Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4392 ORDINANCE NO. 4392 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02-9.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 18.80 ACRES LOCATED AT 2231 MARKHAM ROAD, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY JULIAN AND JANE ARCHER. 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 A- 1 , Agricultural as shown 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 I above. PASSED and APPROVED this 2151 day of May, 2002. APPROVED : .� By: L14 Yf j DAN COODY, Mayor :;E o -n COp �t C7 .70 y eaeP oo$rpgf, City Cle cin c rr*t .o n r C) ca Z7 Aj 20 ,0 37 • Ord . 4392 EXHIBIT "A" A PORTION OF PARCEL 765- 14548-000 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO-WIT: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING, THENCE EAST 783 .2 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83 FEET; THENCE WEST 783 .2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 831 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 14.94 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALSO, A PORTION OF PARCEL 765= 14536- 000 DESCRIBED AS A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH OF RANGE 30 WEST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 1020 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 1020 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3 .86 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 20102 71 372 I, Bette Stamps, Circuit Clerk and Fac-offido Recorder for Washington County, Arkansas, do hereby certify that this Instrument was fled for record in my office as indicated hereon and the same Is now duly recorded with the acknowledgement and certificate thereon in Record Book and Page 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. Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk nd -officio Recorder by I 0 NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4392 CROSS REFERENCE: 05/21/02 Ordinance No. 4392 Exhibit "A" (Legal Description)(RZN 02-9.00) 04/12/02 Planning Division Correspondence 03/26/02 Bill of Assurance from Julian & Jane Archer 04/30/02 Planning Division Correspondence 04/22/02 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 47-53) 04/25/02 Two (2) memos, same dates, to the members of the Fayetteville City Council 05/07/02 Staff Review Form 05/30/02 Memo to Tim Conklin, Planning Division, from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk NOTES : FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville City Council FROM: Tim Conklin,. City Planner THRU: Hugh Earnest DATE: April 30, 2002 BACKGROUND RZN 02-9.00 was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1 , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. RZN 02- 12.00 was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. Both properties are zoned R-1 , Low Density Residential and contain approximately 4. 10 acres. The request is to rezone both to A-1 , Agricultural. The subject property was an area which housed horses and other barnyard animals for many generations until the late 1990's. At that time, the owners decided not to maintain horses on the property until a new barn could be constructed to replace one that was in poor repair. Because the property, as well as the acreage surrounding it, was zoned R-1 in 1970, once the animals were removed and six months passed, the non-conforming condition of permitting the animals i i a residential zoning district was no longer a grandfathered right for the property owners. Recently, a building permit was requested for a new barn for this applicant. The intent is to replace the old barn and to reestablish the use of the property for boarding and running horses owned by the property owners. Because of the current zoning of the property, staff made the applicants aware that the uses that they were proposing were not permitted and that a rezoning would be necessary. They have further offered a Bill of Assurance in order to guarantee that the property is not used for purposes in the future which may be undesirable, such as chicken houses, feed or hog lots, trailer park, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital and convalescent home. CURRENTSTATUS The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested rezonings. H.•IUSEPMCOMMO".4HN7IREPOR7MPCI2007 repo Marcher mO2-9d2 QOCo ldx 94/29/2002 14 : 06 5152434089 ARCHER PAGE 03 HF•R 26 2002 54106PM LRSERJET 3200 • o , • � � P . 2 J BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CM OF FAYBTTEVILLE, ARKANSAS In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, d r, develolWr, ir byy of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner") drL!/ �i_liD// hereby voluntarily offers this A111 of Assu and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner expressly grants 10 the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/ Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The.Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request. Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitionefs property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to upon Me�- 43 3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitione� v� include a4/ 4. (Any other terms or conditions) 04/29/2002 14 : 06 5152434089 ARCHER PAGE 02 RPR 26 2002 5 : 08PN HP 1@ERJET 3200 • p - 3 5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioners rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the ter0u and conditions stated above, 1, - o as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign my name below. J 1' A r c h ier i Vie, Ace 14 Q. i^ Printed Name nature NOTARY OATH. STATE OF ARKANSAS i COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) And now n this thed� of h 200 appeared before " �r L^C' P ✓� and after being placed upon his/her oath swore or affirmed that he/ she agreed with the terms cf the above Bill of Assurance and si s� 0' �nd2Z "il R9. cbTgd::i:n Number 700111 " A!. Camn4: on i NST Co mission Expires: Planning CommissO • April 225 2002 Page 47 r RZN 02-9.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1 , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Hoffman: Our next items are two companion items which are RZN 02-9.00 and RZN 02- 12.00, which are rezonings for Archer, which was submitted by Julian and Jane Archer for property located a 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4. 1 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1 , Agricultural. The second companion item, I will go ahead and just go through this, is a rezoning submitted by the Archers for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1 , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1 , Agricultural. Tim, would you like to enlighten us on this before we start? Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, this is a result of the applicants, Julian and Jane Archer, bringing forward a building permit to establish and build a new bam on their property. During the discussions, and we also did a site visit, we discovered that there were no longer horses on this property. This property is very historic, it is a large property up on top of what we call Markham Hill. During our site visit we did note that there is an existing barn, there is an existing coral on the property so there is evidence of horses on this property over many years. However, it has been approximately 3-5 years since horses were on this property and therefore, we are not allowed to allow the reestablishment of horses without down zoning the property from R-1 , Low Density Residential, which is four units per acre to A-1 , Agricultural, which is two units per acre single-family homes. That is why it is before you. It is fairly unique, we don't see this happen too often. Our current zoning ordinance does not have a provision for horses within residential zoning districts. That is something we may want to consider in the future but at this time the only way to reestablish horses back on this property would be rezoning this to A-1 . They have offered a Bill of Assurance, it is in your packet. That Bill of Assurance talks about not allowing commercial chicken houses, feed or hog production, trailer parks, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital, and convalescent homes. They are removing some of the more objectionable uses from the A-1 zoning district as part of the Bill of Assurance which has been offered by the applicant. That is all I have. Hoffman: Can you tell us what other uses might be included that might be permissible under this zoning that they did not exclude in their Bill of Assurance? I am thinking of animal related enterprises and I don't know if we have it in our packet under the use units. While you are looking that up I will go ahead and call on the applicant's representative. If you could Planning Commission • April 22, 2002 Page 48 give us your name and go ahead and give us your presentation. Winston: I don't have a presentation. My name is Winston and Winston and I live on the top of Markham Hill. Dr. Archer asked me to come and represent him. I have talked to him about the issue and I am really here to just answer any questions if I can if you have any. