Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4406 ORDINANCE NO. 4406 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02-7.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11 .94 ACRES AND LOCATED WEST OF PORTER ROAD AND NORTH OF VALLEY DRIVE, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY LINDSEY & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF MARIE FRANKIE HUGHES. 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 RMF-12, Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential 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 the 16w day of July, 2002. APPROVED: By: t62/Z DAN GOODY, Mayor � F City Clerk . Ord . 4406 EXHIBIT "A" PART OF THE SE 1/40F THE NE 1/40F SECTION 7, T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SE 1 /4 , NE 1/4 THENCE S01026100"E 117.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE N890541111E 1284.27 FEET, THENCE S0001911711E 576.70 FEET TO THE CENTER OF THE CREEK, THENCE ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID CREEK N81045'11"W 266.74 FEET, THENCE N74036106"W 184.84 FEET, THENCE N5205514"W 228.36 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID CREEK N00033108"W 270.60 FEET THENCE WEST 367.52 FEET, THENCE S01026100" E 525.11 FEET, THENCE S8904010511W 291 .00 FEET, THENCE N0102610011W 605.74 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 11 .94 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4406 CROSS REFERENCE: 07/16/02 Ordinance No. 4406 Exhibit "A" (RZN 02-7.00 approx. 11 .94 acres and located west of Porter Road and north of Valley Drive, Fayetteville, AR, as submitted by Lindsey & Associates on behalf of the Estate of Marie Frankie Hughes. 03/25/02 Planning Division Correspondence to Fayetteville Planning Commission 03/25/02 Planning Commission (Pages 15-21 ) 04/17/02 Staff Review Form 07/18/02 Memo to Tim Conklin, City Planner, from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk NOTES : ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02-7.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11.94 ACRES AND LOCATED WEST OF PORTER ROAD AND NORTH OF VALLEY DRIVE, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY LINDSEY & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF MARIE FRANKIE HUGHES. 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 RMF-12, Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential 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 12002, APPROVED: DRAFT By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk EXHIBT "Al' PART OF THE SE ''A OF THE NE '/4 OF SECTION 7, T16N5 R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SE 1 /4 , NEATHENCE SOI 026'00"E 117.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE N89054111 "E 1284.27 FEET, THENCE S00019117"E 576.70 FEET TO THE CENTER OF THE CREEK, THENCE ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID CREEK N81 °45 ' 11 "W 266.74 FEET, THENCE N74036'0635W 184.84 FEET, THENCE N52055 ' 14"W 228.36 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID CREEKN00°33'08"W 270.60 FEET THENCE WEST 367.52 FEET, THENCE SO1026100"E 525 . 11 FEET, THENCE S89040105"W 291 .00 FEET, THENCE NO1026300"W 605 .74 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 11 .94 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. 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: March 25, 2002 RZN 02-7.00: Rezoning (Lindsey Properties, pp 402) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property owned by the estate of Marie Frankie Hughes, Pauline Millsap, Administrator. The subject tract is located west of Porter Road and north of Valley Drive. The property is zoned R-1 , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11 .94 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF- 12, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning with the Bill of Assurance offered by the prospective developer based on the findings included as part of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: March 25, 2002 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: Anril 16, 2002 (1" reading) H..*IUSERSICOM1SNONIDAHN7IREPORMPCI2002 REPOR7SILINDSEYRZN02-7.DOC Comments: BACKGROUND: The subject property is located west of Porter Road, south of Megan Drive and north of Wedington Drive (Hwy 16W). The applicant is proposing to purchase the subject property in addition to adjacent property which is currently zoned R- 1 and is not a part of the requested rezoning. A development including both multi-family and single family dwellings is the goal of this rezoning request. During the past several months, the applicant has met with the neighborhood association in which the property is located. Through these meetings and discussions, the neighborhood has been introduced to the developer's plans and the developer has had an opportunity to better understand concerns of the area residents. A bill of assurance has been offered by this applicant which provides for screening, a maximum density and other terms and conditions for a development which would result from a successful rezoning (see attached). Rezoning the property from R- I to RMF- 12 will increase the maximum density permitted by ordinance from 47 units to 143 units. In the applicant's bill of assurance, the number of multi- family dwellings for this tract is limited to 108 units (9 — 12 unit apartment buildings). Surrounding properties include single family residences, a non-conforming mobile home park, and apartments. There is a substantial amount of property within this site which is affected by floodplain and floodway. At the time of development, specific issues such as lot size, access and grading will have to be addressed concerning these areas. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Vacant / Single family homes, R- 1 South: Single family homes / Mobile home park, R- 1 East: Single family homes, R- 1 West: Apartments / Vacant, R-2 & R- 1 INFRASTRUCTURE: This property is located north of Wedington Drive (Hwy 16W) which has recently been H.WSERSICOMMOMDA WN71REPOR7SIPCI2001 REPORTSILINDSEYRZN01-7.DOC improved to five lanes in this area. Access to Wedington Drive from the subject tract is from Porter Road. Porter Road is classified a collector on the City' s adopted Master Street Plan. At the time of development, dedication of sufficient right of way as well as possible improvements or contributions for Porter Rd. will be addressed. Access to water is available along Porter Rd. and an 8" sewer line is located on site. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring that adequate utility facilities are extended to the site to serve any proposed development. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to RMF- 12, Moderate Density Multi-family Residential is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF 1 . 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. The City's adopted General Plan 2020 specifies that "this land use plan establishes a policy for residential areas to be planned as traditional neighborhoods containing a mix of different densities, housing types, and lot sizes." 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in that it is consistent with adopted land use plans and policies of the City. It is needed in order to provide a development in this location which is designed to provide a mix of housing types and densities as proposed by this developer. 3 . A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning will provide for an increase in potential traffic, however with conditions placed at the time of development as needed for street improvements and connectivity, the increase is not expected to appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion in this area. Access to Wedington Drive (Hwy 16W) connecting to 1-540 is available from this subject property by way of Porter Road. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density H. IUSERMCOMMOMDA WMREPORTSIPC12001 REPORTSILLNDSEYRZN02-IDOC and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: The proposed zoning will allow for a more dense population on the subject 11.94 acres. The requested RMF-12 district would allow for a total of 143 units. The applicant has offered a Bill of Assurance limiting this number to 108. With current zoning in place (R-1) the property would allow for a total of 47 dwelling units. The increase contemplated with this rezoning should not undesirably increase the load on public services. Additional consideration to access and use of public services (water, sewer and street systems) will be reviewed at the time of development of the subject property. 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 tinder b ( 1 ) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A H. IUSERSICOMMOMDA NNnREPOR7SIPC11001 REPORTSIUNDSEYRZN02-7.DOC BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification , the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, Cornerstone Apartments, Phase II, a Limited Partnership (hereinafter "Petitioner") , hereby voluntarily offers this Bill of Assurance and 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 reasonably 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 single-family and multifamily residential use. 2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are limited to nine 12-unit apartment buildings and no more than ten single- family lots. 3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon Petitioner's property include: 4 . Any other terms or conditions: a. Petitioner's property shall revert back to R-1 zoning in the event Petitioner elects not to develop the property for multifamily use. b. Petitioner will install a 6' wooden privacy fence, a 6' wrought iron fence or a privet hedge along the north side of Petitioner's property. The choice of design may be selected by a majority of adjoining property owners on Megan Drive, but the installation must be uniform along the property line. c. Petitioner will establish covenants for the single-family portion of the development that are compatible with covenants for the Megan Drive addition . d . Petitioner will plant twenty 6' Loblolly Pine trees along the south boundary as a buffer for residents of Valley Drive. e. The preliminary plat and Large Scale Development for Cornerstone Apartments, Phase II and the associated single-family development will be submitted simultaneously. f. Within two years after approval of Petitioner's large scale development, Petitioner will have either commenced construction of houses on the single-family lots or will have listed the lots for sale. 