.I ` r 1 I ; ; ' PacfadiS
' •1 1 • 'a •/•I •f!I
It)I:Lw r I IJ )l l ♦ r < l , I•/ I•a .', r. J
v!'+llll,: `i l.r YVJ ..•tl q R♦.4 }� �
..'}ail. N.:: 2'.CY L: '>.. aa. .. n �,
;I
c4 it Iti.' r • LLla {1 aYoO' a• : u yy..-7 a°''•.. - bL' Ic ae9
rny4 '41- IF IL� t`♦ 'Y 'a 8 y .ly -�lfJI )t'l tV .-I- T--1'T-OP/-.
YR�4}�u tJL rjV a./\ I /p ll�\ uP yf 1 ^�\ 's� is }a < }43 ♦. GZ . / .
: V- I I ?' ¢Ir0 (✓J<weJ
nlN'J`; L. .r) Qi.R r too? 4M1- . y II ' Vna(V Tam%. ea-♦ tf
t ? 6 + 7 7 v. 9 I Oct I O �. 1 t S. .I
\ t i JV •---]SSS e SF/.l � � - - tl/J F
.0 stir :,'- i / a
I:a . l : a 7•
. � ,
IPAf ::YI f./
Pac1 Map of Yend�.rgra�-� �op�-�j -
and S,.trroUnd�no Prvpcc+ies
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26. 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergrafz
Page 6.19
_____ -1340----...
-_.--1340----....-
-_._---_._.•RRBPOSEB...-
P1 55sv2rk
-i
�/ t0.q•.V\ '
�`-' ---- -197.18• I 8 • \
- '�. _ O97•- -•-'-•--. -
I ACCUSTOM BUILbC- \
_ PRODUCTS. INC. \ .
TRAC 3.- .
JT
i IP 0'
--------I I IL., n PLEA NT VALLEY
1 \1 CENTER, LLC ..
_-----------::: I1iTai
— — —]6 — .— ,aw— SS __
tracts C.Cea+ed w1•bh Lo-lsvol�t
(La,A_rerl Couf-f '1s now SG{nbe. t Place)
l
C.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.20
Law Offices of
BALL & MOURTON, LTD., PLLC
E. J. Ball A Professional Limited Liability Company
Kenneth R. Mourton E.J. BALL PLAZA 112 W. CENTER, SUITE 700
Neal R. Pendergraft^ POST OFFICE BOX 1948
John T.'Terry Lee— FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702
Rayburn W. Green TELEPHONE: 501/442-6213 - FACSIMILE: 501/442-6233
Est. 1950
James L. Moore, ill' Also Licensed in Oklahoma
David G. Bercaw* Also Licensed in Texas
J. Michael Threer —Siloam Springs Office
Joseph D. Reece Of Counsel
Shannon L. Poore
April 20, 1999
Ms. Liz Clark
Senior Planning Clerk
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Request for Re -zoning on Joyce Street
Your File No.: RZ 99-7.00
Dear Ms. Scott:
I have copies of several letters your office has received objecting to our proposed re -zoning.
I would like to respond to some of those objections in this letter and hopefully save some of
the Planning Commission's discussion time on this project.
The Subject Property and the properties now owned by Dr. Harvey Smith, Mr. Dick Latta
and the Ozark Nature Conservancy were all one tract of property owned by Perry and Vernal
Crawford. As a part of our application to re -zone, I included a large plat (the "Plat")
showing all of the Crawford's property as it is currently owned. In June, 1996, three entities
entered into a purchase agreement with the Crawfords wherein Dr. Smith would purchase the
home site and live there, we would purchase the Subject Property for office use, and Custom
Building Products, Inc. ("Custom") would purchase the balance of the property for a small
home housing development. For numerous reasons, Dr. Smith and I (and the other three
owners of the Subject Property) became at odds with the principal owner of Custom to the
point I was preparing to file suit. To avoid suit, Dr. Smith and our group set out to determine
a manner in which we could get Custom out of the property, have fewer homes built and,
hopefully, have a better overall development of the property. To achieve those goals, Dr.