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this item? I don't see anybody so I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for fiuther discussion. Hoover: I have got a question for staff, maybe just because I've never looked clearly at a Bill of Assurance. Shouldn't we be filling out item one and two with what the property shall be limited to? It seems to me it opens us up to a lot of things. Conklin: Number three states specific activities will not be allowed on the Petitioner's property including. . .that is how it reads. This is a form that we give to the applicants to get into a form that is enforceable by the City of Fayetteville. That is how they filled it out. Hoover: We don't fill out item number one? Conklin: We can't ask for a Bill of Assurance. We give them a standard form and they fill it out, which states the activities will not include commercial chicken houses and the other items that were listed. Hoover: So usually when we get a Bill of Assurance it doesn't have all the items categorized. Warrick: In many situations an applicant will offer to limit the uses to a certain thing and in other situations they will offer to allow a certain thing on the property. It is basically up to the applicant as to how they choose to make an offering to the City with regard to restrictions. In this case they have chosen to restrict certain uses as opposed to limit to a certain thing. Hoover: Does that open us up to other uses that we are not thinking about? Conklin: I will read you what is in unit six. Agriculture, agricultural uses and services, Farm: Crop-Egg-Truck, Services: Hay baling, smoking, curing and selling of smoked or cured poultry and livestock, Sorting- packing and selling fiuits, vegetables and flowers, Threshing. We removed cemetery, crematorium , mausoleum, Institutional Use: hospital, convalescent home. Unit Seven, animal husbandry, animal farms for show, breeding and training. Farms with livestock, livestock services, animal hospitals, Planning Commissie April 22, 2002 Page 49 r shipping of livestock, training of horses, veterinarian's treatment area, recreational use, guest ranch, riding stable, rifle range, rodeo ground. Hoffman: I can't imagine that we would be having a rifle range up on top of the hill. I think that probably violates some other city ordinances. Hoover: What about a fairground? Conklin: Rodeo ground. The applicant's representative is here. He has been told what the Archers will be using their property for. Basically the Commission had some concerns with regard to some of the additional uses. If you are authorized you can limit those uses further. Winston: I am not authorized to limit it any further. Some of those things that you just mentioned were new to me. Ward: Tim, why couldn't we just do a conditional use for horses? Conklin: We don't have that allowed in our code at this time. This comes up, it is interesting the number of farm animals the Planning Division has had to deal with over the years. We removed a llama, a goat, some turkeys, chickens. We haven't had too much experience with Vietnamese potbelly pigs, a bee hive, we had a horse up on South Country Club Hill, an addition with a regular back yard, wood fence, looking over the top of the fence. It is an issue. Certain areas are more appropriate than others. I guess my initial comments were that maybe this is something that we do need to look at with regard to residential zoning districts. We do have a large potential subdivision coming to the Commission off of Hwy. 265 adjacent to Hyland Park. There is existing horses in that area, it is zoned R-1 and their plans are to leave that boarding stable within that R-1 as an existing legal non-conforming use. However, it does pose issues with regard to horses in R-1 neighborhoods. Estes: Mr. Conklin, would you consider removing a little female black lab named Katie that digs a lot? Would you do that for me? Conklin: If I go out there and I can tell it is a kennel I can get it removed, if not, no. Ward: In their application letter they basically got to the point that they are building a 15 horse stall barn, which tells about pattern and color and that kind of stuff and also that they will have no more than 20 horses on this property. They kind of offered a lot of assurances in their application letter. • Planning Commission • April 22, 2002 • Page 50 Conklin: They did not fill out that form in that manner. I would be more than happy to talk with Julian and Jane Archer regarding the concerns. I know they are in a hurry and I am not asking you to forward this if you would like me to talk to them further about that. Motion: Estes: The two rezoning requests before us, if we take dispositive action it will be forwarded to the City Council, our action is advisory only. This is just to restore the use as it previously existed. For those reasons I would move for approval of RZN 02-9.00 and 02-12.00. Mme: I will second. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Marr and I will add that in agreement I went up to the property today and I can remember back when it was a horse facility and it seems that that is a great use for it to get replaced. With that being said, if the staff could possibly work with the applicants on these other concerns as it goes forward through the process, before it gets to City Council. Conklin: Sure, we will do that. I would like for the record to be clear which item you are voting on. Hoffman: We are going to vote on them separately. We have a motion on both but I will go ahead and vote separately on each. Can I ask the motion and the second if that is ok to split your motions or did you intend to have them go forward together? Estes: The movement will separate the motions into two different items, RZN 02-9.00 move for approval and then RZN 02-12.00 move for approval. Hoffman: Thank you. Commissioner Marr? Marr: I will second that. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll? Hoover: I have a question for our City Attorney because I want to understand. The letter that we have submitted with the Bill of Assurance, does that have any legal binding? Whitaker: It would not because it is below the signature, it is not part of the Bill of Assurance. The signature boxes here are known as subscriptions on the Bill of Assurance. Anything coming after that would not be considered as Planning Commissi4b • , April 22, 2002 Page 51 y part of it. Those letters I think were just for your information and to explain to you what the purpose of the request was. They would not be part of the Bill of Assurance. Hoover: I am going to have to vote against this. I am not against what they are proposing to do but I don't feel comfortable without this in the Bill of Assurance. Hoffman: See, that is yet to be determined until it gets to the City Council. There is still time to nail it down. That is my opinion. Conklin: I will call Julian and Jane Archer and ask if they will reverse how they are doing the Bill of Assurance to what is allowed on the property to more reflect what is in the letter. Talking with them they were a little shocked when I went up there and could not find any horses running around that after all 800 years of having animals up there, they had to go through this process. I am fairly confident that in talking with them I can get them to draft it in a manner that is consistent with the letter that they provided Hoover: And that can be done before the Council meeting? Conklin: Yes, I will call them tomorrow. Shackelford: Just a follow up question for Mr. Whitaker. I had a conversation about this form with Mr. Williams in the past and it has been mentioned in this meeting that we can not require Bills of Assurances, they have to be offered. Can we go back at this point in your opinion and tell them what we want to see on the Bill of Assurance? Are we not opening ourselves up? Whitaker: I think this may be hair splitting but sometimes it is as subtle as the essence of the whole thing. You can't say "Unless you agree to do this we won't approve your rezoning." However, there is nothing wrong now that they have offered these to saying "Well, how about this?" That is the give and take in the preliminary. The conditioning of the acceptance of the rezoning upon demands, which they would be if you termed it that way is a different story than an even handed arms length negotiation between the parties about what would work for both. If what I am understanding Mr_ Conklin is proposing is really just clarifying what is already here. Rather than using the exclusive language or channel, number three, it would go to, excuse me, that is inclusive in a list. Number one would be exclusive and state the following is all that will be there. I think that is a fine enough distinction where you are really just trying to get detail, you're not trying to exact new demands on the applicant. Planning Commission ` • April 22, 2002 Page 52 Conklin: Just one other aspect to this Bill of Assurance. When they met with City staff we did not tell them they had to do a Bill of Assurance. They asked us how, this rezoning how they could help alleviate some of the neighbor's concerns. We mentioned to them that other applicants have used a Bill of Assurance to avoid having concerns over some of the uses allowed in zoning districts and so that is exactly what I would be trying to do is to express to them some of your concerns and say "Is there any way?" I know what they want to do. They have plans and they have it all drawn up. They would like to have some horses up on that piece of property. Thank you. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously and it will be forwarded to the City Council at their next meeting. Planning Commies• i April 22,2002 Page 53 RZN 02-12.