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 WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated above, I , James Earl Lindsey, President of Cornerstone Apartments Management Company, Inc. , the General Partner of Cornerstone Apartments, Phase II , a Limited Partnership, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign my name below. CORNERSTONE APARTMENTS, PHASE ll , A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: CORNERSTONE APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC . , ITS GENERAL PARTNER BY: `� James Earl Lindsey, President 1165 Joyce Boulevard Fayetteville, AR 72703 Date: 3 — / 9 — d Z NOTARY OATH STATE OF ARKANSAS ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON And now on this ( 9 f�- day of 2002 , appeared before me, James Earl Lindsey, President of Cornerstone Apartments Management Company, Inc., the General Partner of Cornerstone Apartments, Phase II, a Limited Partnership, and after being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that he agreed with the terms of the Bill of Assurance and signed his name above. My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL SEAL tart' Ilc JOY L. HOOPS NOTARY PUBLIC ARKANSAS WASHINGTON COUNTY MY COMM. EXPIRES 8 - 1 2004 ASBO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSO1ION 2615 Megan Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 This is a summary of the "vote " of the Asbell neighbors regarding the proposed rezoning and development of RZN 02-7.00, located west of Porter Road and north of Valley Drive. The vote was taken by phone after the meeting on February 7, 2002, between Lindsey Management and the Asbell neighbors at Calvary Baptist Church. The meeting was open for all residents of the Asbell area who resided or owned property within the boundaries of the neighborhood association. The meeting was advertised three weeks prior to the meeting to association members and 5 to 7 days before the meeting to the neighborhood by canvassing door-to-door with flyers. We realize there is nothing binding in this vote. It is presented to you, the planning commissioners for the City of Fayetteville, simply to give you an idea of the opinion of the neighborhood about this rezoning and development. Feb. 7 Meeting — 57 people attending For Against Abstain Unknown* Total Present 38 12 5 2 Total (including ANA members not present) 59 14 16 14 The following results are a breakdown of the above results of the streets in the neighborhood most affected by the proposal. The numbers do not add up to the totals listed below since they only include certain areas or streets of the neighborhood. For Megan Drive 10 Stable/Arthur Hart/ Houston 10 Porter Holly Hatfield/Valley Lawson 7 10 5 8 Against 2 0 Abstain 0 2 Unknown* 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 * "Unknown" means the people were either at the meeting and/or association members but could not be reached for a vote. 0 a w 0 RMOM100 LINDSEY PROPERTIES Future Landuse Future Landuse i y7 Parks Private Open Specs Residential Mixed Use Once Historic Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 0 Regional Commercial rmercral �°' ti ° University n ® o-. Legend Subject Property Streets Boundary RZN02-07.00 'N._ Existing '�'., Planning Area C6 . Planned o 8ao0o Overlay District 000000 City Limits 0 125 250 1,000 5 Feet R1NO2-01.00 LINDSEY PROPERTIES One Mile View LLLL`"` IC ,R1' r. r. 'v Al - R 7 ILL r loo 2 I V ''^' ", Iw1ri .tai . vlRi r :�a I r is o A'9 o°I 4 1 '..rill°° o° l m �� r�°RroTI��L=y o a b6f74l4YKi 0 x' _ �. t ° I"" t?i _ am_ , P-7. -yn :. k- AA , o c ° ° to p a J -t 01 o 1 1 LL R A'ri. r . .,'I r' OC o - I rPdRF4 M1 R-4.5 a 7 5 x ' - -i}-{- •/ R 1 9 R 1 p.1 000°° I Ryf { 4._,L -s R.}5'- � .... ... A Ra RQ v a 2o`i R2 ��I P uARVAN 1 1 _ _ &.7_ �ry A -J QaLF9Y-AIE SII 141 _�+ Ro- rRt-iR-, :Ti1--_.. , ` ..' . _ �i r I IiT R-2 '1Rx R_}5�al/' -{ A'J ' a _ -.. I 1^ 1 n'-- ^ Rd.5. - .ix R.3 } -r t 'rR+Y' f'. v 'R'J _ Subject f roperty r i. `al b b Op HENDR7xi5T ,R-1 StlALEST r '—'-1475 --y— T. dalEWN 00. t, .hT ice- .inr, aL wTiQMEDRTRD 1 R -y d' _ _ Ram I_ !_._._ r 1 �O C. ° �r O'q [. y �' w, 'Pvl 11MES S7:. Gi Y u o ,, C x r.-• - xTTTE ¢ - „° " Rx o H _ t e 2 -% iti.3 R -I LR�' IRSx ! P� R- -R-.J ,.'., `.r i ) R S A ems.+ tJi.t rl' fl, •f s•� 1; ro� ,. ...zzz��� 0 6M RA DN >nR 1 . R� . _ Gi °° a \ R t RA • a ' y' f≤ �• R-1 _ s r oR-2 ° iR° 1 BERRY T SERRY STBER0. tiN-'wy�iV.'Y y'Jt .: I`I r117RO R2 , r1 ;a°/22 N i ° is I �'f'IDSLS. �, Jii z€ z'- IJ I.f °° I co ° 1 r' s 4�ipI'.Rf�i• 'R 3h i'I ,' nO x ori,r J!_4 1,163fsfrs 4' o ARCHE i I r I ,1 c� s rs J R -t 0 3 LORENCIR a'A _...__._ MAPLE S,L EX CIRi- <IR1. Rt o O > 1 0 i'y O R'7 i T {i O 1 ry O 1 0 k °o wMI�LSFL4 Ro, I 17l 0 1 o w H o S ° FVANGALINp f IT 0 rl a R7 _7- i o l., o ,I c MARK A RD ', I- P i .. ° ".- R I. 41 P. xN ° 1 ° ° o?C VIII ti o: I °o M o V'f - PRATr -R-t ^^c . 1 Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master " Street Plan RZN02-07.00 ""'.