Smith worked with the Lattas and Dr. Hudson in arranging their purchase of the tracts shown
f:\neal\letters\rezone2. wpd
Ms. Liz Clark
April 20, 1999
Page -2-
on the Plat. My partners and I agreed to pick up more than $40,000.00 of additional
development costs in the process and gave up property for Sunbest Place and the sidewalk.
Dr. Smith and I also agreed for Paradise Valley to give up land for Sunbest Place. Once
everyone agreed on terms, we filed a lot split request with the City proposing the property
be split into the parts shown on the Plat.
In order to get the lot split approved, the City required the construction of Sunbest Place.
That street, running along the East side of the Subject Property, is now complete with a
sidewalk and was paid for by Dr. Smith, the Lattas, and our group. The lot split was
approved and now, instead of having a lot of small houses across the street, the objecting
parties have two residences, a large park area and our empty lot.
Each of the objecting letters states that the objecting party lives in a "residential area". As
you know, Dr. Smith and I own the Paradise Valley Center offices immediately East of the
Subject Property and North across Joyce Street from the objecting parties. A block or so
East on Joyce is a car wash and convenience store. To the South from that store are several
office buildings housing medical offices. As well, the objecting parties live on a commercial
golf course. I would assume that complete strangers playing golf come by their doors almost
everyday. As a part of the golf course, and approximately one block West of the objecting
properties at the intersection of Joyce and Old Missouri, is the clubhouse for the golf course.
Going West from that intersection, other than Butterfield Trail Village, the vast majority of
the property is office space of some sort.
Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with the premise that the objecting parties live in an
exclusively "residential" area. I do not believe the Paradise Valley property damages the
value of the objecting properties. Nor do I believe that re -zoning the Subject Property to "R -
O" will damage those values. For quite some time the City has espoused mixed use areas
whereby residential, commercial, and office uses are all served by neighboring properties,
if not the same building. From looking at the use of Joyce Street from Highway 71 to
Highway 265, mixed use is exactly what has occurred. As well, that use conforms with the
2020 Land Use Plan set out by the City.
In response to
the letter from Richard K.
Weis, even though I do not
live in that part of
Fayetteville, I
do care what happens there.
Fayetteville
is my
home as
well.
C\neal\letters\rezone2.wpd
Ms. Liz Clark
April 20, 1999
Page -3-
Finally, I would like to respond to some of the comments in Mr. Brewer's letter of April 11,
1999. When application for re -zoning RZ96-13 was submitted, Custom Building Products
was still involved. As owner of the majority of the then unsplit parcel, Custom had the right
to control the request for re -zoning. I spoke before the Planning Commission and Custom
took control from there. Having had no problem getting the Paradise Valley Center property
zoned "R -O" and considering the City's land use plan, I did not foresee problems with re-
zoning the Subject Property. It was not until I started this re -zoning request, that I learned
the Subject Property is "R-1" and not its original "A-1". I was told by the Custom people
that request RZ96-13 was completely pulled down. I will admit I have waited for Joyce
Street to be widened to four lanes and for the completion of Sunbest Place prior to submitting
this request. So, while I did plan to wait until this later date to submit this request for re-
zoning, the "R-1" change was not part of some grand scheme.
The objecting parties complain about additional traffic. This was also their complaint when
Joyce Street was two lane. Joyce Street is always going to be busy, with or without any more
development. By using "R -O" zoning, the office traffic will be limited to normal working
hours. Residential use would be around the clock. The objecting parties seem to think that
houses across the street would compliment their homes. I think that assumes we would build
homes as nice as theirs.
The argument here is fairly clear. I believe that "R -O" zoning is the highest and best use for
the Subject Property, conforms with the City's land use plan, and will compliment our
neighborhood. The objecting parties feel just the opposite.
I appreciate the Planning Commission's time and review of my request. I will gladly answer
any other questions at the meeting on April26th•
With highest personal regards.