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Hoffman: Our next item to be up for motions or discussion is the companion item RZN 02-12.00, do I hear motions or discussion? Estes: You have motions. Hoffman: Ok, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-12.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. Everything is carried unanimously and you will be having both items at the next City Council meeting. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02-9.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 18.80 ACRES LOCATED AT 2231 MARKHAM ROAD, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY JULIAN AND JANE ARCHER. 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 A-1, Agricultural as shown 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 day of , 2002. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" A PORTION OF PARCEL 765-14548-000 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO -WIT: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING, THENCE EAST 783.2 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83 FEET; THENCE WEST 783.2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 831 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 14.94 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALSO, A PORTION OF PARCEL 765-14536- 000 DESCRIBED AS A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH OF RANGE 30 WEST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 1020 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 1020 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.86 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: April 12, 2002 RZN 02-9.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. RZN 02-12.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezonings based on the findings included as part of this report. (Note: Each request requires separate action by the Planning Commission.) PLANNING COMMISSION -ACTION: Required YES OApproved ODenied Date: April 22, 2002: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O -Denied Date: May=7, 2002 (Ft reading) Comments: H: I USERSICOMMOMDA WN%1REPORTSIPC12002_reporislarcher_nn02-9& /2.doc BACKGROUND: The subject property was an area which housed horses and other barnyard animals for many generations until the late 1990's. At that time, the owners decided not to maintain horses on the property until a new barn could be constructed to replace one that was in poor repair. Because the property as well as the acreage surrounding it was zoned R-1 in 1970, once the animals were removed and six months passed, the non -conforming condition of permitting the animals in a residential zoning district was no longer a grandfathered right for the property owners. Recently, a building permit was requested for a new barn for this applicant. The intent is to replace the old barn and to reestablish the use of the property for boarding and running horses owned by the property owners. Because of the current zoning of the property, staff made the applicant's aware that the uses that they were proposing were not permitted and that a rezoning would be necessary. The applicant's have requested this rezoning in order to be able to use the pastures and barns on the property for their horses. They have further offered a Bill of Assurance in order to guarantee that the property is not used for purposes in the future which may be undesirable, such as chicken houses, feed or hog lots, trailer park, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital and convalescent home. This proposal is to downzone and to further restrict the property owner's development rights for the subject properties. Approval of these actions will result in the development of fewer single family homes or other types of dwellings in this area. It is necessary for this property to be zoned. for agricultural uses in order for the applicant to keep horses in this location. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the barn proposed by the applicant, an accurate, scaled site plan will be required in order to ensure compliance with supplemental conditions which are prescribed for uses described in § 163.06 and stated below: §163.06 ANIMALS AND FOWL. The following uses, where permitted, shall be conducted no nearer than the following stated number of feet to the boundary of an R district, or to a dwelling on the same premises: 50 Feet Animal Hospital: serving household pets and similar small animals Commercial Breeding, Raising, Boarding: breeding, raising, or boarding of household pets or similar small animals for commercial purposes Kennel Egg Farm H: IUSERSICOMMOMDA UNf REPOR7SIPCI2002_reportslarcher_ zn02-9d2.doc 100 Feet Animal Hospital: serving livestock and similar animals Boarding or Training of Horses Dairy Farm Poultry Farm Farm: for raising cattle, goats, horses, sheep, rabbits, and poultry 200 Feet Hog Raising Livestock: assembly, breeding, feeding, sales or shipment (Code 1991, §160.078; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 7(3); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Single family homes / large acreages, R-1 South: Single family homes / large acreages, R-1 East: Single family homes / large acreages, R-1 West: Single family homes / large acreages, R-1 Ii►lII7:FSYt M-O)t1$ Access to the subject property is from Markham and Sang Streets. These are residential streets with open ditches which provide access to the University Heights neighborhood west of the University of Arkansas campus. Water is available and serves the existing residences on other portions of the applicant's property. Sewer access is not necessary for the proposed use of this property. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to A-1, Agricultural is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. H. I USERSICOMMONIDA HN7IREPOR7SIPCI2001_reportslarcher_rzn02-9&2.doc 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 proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Prior to 1970, this property was zoned agriculturally and was used to house and run horses for the owners. The use of the property will remain primarily residential, as there are several single family dwellings on the site, but this change will allow the owners to reestablish their horse barn and to board their horses. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: In order to allow for the agricultural use of this area for boarding and riding horses, this proposed zoning is needed. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning will not create or appreciably increase traffic danger or congestion. This downzoning will actually decrease the potential for additional traffic to the area by restricting the property owner's ability to further develop the number of residential lots on the property that would be possible under the current R-1 zoning. 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 will not alter the population density. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A H: I USERSICOMMONDA NNTIREPORTh1PC12002_reportstarcher_rzn02-9H2.doc § 161.04 DISTRICT R-1: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. A. Purpose. The Low Density Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. B. Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. Unit I City -Wide Uses by Right Unit 26 Single -Family Dwelling 2. UsesPermissible on Appeal to the Plannin Commission. Unit 2 City -Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities Unit 8 Single -Family and Two -Family Dwellings C. Density. SINGLE-FAMILY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS DWELLINGS 4 or Less Families Per 7 or Less Families Per Acre Acre D. Bulk and Area Regulations. Single -Family Two -Family Lot 70 ft. 80 ft. Minimum Width Lot Area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq.ft. Minimum Land Area 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Per Dwelling Unit E. Yard Requirements (feet). FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD 25 8 20 F. Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. (Code 1991,§160.031) H:IUSERSICOMMOMDA HN71REPOR731PCt2002_reporalarcher zn02-9H1.doc E §161.03 DISTRICT A-1 AGRICULTURAL. A. Purposes. The regulations of the Agricultural District are designed to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural B. Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. Unit I City -Wide Uses by Right Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities Unit 6 Agriculture Unit 7 Animal Husbandry Unit 8 Single -Family and Two -Family Dwellings 2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission. Unit 2 City -Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities Unit 20 Commercial Recreation; Large Sites C. Bulk and Area Regulations. Lot Width Minimum 200 ft. Lot Area Minimum: Residential 2 acre Nonresidential 2 acre Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acre areas; obtain economy of public funds in the providing of public improvements and services of orderly growth; conserve the tax base; prevent unsightly development, increase scenic attractiveness; and conserve open space. D. Yard Requirements (feet). FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD 35 20 35 E. Height Requirements. There shall be no maximum height limits in the A -I District, provided, however, that any building which exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured from the required yard lines. (Code 1991, §160.030; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(1); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-89) H: I USERSICOMMONDA NN7IREPORTS1PCI2001_reportstarcher_rzn02-9&2.doc March 25, 2002 We, Julian and Jane Archer, submit that we are the sole owners of the property in question and that it is not for sale now or in the foreseeable future. It has been in the Pratt -Markham - Waterman -Archer family for 102 years and home to a succession of horses and other farm animals continuously during that time until very recently. It has only now (on March 19, 2002) come to our attention that our grandfathered right to keep farm animals on this property lapsed when we ceased having horses there because the barn was in such poor condition and we were unaware of the ordinance that states that after a six month lapse we would lose our right to keep animals. Three or four years ago we decided not to replace the horses until we could build a new barn. Toward that end, we have been purchasing structural timbers from Colorado and oak siding from around here and drawing up plans for a new barn. The design is a classical gambrel roof, oak board and batten, red and white, 15 horse stall barn to replace the old 12 stall barn. We would not have more than 20 horses and more -than -likely nowhere near that number. We understand that the only way we can replace the horses and build a new barn is to have the property rezoned A-1 (from R- 1). Since we own all of the property surrounding the larger (a large pasture consisting of a parcel and a portion of another parcel) of the two properties at issue here, no neighbors will be impacted in any way by rezoning of the parcels, not even visually On the same family property is a second (with two stalls) barn in good condition. This parcel as well as an adjacent one acre parcel need to be rezoned A-1 in order for horses to be there. The only effect on neighbors of rezoning these two smaller parcels adjacent to Sang Street will be the eventual pleasure of looking at horses instead of an empty barn and pasture. It should be evident to everyone in the neighborhood by now that -horses or no horses —we have no intention of developing this hilltop property or selling it to developers, though our petitioning to have it rezoned to a more restrictive category could come only as positive news nonetheless. There will, of course, be no increase in traffic as a result, no change in appearance, and no signage. The preservation of green spaces and areas with rural character within urban boundaries not only enhances the beauty, diversity, and texture of a city, but it touches the human spirit profoundly. And for city dwellers, children especially, to be able to see animals in a beautiful, unspoiled setting on a regular basis is psychologically healthy and moves humanity closer to a kinder, gentler society. There is a one -inch water line near the new barn site and both of the pasture areas are served by year-round springs. This hilltop area is served by septic systems rather than city sewer. Tian and Jane Archer March 25, 2002 To the members of the Fayetteville Planning Commission: We wanted very much to be present at the Planning Commission meeting to which our rezoning request is being submitted, especially since the barn project and having horses is very important to us, but it would entail canceling my, Julian's, classes at Drake University where I teach, and a fast turnaround trip from Des Moines to Fayetteville for a few minutes of appearance before the Commission. We trust that our proposal will speak for itself and have, further, appointed as our representative Mr. Winston Winston who, as overseer of our property in Fayetteville, is knowledgeable and can answer most of the questions and concerns you may have. Sin rely, i Archer ane Archer H1NO2-12OO&9 ARCHER Close Up View _.'_I__.__._�ORN�CglR r • 1 i 1 ( .� • I 11 v a R-1 ¢�I i c "..1\. Q 0 P -. a wl . Q ,li a RZN02-100; 2 A oR RIVA'IEDR-i+ i..—_ I a ; 4_ a !> i--i 000 cc !� O ni I R1! t o 0 o _—.—.—_—_-IIj_ASKE1111EIGHTSHASKELLHFjGHII _ f� 00 w. . X69 wV Ij 0 LB0 o li 00 O o ._1.._ 1k NErTLE3HIP ST 0 R-2 1 N Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan RZN02.12.00 rN__ Planning Area '' Freeway/Expressway CP000� /� � o 0 o Overlay District 4"% r/ Principal Arterial Streets 000_00_0 w City Umits \eI Minor Arterial Existing L_ — 0 0 Collector It • Planned Outside City a • %a Historic Collector If f ---- 0 125 250 300 750 1,000 Feel .. BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, B the ewpier, develoP4r�gi buyer9� this prop ty, (hereinafter "Petitioner") A a.. )3t tires/ �Q D hereby voluntarily offers this of Assurance4d enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/ Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request. Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to 2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are limited to 3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property include aC 4. (Any other terms or conditions) 5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property. IN WITNESS conditions stated above,, owner, developer or buyer sign my name below. p. - 11, Gi ii. 2F STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON And now qn this before me, after being placed upon his/her oath swore or d.that.he/she agreed with the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and sig hash ,Aqi.", 7„ P::y Comrrission Aires - NOTARY PUBL My Commission � ires: �} i �c pr uiiJj9r s the all s ch assurances and JCJI'(w ✓'hPr Pri / ame S nature NOTARY OATH of 200 Z, appeared I. C. 4. AQCfi"Fand Y FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville City Council FROM: Tim Conklin,. City Planner THRU: Hugh Earnest DATE: April 30, 2002 BACKGROUND RZN 02-9.00 was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.8O acres. RZN 02-12.00 was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. Both properties are zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contain approximately 4.10 acres. The request is to rezone both to A-1, Agricultural. The subject property was an area which housed horses and other barnyard animals for many generations until the late 1990's. At that time, the owners decided not to maintain horses on the property until a new barn could be constructed to replace one that was in poor repair. Because the property, as well as the acreage surrounding it, was zoned R-1 in 1970, once the animals were removed and six months passed, the non -conforming condition of permitting the animals is a residential zoning district was no longer a grandfathered right for the property owners. Recently, a building permit was requested for a new barn for this applicant. The intent is to replace the old barn and to reestablish the use of the property for boarding and running horses owned by the property owners. Because of the current zoning of the property, staff made the applicants aware that the uses that they were proposing were not permitted and that a rezoning would be necessary. They have further offered a Bill of Assurance in order to guarantee that the property is not used for purposes in the future which may be undesirable, such as chicken houses, feed or hog lots, trailer park, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital and convalescent home. CURRENT STATUS The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested rezonings. It: %USERSICOMMOMDAHNTREPORISIPC12002_report:larcher rm02-982 CI Counctldoc 94/29/2002 14:06 5152434089 ARCHER _ PAGE 03 HPR 26 2002 5:06P'I ASERJET 3200 p.2 T BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, t r, developr byygr of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner") hereby voluntarily offers this r11 of Msunnnd enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/ Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that If Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any, term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The.Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request. Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioneys rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to 3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property. include 4. (Any other terms or conditions) S. p4/29/2002 14:06 5152434089 APR 26 2002 S:06PM HP•SERJET 3200 n PAGE 02 p.3 5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be (Jed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated above, I. as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign my name below. J rt I; a Vi f1 rC1hof NOTARY O STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON And now qn this of before me, ,,�` r i t� .�,!1__Ch"rx after being placed upon his/her oath swore or the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and sil Co mission Expires: , 200appeared QT`_ and that he/she agreed with 700,11 Planning Commissior� • April 22, 2002 Page 47 RZN 02-9.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural Hoffman: Our next items are two companion items which are RZN 02-9.00 and RZN 02-12.00, which are rezonings for Archer, which was submitted by Julian and Jane Archer for property located a 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.1 acres. The request is to rezone to A-i, Agricultural. The second companion item, I will go ahead and just go through this, is a rezoning submitted by the Archers for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Tim, would you like to enlighten us on this before we start? Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, this is a result of the applicants, Julian and Jane Archer, bringing forward a building permit to establish and build a new bam on their property. During the discussions, and we also did a site visit, we discovered that there were no longer horses on this property. This property is very historic, it is a large property up on top of what we call Markham Hill. During our site visit we did note that there is an existing bam, there is an existing corral on the property so there is evidence of horses on this property over many years. However, it has been approximately 3-5 years since horses were on this property and therefore, we are not allowed to allow the reestablishment of horses without down zoning the property from R-1, Low Density Residential, which is four units per acre to A-1, Agricultural, which is two units per acre single-family homes. That is why it is before you. It is fairly unique, we don't see this happen too often. Our current zoning ordinance does not have a provision for horses within residential zoning districts. That is something we may want to consider in the future but at this time the only way to reestablish horses back on this property would be rezoning this to A-1. They have offered a Bill of Assurance, it is in your packet. That Bill of Assurance talks about not allowing commercial chicken houses, feed or hog production, trailer parks, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital, and convalescent homes. They are removing some of the more objectionable uses from the A-1 zoning district as part of the Bill of Assurance which has been offered by the applicant. That is all I have. Hoffman: Can you tell us what other uses might be included that might be permissible under this zoning that they did not exclude in their Bill of Assurance? I am thinking of animal related enterprises and I don't know if we have it in our packet under the use units. While you are looking that up I will go ahead and call on the applicant's representative. If you could FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. • Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville City Council • FROM: Tim Conklin,. City Planner THRU: Hugh Earnest DATE: April 30, 2002 BACKGROUND RZN 02-9.00 was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.8O acres. RZN 02-12.00 was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. Both properties are zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contain approximately 4.10 acres. The request is to rezone both to A-1, Agricultural. The subject property was an area which housed horses and other barnyard animals for many generations until the late 1990's. At that time, the owners decided not to maintain horses on the property until a new barn could be constructed to replace one that was in poor repair. Because the property, as well as the acreage surrounding it, was zoned R-1 in 1970, once the animals were removed and six months passed, the non -conforming condition of permitting the animals in a residential zoning district was no longer a grandfathered right for the property owners. Recently, a building permit was requested for a new barn for this applicant. The intent is to replace the old barn and to reestablish the use of the property for boarding and running horses owned by the property owners. Because of the current zoning of the property, staff made the applicants aware that the uses that they were proposing were not permitted and that a rezoning would be necessary. They have further offered a Bill of Assurance in order to guarantee that the property is not used for purposes in the future which may be undesirable, such as chicken houses, feed or hog lots, trailer park, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital and convalescent home. CURRENT STATUS The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested rezonings. H: IUSERSICOMMOMDANM1REPOR7SIPCI2002_rrpornlarcher rm02-982 CiKoanelldoc 94/29/2002 14:06 5152434089 ARCHER PAGE 03 HPR 26 2002 5:06PM I.LRSERJET 3200 . ,. - P.2 BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; ARKANSAS In order to attempt t r, develo ill of Assurean City of Fayetteville, to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, r b y .of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner") % oo his hereby voluntarily offers this d enters into this binding agreement and contract with the Arkansas. The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/ Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance In considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request. Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to fC 3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property. include _/22.&if/; 4. (Any other terms or conditions) 04/29/2002 14:06 5152434089 APR 26 2002 5:08PM HPSSERJET 3200 • PAGE 02 p.3 5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be (lied for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioners rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated above, 1, the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign my name below. J t t. / I k vi f -1 r c h e!^ NOTARY OATH - STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON And now qn this the dajof before me, 1 "i ,i 111(1 -fl after being placed upon his/her oath swore or the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and si Co mission Expires: )0 appeared and he/she agreed with I C{ 2 -°I -D1 Planning Commission • April 22, 2002 Page 47 Li RZN 02-9.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural Hoffman: Our next items are two companion items which are RZN 02-9.00 and RZN 02-12.00, which are rezonings for Archer, which was submitted by Julian and Jane Archer for property located a 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.1 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. The second companion item, I will go ahead and just go through this, is a rezoning submitted by the Archers for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Tim, would you like to enlighten us on this before we start? Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, this is a result of the applicants, Julian and Jane Archer, bringing forward a building permit to establish and build a new barn on their property. During the discussions, and we also did a site visit, we discovered that there were no longer horses on this property. This property is very historic, it is a large property up on top of what we call Markham Hill. During our site visit we did note that there is an existing barn, there is an existing corral on the property so there is evidence of horses on this property over many years. However, it has been approximately 3-5 years since horses were on this property and therefore, we are not allowed to allow the reestablishment of horses without down zoning the property from R-1, Low Density Residential, which is four units per acre to A-1, Agricultural, which is two units per acre single-family homes. That is why it is before you. It is fairly unique, we don't see this happen too often. Our current zoning ordinance does not have a provision for horses within residential zoning districts. That is something we may want to consider in the future but at this time the only way to reestablish horses back on this property would be rezoning this to A-1. They have offered a Bill of Assurance, it is in your packet. That Bill of Assurance talks about not allowing commercial chicken houses, feed or hog production, trailer parks, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital, and convalescent homes. They are removing some of the more objectionable uses from the A-1 zoning district as part of the Bill of Assurance which has been offered by the applicant. That is all I have. Hoffman: Can you tell us what other uses might be included that might be permissible under this zoning that they did not exclude in their Bill of Assurance? I am thinking of animal related enterprises and I don't know if we have it in our packet under the use units. While you are looking that up I will go ahead and call on the applicant's representative. If you could Planning Commission • • April22,2002 Page 48 give us your name and go ahead and give us your presentation. Winston: I don't have a presentation. My name is Winston and Winston and I live on the top of Markham Hill. Dr. Archer asked me to come and represent him. I have talked to him about the issue and I am really here to just answer any questions if I can if you have any. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this item? I don't see anybody so I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for further discussion. Hoover: I have got a question for staff, maybe just because I've never looked clearly at a Bill of Assurance. Shouldn't we be filling out item one and two with what the property shall be limited to? It seems to me it opens us up to a lot of things. Conklin: Number three states specific activities will not be allowed on the Petitioner's property including... that is how it reads. This is a form that we give to the applicants to get into a form that is enforceable by the City of Fayetteville. That is how they filled it out. Hoover: We don't fill out item number one? Conklin: We can't ask for a Bill of Assurance. We give them a standard form and they fill it out, which states the activities will not include commercial chicken houses and the other items that were listed. Hoover: So usually when we get a Bill of Assurance it doesn't have all the items categorized. Warrick: In many situations an applicant will offer to limit the uses to a certain thing and in other situations they will offer to allow a certain thing on the property. It is basically up to the applicant as to how they choose to make an offering to the City with regard to restrictions. In this case they have chosen to restrict certain uses as opposed to limit to a certain thing. Hoover: Does that open us up to other uses that we are not thinking about? Conklin: I will read you what is in unit six. Agriculture, agricultural uses and services, Farm: Crop -Egg -Truck, Services: Hay baling, smoking, curing and selling of smoked or cured poultry and livestock, Sorting- packing and selling fruits, vegetables and flowers, Threshing. We removed cemetery, crematorium , mausoleum, Institutional Use: hospital, convalescent home. Unit Seven, animal. husbandry, animal farms for show, breeding and training. Farms with livestock, livestock services, animal hospitals, Planning Commission• • April 22, 2002 Page 49 shipping of livestock, training of horses, veterinarian's treatment area, recreational use, guest ranch, riding stable, rifle range, rodeo ground. Hoffman: I can't imagine that we would be having a rifle range up on top of the bill. I think that probably violates some other city ordinances. Hoover: What about a fairground? Conklin: Rodeo ground. The applicant's representative is here. He has been told what the Archers will be using their property for. Basically the Commission had some concerns with regard to some of the additional uses. If you are authorized you can limit those uses further. Winston: I am not authorized to limit it any further. Some of those things that you just mentioned were new to me. Ward: Tim, why couldn't we just do a conditional use for horses? Conklin: We don't have that allowed in our code at this time. This comes up, it is interesting the number of farm animals the Planning Division has had to deal with over the years. We removed a llama, a goat, some turkeys, chickens. We haven't had too much experience with Vietnamese potbelly pigs, a bee hive, we had a horse up on South Country Club Hill, an addition with a regular back yard, wood fence, looking over the top of the fence. It is an issue. Certain areas are more appropriate than others. I guess my initial comments were that maybe this is something that we do need to look at with regard to residential zoning districts. We do have a large potential subdivision coming to the Commission off of Hwy. 265 adjacent to Hyland Park. There is existing horses in that area, it is zoned R-1 and their plans are to leave that boarding stable within that R-1 as an existing legal non -conforming use. However, it does pose issues with regard to horses in R-1 neighborhoods. Estes: Mr. Conklin, would you consider removing a little female black lab named Katie that digs a lot? Would you do that for me? Conklin: If I go out there and I can tell it is a kennel I can get it removed, if not,. no. Ward: In their application letter they basically got to the point that they are building a 15 horse stall barn, which tells about pattern and color and that kind of stuff and also that they will have no more than 20 horses on this property. They kind of offered a lot of assurances in their application letter. Planning Commission • April 22, 2002 Page 50 Conklin: They did not fill out that form in that manner. I would be more than happy to talk with Julian and Jane Archer regarding the concerns. I know they are in a hurry and I am not asking you to forward this if you would like me to talk to them further about that. Motion: Estes: The two rezoning requests before us, if we take dispositive action it will be forwarded to the City Council, our action is advisory only. This is just to restore the use as it previously existed. For those reasons I would move for approval of RZN 02-9.00 and 02-12.00. Marr: I will second. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Man: and I will add that in agreement I went up to the property today and I can remember back when it was a horse facility and it seems that that is a great use for it to get replaced. With that being said, if the staff could possibly work with the applicants on these other concerns as it goes forward through the process, before it gets to City Council. Conklin: Sure, we will do that. I would like for the record to be clear which item you are voting on. Hoffman: We are going to vote on them separately. We have a motion on both but I will go ahead and vote separately on each. Can I ask the motion and the second if that is ok to split your motions or did you intend to have them go forward together? Estes: The movement will separate the motions into two different items, RZN 02-9.00 move for approval and then RZN 02-12.00 move for approval. Hoffman: Thank you. Commissioner Marr? Man: I will second that. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll? Hoover: I have a question for our City Attorney because I want to understand. The letter that we have submitted with the Bill of Assurance, does that have any legal binding? Whitaker: It would not because it is below the signature, it is not part of the Bill of Assurance. The signature boxes here are known as subscriptions on the Bill of Assurance. Anything coming after that would not be considered as Planning Commission• April 22, 2002 Page 51 part of it. Those letters I think were just for your information and to explain to you what the purpose of the request was. They would not be part of the Bill of Assurance. Hoover: I am going to have to vote against this. I am not against what they are proposing to do but I don't feel comfortable without this in the Bill of Assurance. Hoffman: See, that is yet to be determined until it gets to the City Council. There is still time to nail it down. That is my opinion. Conklin: I will call Julian and Jane Archer and ask if they will reverse how theyare doing the Bill of Assurance to what is allowed on the property to more reflect what is in the letter. Talking with them they were a little shocked when I went up there and could not find any horses running around that after all 800 years of having animals up there, they had to go through this process. I am fairly confident that in talking with them I can get them to draft it in a manner that is consistent with the letter that they provided. Hoover: And that can be done before the Council meeting? Conklin: Yes, I will call them tomorrow. Shackelford: Just a follow up question for Mr. Whitaker. I had a conversation about this form with Mr. Williams in the past and it has been mentioned in this meeting that we can not require Bills of Assurances, they have to be offered. Can we go back at this point in your opinion and tell them what we want to see on the Bill of Assurance? Are we not opening ourselves up? Whitaker: • I think this may be hair splitting but sometimes it is as subtle, as the essence of the whole thing. You can't say "Unless you agree to do this we won't approve your rezoning." However, there is nothing wrong now that they have offered these to saying "Well, how about this?" That is the give and take in the preliminary. The conditioning of the acceptance of the rezoning upon demands, which they would be if you termed it that way is a different story than an even handed arms length negotiation between the parties about what would work for both. If what I am understanding Mr. Conklin is proposing is really just clarifying what is already here. Rather than using the exclusive language or channel, number three, it would go to, excuse me, that is inclusive in a list. Number one would be exclusive and state the following is all that will be there. I think that is a fine enough distinction where you are really just trying to get detail, you're not trying to exact new demands on the applicant. • Planning Commissions • April 22, 2002 Page 52 Conklin: Just one other aspect to this Bill of Assurance. When they met with City staff we did not tell them they had to do a Bill of Assurance. They asked us how, this rezoning how they could help alleviate some of the neighbor's concerns. We mentioned to them that other applicants have used a Bill of Assurance to avoid having concerns over some of the uses allowed in zoning districts and so that is exactly what I would be trying to •do is to express to them some of your concerns and say "Is there any way?" I know what they want to do. They have plans and they have it all drawn up. They would like to have some horses up on that piece of property. Thank you. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously and it will be forwarded to the City Council at their next meeting. . . Planning Cornmissio• • April 22, 2002 Page 53 RZN 02-12.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Hoffman: Our next item to be up for motions or discussion is the companion item RZN 02-12.00, do I hear motions or discussion? Estes: You have motions. Hoffman: Ok, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-12.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. Everything is carried unanimously and you will be having both items at the next City Council meeting. 