„h Planning Area - �.;:,r Freeway/Expressway ,7 I 0 01 Overlay District %j Principal Arterial Streets 000000 City Limits Minor Arterial �► O Outside City 0 Collector ----.i/�Plannad e • 0 eee Historic Collector U _ Planning Commission • • March 25, 2002 Page 15 RZN 02-7.00: Rezoning (Lindsey Properties, pp 402) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property owned by the estate of Marie Frankie Hughes, Pauline Millsap, Administrator. The subject tract is located west of Porter Road and north of Valley Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.94 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number four. This is the first item of new business. This is RZN 02-7.00, submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property owned by the estate of Marie Frankie Hughes, Pauline Millsap, Administrator. The subject tract is located west of Porter Road and north of Valley Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.94 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning with the Bill of Assurance offered by the perspective developer based on the findings that are included as a part of your materials. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Lindsey: I am Lindy Lyndsey. Mr. Chair and fellow Commissioners, we've got Cornerstone Properties, which is just west of this sixteen acres and we are wanting to put 108 units of apartments and 9-10 single family dwelling units. When I first talked to Tim Conklin about this he advised me to contact Mr. Richard Maynard, who is the president of the Asbell Neighborhood Association and at that time he helped us out and we had several meetings with the neighbors. We put this, I want to say a special thank you to Richard for all the work that he has done with us. He stayed neutral in his stance, he got us a meeting. He hand delivered all kinds of stuff to the neighbors and really did a good job for us. We had a meeting with the neighbors and it went really well. We covered a lot of items and are just bringing that forward to you all. Estes: Thank you Mr. Lindsey. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this rezoning request, 02-7.00? If so, would you please come forward, state your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Maynard: My name is Richard Maynard. I live at 1717 Sang Ave. I am here on behalf of the Asbell Neighborhood Association, the other partner in this. We certainly appreciate being appreciated and Mr. Lindsey's remarks. I just want to explain something about this meeting that we had on February 7`h and I think the uniqueness of it. To the best of my knowledge, this kind of meeting has never happened before it went to city planning or before it went to this board. What did happen was Mr. Conklin had Planning Commission • • March 25, 2002 Page 16 advised Mr. Lindsey that it might be a good idea to talk to the neighborhood. He called me and I said I think the best thing to do would be having the neighborhood meeting. He said good, how do we go about that, what do I need to do? I basically told him he didn't need to do anything but show up. That is basically what we do here as a Neighborhood Association, we do provide that dialogue between the city, the neighbors, the developer. They came on February 7a', presented to us what they wanted to do. There was time for questions, there were a lot of good questions asked, the right questions were asked. After they left we took a straw vote, we even talked about maybe having a follow-up meeting, if people needed to talk about it more. The neighbors said they didn't think that was necessary. We took a straw vote, it was overwhelmingly in favor of this development and afterwards, not to just go on that, there was a task that I thought I could do in an afternoon of calling 90 people and seeing how they felt about this. The problem I had with it is it took hours and hours. What was interesting about this is that everybody was very charged. People didn't just want to say yes or say no, they wanted to say why they were saying yes or saying no to this, what their reasons were. They were excited about being involved in this process. I hope it is a process that we keep encouraging but not really demanding. I do have a copy of this and I want to say something about this vote. I asked Mr. Estes if I could and he said I could. This is about the roll of Neighborhood Associations in these meetings. We took a vote, we absolutely understand that this is not a binding vote, we are not regulatory bodies, we have no statutory authority, all this is is just to get a measure of the will of the neighborhood on how they feel about something going on in their neighborhood. If I may Mr. Chairman, I do have a result of that, copies for you, can I bring those up? Estes: Yes, please pass them to the clerk. Maynard: Just a couple more things. I know you have a heavy agenda tonight. The first line there is the total number of people at that meeting, 57. How many voted for and against. If you belong to the neighborhood association you have the right to vote whether you attend the meeting or not so that is the total vote and then these at the bottom, just for your information, incase you are interested, how it broke down street by street to those streets that would be most effected such as Megan Drive or Stable