Sincerely,
Neal R. Pendergra
NRP/lr
f:\neal\letters\rezone2.wpd
April 12, 1999
Office of City Planning
City Administration Building
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
My wife and I are owners of our home at 2633 E. Joyce Blvd. We have owned it since
Nov. 1987 prior to it being built. We strongly oppose RZ99-7.00(prendergraft,pp176).
We are in a residential neighborhood and do not see any reason to put more residential
offices in the middle of a beautifull neighborhood.
We appreciate you
notifying us
again. The
present
three office building across the street
from us were built
with out any
notifcation
to us.
Very Respectfully,
C2 7CL
Robert and Anne Shaw
2633 E. Joyce Blvd.
Fayetteville,AR 72703
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.25
April 11, 1999
Office of City Planting
City Administration Building
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Subject: Proposed Rezoning- RZ 99-7.00
Front: Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Brewer
2607 E. Joyce Blvd
Fayetteville, AR 70702
This letter is in regard the above referenced proposed rezoning-RZ99-7.00. Both my wife and myself
oppose this rezoning proposal. We live in a desirable residential area, which was the primary factor for
choosing to purchase the property in 1991. It is our desire to maintain our area and adjacent properties as
residential. Infringements upon the residential configuration of Joyce Blvd., between Old Missouri and
Crossover Road ( Hwy 265), destroy the existing atmosphere and will potentially reduce the value of our
property. We are proud of our residential area and what it maintained.
You may be aware that this proposed rezoning is the second time that such a proposed rezoning has
been filed for this location. The first filing was in 1996 and it was filed as RZ96-13 in July of 1996. At that
time both individual property owners as well as the President of the Paradise Valley Homeowners
Association spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning Records will show that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning just because it was in keeping with the 2005
Plan.
The proposed RZ96-13 request then passed to City Council. Homeowners and the Paradise Valley
Homeowners Association once again spoke against the proposal. Discussion continued up to the Council
meeting of November 17, 1997. At that meeting, there was significant discussion from both the opponents
and members of the Council. I recall a significant comment from Councilman Len Schaper that too much
property, currently zoned R -O, exists within the city limits of Fayetteville to take property in an attractive,
existing residential area and rezone it to R -O. After some additional discussion, the proposer of the
rezoning, requested to Council, they would like to withdraw the proposal to rezone this property to R -O and
instead modify the request to rezone said property R-1. Mayor Hanna then ask me, then the current
President of the Paradise Valley Homeowners Association, if the Association would object to the rezoning
to RI. I responded our association has no objection to rezone to either R-1 or R-2. This is documented in
the minutes of the City Council Meeting of November 17, 1996.
Further, the actual transcript of the meeting, I believe, would show that my response of no objection to
rezoning to R-1 was qualified to the extent that we would not object as long as the request was not a
stepping stone to a further request of a rezoning to R -O. It was obvious to us, that it became apparent to the
proposer that Council was not going to approve the rezoning and rather having the record show the request
for an R -O zoning was denied, that a modification to R-1 was being requested The proposer could then
wait for a change of Council membership, which may be more receptive to an R -O rezoning request The
current request, RZ99-7.00, confirms that approach.
I cannot speak for the other property owners who are adjacent to the property in question, but do know
others feel as we do and they and the Paradise Valley Homeowners Association will be advising you of
their opposition to the requested rezoning I hope that the Planning Commission will take a more critical
review of this request than occurred with RZ 96-13 and not support the requested rezoning Be assured that
the affected will continue to oppose this request through to City Council just as they did in the case of the
initial rezoning request of RZ96-13.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our content and once again to express our opposition to the
rezoning proposal RZ99-7.00.