04/28/2002 23:35 5152434089 ARCHER PAGE @3 • • April 25, 2002 To the members of the Fayetteville City Council: We want very much to be present at the City Council meeting to which our rezoning request is being submitted, especially since the barn project and having horses is very important to us, but it would entail canceling my, Julian's, classes at Drake University where I teach, and a fast turnaround trip from Des Moines to Fayetteville for a few minutes of appearance before the Council. We trust that our proposal will speak for itself and have, further, appointed as our representative Mr. Winston Winston who, as overseer of our property in Fayetteville, is knowledgeable and can answer most of the questions and concerns you may have.. If you would like to visit the property before the zoning request is brought up at the May 7 Council meeting, please telephone Mr. Winston at 575-0136. He would be delighted to show you around. For your information, most of the property in question is not visible from the street, so the only possible way to see it is arrange for a visit. Sincerely, P4/28/2002 23:35 5152434089 ARCHER PAGE 04 • • April 25, 2002 To the members of the Fayetteville City Council: We would like to request reimbursement for one of the two $325 fees we have paid to process our rezoning request. Since the two pastures for which we are requesting rezoning from R-1 to A-1 represent one combined proposal for the Planning Staff, one set of notices, one combined hearing by the Planning Commission and the City Council with little, if any, additional effort and expense than would have been required for just one of them, we are requesting a refund of the second $325 for the second pasture. The fee of $325 for one is already quite substantial, but $650 for essentially the same amount of work seems very steep indeed. . Imo, i, . . , . Planning Commissior.� • April 22, 2002 Page 47 RZN 02-9.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Hoffman: Our next items are two companion items which are RZN 02-9.00 and RZN 02-12.00, which are rezonings for Archer, which was submitted by Julian and Jane Archer for property located a 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.1 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. The second companion item, I will go ahead and just go through this, is a rezoning submitted by the Archers for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Tim, would you like to enlighten us on this before we start? Coin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, this is a result of the applicants, Julian and Jane Archer, bringing forward a building permit to establish and build a new barn on their property. During the discussions, and we also did a site visit, we discovered that there were no longer horses on this property. This property is very historic, it is a large property up on top of what we call Markham Hill. During our site visit we did note that there is an existing barn, there is an existing corral on the property so there is evidence of horses on this property over many years. However, it has been approximately 3-5 years since horses were on this property and therefore, we are not allowed to allow the reestablishment of horses without down zoning the property from R-1, Low Density Residential, which is four units per acre to A-1, Agricultural, which is two units per acre single-family homes. That is why it is before you. It is fairly unique, we don't see this happen too often. Our current zoning ordinance does not have a provision for horses within, residential zoning districts. That is something we may want to consider in the future but at this time the only way to reestablish horses back on this property would be rezoning this to A-1. They have offered a Bill of Assurance, it is in your packet That Bill of Assurance talks about not allowing commercial chicken houses, feed or hog production, trailer parks, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital, and convalescent homes. They are removing some of the more objectionable uses from the A-i zoning district as part of the Bill of Assurance which has been offered by the applicant. That is all I have. Hoffman: Can you tell us what other uses might be. included that might be permissible, under this zoning that they did not exclude in their Bill of Assurance? I am thinking of animal related enterprises and I don't know if we have it in our packet under the use units. While you are looking that up I will go ahead and call on the applicant's representative. If you could Planning Commission • • April 22, 2002 Page 48 give us your name and go ahead and give us your presentation. Winston: I don't have a presentation. My name is Winston and Winston and I live on the top of Markham Hill. Dr. Archer asked me to come and represent him. I have talked to him about the issue and I am really here to just answer any questions if I can if you have any. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this item? I don't see anybody so I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for further discussion. Hoover: I have got a question for staff, maybe just because I've never looked clearly at a Bill of Assurance. Shouldn't we be filling out item one and two with what the property shall be limited to? It seems to me it opens us up to a lot of things. Conklin: Number three states specific activities will not be allowed on the Petitioner's property including... that is how it reads. This is a form that • we give to the applicants to get into a form that is enforceable by the City • of Fayetteville. That is how they filled it out. Hoover: We don't fill out item number one? Conklin: We can't ask for a Bill of Assurance. We give them a standard form and they fill it out, which states the activities will not include commercial chicken houses and the other items that were listed. Hoover: So usually when we get a Bill of Assurance it doesn't have all the items categorized. Warrick: In many situations an applicant will offer to limit the uses to a certain thing and in other situations they will offer to allow a certain thing on the property. It is basically up to the applicant as to how they choose to make an offering to the City with regard to restrictions. In this case they have chosen to restrict certain uses as opposed to limit to a certain thing. Hoover: Does that open us up to other uses that we are not thinking about? Conklin: I will read you what is in unit six. Agriculture, agricultural uses and services, Farm: Crop -Egg -Truck, Services: Hay baling, smoking, curing and selling of smoked or cured poultry and livestock, Sorting- packing and selling fruits, vegetables and flowers, Threshing. We removed cemetery, crematorium , mausoleum, Institutional Use: hospital, convalescent home. Unit Seven, animal, husbandry, animal farms for show, breeding and training. Farms with livestock, livestock services, animal hospitals, Planning Commission, • April 22, 2002 Page 49 shipping of livestock, training of horses, veterinarian's treatment area, recreational use, guest ranch, riding stable, rifle range, rodeo ground. Hoffman: I can't imagine that we would be having a rifle range up on top of the hill. I think that probably violates some other city ordinances. Hoover: What about a fairground? Conklin: Rodeo ground. The applicant's representative is here. He has been told what the Archers will be using their property for. Basically the Commission had some concerns with regard to some of the additional uses. If you are authorized you can limit those uses further. Winston: I am not authorized to limit it any further. Some of those things that you just mentioned were new to me. Ward: Tim, why couldn't we just do a conditional use for horses? Conklin: We don't have that allowed in our code at this time. This comes up, it is interesting the number of farm animals the Planning Division has had to deal with over the years. We removed a llama, a goat, some turkeys, chickens. We haven't had too much experience with Vietnamese potbelly pigs, a bee hive, we had a horse up on South Country Club Hill, an addition with a regular back yard, wood fence, looking over the top of the fence. It is an issue. Certain areas are more appropriate than others. I guess my initial comments were that maybe this is something that we do need to look at with regard to residential zoning districts. We do have a large potential subdivision coming to the Commission off of Hwy. 265 adjacent to Hyland Park. There is existing horses in that area, it is zoned R-1 and their plans are to leave that boarding stable within that R -I as an existing legal non -conforming use. However, it does pose issues with regard to horses in R-1 neighborhoods. Estes: Mr. Conklin, would you consider removing a little female black lab named Katie that digs a lot? Would you do that for me? Conklin: If I go out there and I can tell it is a kennel I can get it removed, if not, no. Ward: In their application letter they basically got to the point that they are building a 15 horse stall barn, which tells about pattern and color and that kind of stuff and also that they will have no more than 20 horses on this property. They kind of offered a lot of assurances in their application letter. Planning Commission • • April 22, 2002 Page 50 Conklin: They did not fill out that form in that manner. I would be more than happy to talk with Julian and Jane Archer regarding the concerns. I know they are in a hurry and I am not asking you to forward this if you would like me to talk to them further about that. Motion: Estes: The two rezoning requests before us, if we take dispositive action it will be forwarded to the City Council, our action is advisory only. This is just •to restore the use as it previously existed. For those reasons I would move for approval of RZN 02-9.00 and 02-12.00. Marr: I will second. