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.