Yours turfy, � Z e-
Theodore and PatsyBrewer r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.26
Planning Division
Record of Conversation
Brent Vinson Date: /tv/ Walk-in ep n Consultation PP m 17�
Name of Client: : L Jc.y,. Phone4:
Company Name, etc. ,L_jr 1„
Nature of Call or Visit:��o�� �Pr.„ara4 tt9on
4b1� i v Yc��< �c loog{x'c�.do� ac�dss -4t-o S`rrc.c�4 r
aa- -k- la a 6—E,— ca ,• -t 1z O -4i
4 a of i a. ce4 A 1 Zo 2 n pI a, o a d +j-. . rP a
s� o_a i 4 10 rem d -1-t..v(-
}te_ 44 %S of �r� hc��E -1-0 -1� road lo.cei be c� ids
• - Sa w. f .r \7y. 7 arc -4-L G dLtrj 1 s c ---(d o —44 1 akoy bl�7 0-k-.�4+ �� co..dos a..ross -ko- e\ -c-.,+ -cam—c
I -4v co4c w4 -t. 4's otuD�_r re n i
• c t ' _4_-% , Pam lets rr-.cLc-ctrc /; c3? i s s Ae J (
s
Synopsis of Discussion:
Necessary Follow -Up:
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.27
Planning Division Record of Conversation
Employee: Liz
Scott Hopson
Zoning: I
Plat Page:
Date:
Time:
Z : 20 Walk-in:_
Telephone:_
Name of Client:
Phone Number of Client: Z 4Zz I Fax:
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.28
Law Offices of
BALL & MOURTON, LTD., PLLC
E. J. Ball A Professional Limited Liability Company
Kenneth R. Mourton E.J. BALL PLAZA - 112 W. CENTER, SUITE 700
Neal R. Pendergraft' POST OFFICE BOX 1948
John 1. Terry Lee— FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702
Rayburn W. Green TELEPHONE: 501/442-6213 - FACSIMILE: 501/442-6233
James L. Moore, III
David G. 8ercaw'
J. Michael Threet'
Joseph 0. Reece
Shannon L. Poore
Ms. Liz Scott
Senior Planning Clerk•
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Liz:
March 24, 1999
Re: Request for Re -Zoning Joyce Street Property
Est. 1950
'Also Licensed in Oklahoma
Also Licensed in Texas
—Siloam Springs Office
^ Of Counsel
Today I filed a request to re -zone property we own on Joyce Street. Prior to filing the application
I attempted to contact several of the neighbors across the street at the Paradise Valley Townhouses.
I wanted to include their position in my application.
After filing, I spoke to Mr. Ted Brewer, past president of their property owners' association. I
explained that, as a courtesy, I wanted him to know we had filed for re -zoning. Mr. Brewer stated
he is no longer president, but that he personally opposes our request.
I also spoke to Mr. Gene Hudson, another owner of one of the townhouses. Mr. Hudson stated he
thought the best use for the property was for professional offices and he did not believe the property
would be best used for residential purposes.
I would appreciate your including a copy of this letter with my application. I feel it is in the best
interest of everyone involved for the Planning Commission members to have as much information
as possible prior to our April 26d' scheduled meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
With highest personal regards.
r
cc: Mr. Ted Brewer
Mr. Gene Hudson
f:\ncal\Icttcrs\joycczonc I .wpd
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.29
RZ99-7.00 - Pendergraft - One Mile Diameter
1 A-1
_ j
Al n
R-0 II.. -..,...
I I62
it RANDAL IL R1
R-0
A-1 R-2 R-0 G1
A-
A-1
ZION
2
G7
R-2 VALERIE
R-0
R-2 u U J
Al O
1 II
R-2 A-1
C-2 R2 j
C-2
R•1
JDYCE R-0 K R 0 R-1
R-0
G1
C-1
R-2
II
R-0 A-1 O
yA R-0
R-2 A-1
R-2 O
O
AG
Eby R.