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Man and I will add that in agreement I went up to the property today and I can remember back when it was a horse facility and it seems that that is a great use for it to get replaced. With that being said, if the staff could possibly work with the applicants on these other concerns as it goes forward through the process, before it gets to City Council. Conklin: Sure, we will do that. I would like for the record to be clear which item you are voting on. Hoffman: We are going to vote on them separately. We have a motion on both but I will go ahead and vote separately on each. Can I ask the motion and the second if that is ok to split your motions or did you intend to have them go forward together? Estes: The movement will separate the motions into two different items, RZN 02-9.00 move for approval and then RZN 02-12.00 move for approval. Hoffman: Thank you. Commissioner Marr? Marr: I will second that. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll? Hoover: I have a question for our City Attorney because I want to understand. The letter that we have submitted with the Bill of Assurance, does that have any legal binding? Whitaker: It would not because it is below the signature, it is not part of the Bill of Assurance. The signature boxes here are known as subscriptions on the Bill of Assurance. Anything coming after that would not be considered as Planning Commission. • April 22, 2002 Page 51 P part of it. Those letters I think were just for your information and to explain to you what the purpose of the request was. They would not be part of the Bill of Assurance. Hoover: I am going to have to vote against this. I am not against what they are proposing to do but I don't feel comfortable without this in the Bill of Assurance. Hoffman: See, that is yet to be determined until it gets to the City Council. There is still time to nail it down. That is my opinion. Conklin: I will call Julian and Jane Archer and ask if they will reverse how theyare doing the Bill of Assurance to what is allowed on the property to more reflect what is in the letter. Talking with them they were a little shocked when I went up there and could not find any horses running around that after all 800 years of having animals up there they had to go through this process. I am fairly confident that in talking with them I can get them to draft it in a manner that is consistent with the letter that they provided. Hoover: And that can be done before the Council meeting? Conklin: Yes, I will call them tomorrow. Shackelford: Just a follow up question for Mr. Whitaker. I had a conversation about this form with Mr. Williams in the past and it has been mentioned in this meeting that we can not require Bills of Assurances, they have to be offered. Can we go back at this point in your opinion and tell them what we want to see on the Bill of Assurance? Are we not opening ourselves up? Whitaker: I think this may be hair splitting but sometimes it is as subtle, as the essence of the whole thing. You can't say "Unless you agree to do this we won't approve your rezoning." However, there is nothing wrong now that they have offered these to saying "Well, how about this?" That is the give and take in the preliminary. The conditioning of the acceptance of the rezoning upon demands, which they would be if you termed it that way is a different story than an evenhanded arms length negotiation between the parties about what would work for both. If what I am understanding Mr. Conklin is proposing is really just clarifying what is already here. Rather than using the exclusive language or channel, number three, it would go to, excuse me, that is inclusive in a list. Number one would be exclusive and state the following is all that will be there. I think that is a fine enough distinction where you are really just trying to get detail, you're not trying to exact new demands on the applicant. Planning Commission • • April 22, 2002 Page 52 Conklin: Just one other aspect to this Bill of Assurance. When they met with City staff we did not tell them they had to do a Bill of Assurance. They asked us how, this rezoning how they could help alleviate some of the neighbor's concerns. We mentioned to them that other applicants have used a Bill of Assurance to avoid having concerns over some of the uses allowed in zoning districts and so that is exactly what I would be trying to •do is to express to them some of your concerns and say "Is there any way?" I know what they want to do. They have plans and they have it all drawn up. They would like to have some horses up on that piece of property. Thank you. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously and it will be forwarded to the City Council at their next meeting. Planning Comission m • April 22, 2002 Page 53 RZN 02-12.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Hoffman: Our next item to be up for motions or discussion is the companion item RZN 02-12.00, do I hear motions or discussion? Estes: You have motions. Hoffman: Ok, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-12.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. Everything is carried unanimously and you will be having both items at the next City Council meeting. e4/28/2002 23:35 5152434089 ARCHER PAGE 03 • • April 25, 2002 To the members of the Fayetteville City Council: We want very much to be present at the City Council meeting to which our rezoning request is being submitted, especially since the barn project and having horses is very important to us, but it would entail canceling my, Julian's, classes at Drake University where I teach, and a fast turnaround trip from Des Moines to Fayetteville for a few minutes of appearance before the council. We trust that our proposal will speak for itself and have, further, appointed as our representative Mr. Winston Winston who, as overseer of our property in Fayetteville, is knowledgeable and can answer most of the questions and concerns you may have. If you would like to visit the property before the zoning request is brought up at the May 7 Council meeting, please telephone Mr. Winston at 575-0136. He would be delighted to show you around. For your information, most of the property in question is not visible from the street, so the only possible way to see it is arrange for a visit. Sincerely, ulian Arc Jane Archer PA/28/2002 23:35 5152434089 ARCHER PAGE @4 April 25, 2002 To the members of the Fayetteville City Council: We would like to request reimbursement for one of the two $325 fees we have paid to process our rezoning request. Since the two pastures for which we are requesting rezoning from R-1 to A-1 represent one combined proposal for the Planning Staff, one set of notices, one combined hearing by the Planning Commission and the City Council with little, if any, additional effort and expense than would have been required for Just one of them, we are requesting a refund of the second $325 for the second pasture. The fee of $325 for one is already quite substantial, but $650 for essentially the same amount of work seems very steep indeed. Sincerely, ;Archer Janher 0 X Agenda Request Contract Review Grant Review STAFF REVIEW FORM For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of May 7, 2002. FROM: Tim Conklin Planning Urban Development Name Division Department ACTION REQUESTED: To approve an ordinance for RZN 02-9.00 as submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. COST TO CITY: $0 Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name Account Number Project Number BUDGET REVIEW: Budget Coordinator Funds used to date Remaining balance Program Name Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: cc in M nager Date ADA Coordinator Date torn y Date Internal Auditor Date Purchasing Officer Date STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. This item is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, April 22, 2002. Cross Reference Date �i torgeA r Dat /9/a New Item: Yes No veve Services Da e Prev Ord/Res#: Date Orig Contract Date: guy LU��- FAYETTEVItLE S THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Tim Conklin, Planning Division From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: May 30, 2002 Please find attached a copy of Ordinance No. 4392 rezoning petition RZN 02-9.00 for a parcel containing approximately 18.80 acres located at 2231 Markham Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas, as submitted by Julian and Jan Archer. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit 010 03 update Document Reference Date Ref. Taken Brief Description ORD 5212002 4392 RZN 02-9.00/2231 MARKHAM ROAD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Enter Keywords........: ORD. 4392 City of Fayetteville ndex Maintenance item- Action File Reference #....... security Class........: Expiration Date.......: Date for Cont/Referred: Name Referred to......: REZONING RZN 02-9.00 18.80 ACRES 2231 MARKHAM JULIAN AND JANE ARCHER ARCHER, JULIAN ARCHER, JANE MICROFILM 5/28/2002 15:26:19 Retention Type: **** Active **** Cmdl-Return Cmd8-Retention Cmd4-Delete Cmd3-End Press 'ENTER' to Continue Cmd5-Abstract Yes No (c) 1986-1992 Munimetrix systems Corp.