R-2
R-1 ` R-1
6'�i R 1 R 1
w SWEETBRIAR
o BROOKHAVE iiF1
a z
SHIR Z o R-1 ELAINE R-1
Y z R-1
R-1 H NHILL w R-1 SHARON
R -I m O
R -I R-1
HAROLD R -I
A Yp
R•1 1
R'1 z
BRIARCLIFF
m C�
CORTLAND R-1 R-1.5
R-1
y R-1
ETON
R 1 URMA
1400 0 1400 Feet
N
A-1
R-1.5
A-1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.30
IRZ99-7600 - Pendergraft - Close Up
R-1
0
JOYCE
R-2 I R-2 I R-2 I R-2
E
DR
R-1
R-2 R-2
Paradise Valley Golf Course
200 0 200 Feet
O
A-1
co
w
m
z R-0
D
U)
❑ II
R-2
Planning Commission Meeting
April26, 1999
RZ 99-7 Pendergraft
Page 6.31
13
03/30/1999 13:09
5015218139
MIKE & JEAN HILL
FILED FOR RECORD
PAGE 02
1
CORRECTION WARRAMYI7l3F9 14 Pf7 1 45
WASHINGTON CO AR
KNOW ALL MEN BY ThESE PRESENTS: K. HARNESS
That CUSTOM BUILDING 1'RODUCIS, INC.. an Aikansac Cogporation, and MICIiAI.il,
Ii I IILL, Tenants in Coalition, Increinatcr called Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of
(hie Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable coacidcratiun to ntc in aunt paid by NFAL R.
I'ENDERGRAPf, LAUItI MYERS, MICI IAfFI, I? I TILL and DAVID L' JOI INSON, as Tatants
in Conniwt, hereinafter called Gnalce, do leseby grail, bargain and sell unto the said Grantee
and Grantee's heirs and assigils, (lie following described land, situate in Washington County, State
of Arkanisas, to -wit:
A tract of land in the NC 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 25, Township 17 North,
Range 30 West in Washington County, Arkansas, being mote fully described as
follows: Commencing at the Nortlxast corner of said Section 25; thence S 01
degres 12 minutes 01 seconds f;, 914.01 feet; thence S 89 dogma 05 minutes 27
seconds, W277.51 feet; thence SO! degrees 12 minutes 01 seconds E, 350.5$ feet
to the Point of Beginning; thence S 01 degrees 12 minutes 01 seconds I., 55.0
feet; thence S 89 dLgn:es 05 minutes 27 seconds W, 480.85 feet, thence N 00
degrees 39 minutes 57 seconds W, 536.68 feet; thence N 88 degrees 47 titinutes
59 seconds' E, 206.9! feet; thence S 15 degrees 57 minutes 56 seconds I!, 85.35
feel; thence N 89 degrees 02 minutes 07 seconds 13201.44 feet; thence along a
curve to the left having a indiuc or 50 Ibel, a central angle of 23 degnns 48
ininutes 47 secoutts, and an am dislan:c o120.78 fan (chard = S 10 degrees 42
minutes 23 seconds W, 20.03 feel); thence S UI degrees 12 miuules 01 se oiitts
l; 380.03 feet; thence N 89 deguas 05 initiates 27 seconds ds I^ 50.0 fat to the
Point of Beginning, containing 4.98 acres, more or less.
ALSO A RIGID' OF WAY EASEMENT for Ingress and Egress over a tract of
land in the NC 1/4 of the NE 114 of Section 25, l'nvnsship 17 North, IL•agc 30•
West in Washington County, Arkansas, being mom fedly described as follows:
Corrrr._rncing at the Northeast curler of said Section 25; thence S 01 degrees 12
minutes 01 seconds E, 914.61 l t; thence S 89 degrees 05 minutes 27 seconds
W, 277.51 feet; to the point of beginning; thence S 01 degrees 12 minutes 01
seconds C, 350.55 feet; thence S 89 degrees 05 minutes 27 seconds W, 50.00 feet;
thence N 01 degrees 12 minutes 01 seconds W, 361.05 feet; thence along a curve
to the right having a radius of 50.0 feet, a central angle o1217 degius 07 minutes
34 seconds, and an arc distance of 189.51 feet, (chord S 72 degrees 36 tiiinutes
07 seconds E, 94.80 feet); to the point of Beginning, Containing 0.5 acres, omit
or Tess.
'This Correction Deed is given to correct Lite legal description in (lie original deal
of the parties filed Match 7, 1997 at DocunEnt No. 97-13889 of the records of
the Washington County Circuit Clerk and Recorder.
'IT) I IAVE AND 'it) HOLD the said teals and appurtenances thcretato belonigiug unto
the said Gruntees and Gnantces' heirs and assigns, forever. And we, the said Gra toes, hereby
covenant [hat we are lawfully sewed of said land and piemisas, that to sane is unincuntbeed,
anti than we will forever warmut and defend the title to the said lands against all legal claims
wlhate ver.
I. Jeaunit Bill, wile of Michael U. 11111, Grantor, do hereby release and relinquish unto
the said Grantee my,dowe/cuncsy and homestead in and to said lads and quitclaim unto said
Grantee any interest, right and title I may have therein. _
99003853
i.
lo
w
I
(�C z KI-Io
0 "qty W tl1C1a WwWvHx
E W z �RCCr.�Uig7 3 z�w-lrnEH W 0 Ufi.,h HO H H zEn
bCl) Ia a xz0 . �Hou maMH Q
4oxW
z UgaW �niU-I0
•rCi a x LD z yrO�oO
• z F H
H rn O 'H x 0Cn aAN
o 0 a
N q x a �+ WOw �Cxxayz OHHaV
OF ro W EQQH H�Eq
3W
q a m 0
F W N W O p�gax q.W-lxa
XE q x w o M) qW
W F W z00 O
y •z C1 xE Ea FZa
Cl4 W z0 R Oj W O COF W <> -URCS
a am O>+ ��all Cx0 E :D2n�O HEM E00 tO gFEC>+ra-ia
1.1 H� �.W-7 W W W OOaro "� y>"E-'O OWUw Ex F+
Hrx W � D 1 Hx H
qmE-1 0 W q— x0 W 4'z>"Cn EZCn 0000'0400
Fx09 U Z a vi. w fiooc� W rzw k7gw E"
I w axxwwq
U z 0a U Ex z0 H rnk'Fx px, 00OgEx.,UWE0WF
w w U corn a rnm•aHH
zUa zaE"toa
H W ..� CF) W0H tot'
r -4-i W>4 0 FHA HW0�r4
>+z FC CZ xa0Cn inzzq y W E..�[n WW Cu E -S
T-IOG W •• rzz� N H
LIZ E o z U 0 FC W z O A,
C�,D4 >S.+ Cn U
Filaa t,qwq Hrwn �zzgxgO<aOox
flax W z0 Pa
E"0 0 xu rzi �Ix7 wwo2
0 Pa 0x xaz UEOlxi aU[�v�Ct>
LILIIxi -11
Pa HI LI[xi< Cfl
0 al�aHE
O a N CO C7 H0 CO "Z>E. U O H m CL O Cxaz
zU 4 z� W G`]. sCn zHCn zO�xO WOW
O w H H W E H U IC W O U z H W O Z
H W 0 ZC7 ZHCn E HF 3 H W H4 UEDxOCn
HO LIZ 0HW H r,xW EErjr.CO POP• CnW
Ff,'H W xH NWp a Ga4Uq r•C<EFQ Wxx W
Uw N xz I >-lOl H �CL>+,'� U(Y,zzz >400 U
X070 CCt) UN aCr�.ia 5 FWhm I- U)UnOU C�FZEWE
I
I
•
� t
U
U
O
'—
v
za60
,'f -to
(�
N
a
(I,
u
b
O
b
OJ
\V
H
v
V
rn
0
-ti
OO
�
w
U
N
d
N
c
�
Vcn
W
�
U
O�
oO
V
c
Q
vC
W
W
c
Ct
I�
I•
_
J
1
u
L & t
V
(f I,. �.
.., �- r .' i E ..&s- `l I i 1,
EiR .: I I r I . r 1 I 1 • 1 �.
R{ i 1
1 1 r �'
1
l ev
. WI -
It
rr l �I
/�Yry mil" �T a 1
K]) ii -
MSi
•
l Ir
OJ 4 I w tiR •�
I - T 1 1:;. i( I r
i
.\ r 1 I - - t 1
.� 1 '� �.4 r it I q
0a, 5A
' LI d•
V o
II a
C
SI
k
/
/
}
(
k