and Arthur Hart. I would like to say one thing about why I think this had such overwhelming support. I guess particularly since we raised such a stink 2 '/2 years ago about other apartments that were going in our neighborhood. In fact, one person, a member of our board, voted against it for the very reason that she said I know this is going to come back to bite us. I said she was right, the attempt would come back to bite us. Why would we not want to give up R-1 property two years ago, but this time we Planning Commission • • March 25, 2002 Page 17 do. I think you folks know as well as we do, every development is different. Every proposal is different. There is nothing similar between those two developments outside the fact that they were apartments. Almost everything else was different. The consensus of those present, or members of the ANA in general, was that of course we would like to see more single family residences in the neighborhood but we don't believe that will happen in this particular 16 acres. Primarily given the amount of fill it would take to lift the and above the floodplain. It just wouldn't be cost effective. Our Vice President, who is here, is a builder himself. He looked at that land at one time possibly to do duplexes and he absolutely passed on it, he just didn't think he could make it work. We figure something is going to go in there, it probably will be apartments, if it is going to be apartments, we would rather it be a Lindsey development. At least we know what we are getting. Especially since this is basically an extension of their Cornerstone apartments directly to the west and it will certainly look better than what is there now, which looks more like a junkyard if you have ever seen that property. That is not my opinion. That is what I heard from the people who I talked to after the meeting. I would also like to add that this is an agreement, whether this means anything to you or not is another thing. It means a lot to us. This is an agreement between Lindsey & Associates and this neighborhood. Had it been another developer, had the example that we had been what was going to go in there for example what is sitting on the comer now at Dean and Porter I could almost guarantee you that the vote would have gone almost four to one the other way. The neighborhood is basically saying that we trust this developer and we appreciate the fact that they showed us the common courtesy and respect to us as property owners and residence to consult with us first about the change they are proposing for our neighborhood, which any zoning definitely is. It wasn't just their coming to talk to us that got the support of 80% of the neighborhood. The neighbors that thought this was not a good development for the neighborhood, they would have thanked the Lindseys but said no thanks. The Lindseys would have been well within their rights, as you know, to present their plans to the board. At least then everyone would know what we were talking about instead of what has happened so often in the past. It certainly happened with me in the past, you've come to oppose something that you are not quite sure what you are opposing. That certainly wasn't the case here. Just a couple of other points I want to make on this. That is basically just how we felt. Just some things that I have heard through the grapevine around the city about what the roll of Neighborhood Associations in these development plans. I certainly do not pretend to speak for my neighborhood. I only speak for the Neighborhood Association, I think that is an important distinction and I certainly pretend to speak for another Neighborhood Association but how we, in the Asbell Neighborhood Association, see ourselves as simply offering the forum for Planning Commission • • March 25, 2002 Page 18 a developer or the city to come and talk directly to the neighbors. Our role in this doesn't change anything else in place. We could be 100% behind the development and you might find for whatever reason that you don't want to approve it or vice versa, we recognize that. We respect that fact, we are not trying to replace anything. I think if more and more of these meetings happen however, you are going to find less and less of these contentious arguments being played out here before you and the City Council and you having to be forced to be judge and jury and always knowing you are going to make somebody unhappy. This is simply allowing neighbors and what I call potential neighbors to get together and talk and we did it without government help, without the help of lawyers or without their interference. We did it on our own to try to work out our problems instead of running to government anytime you have one. That is how we see our role in this, it is certainly not to replace any other public forum. As I said, it was 80% in favor. That means there were 20% against this and pretty vocally against this. They may have something to say here and they certainly should be listened to. Just a couple of things I want to say about the Bill of Assurance. All of these items, except for one were offered to us by the Lindseys. This was nothing that we had to negotiate and certainly we were not positioning ourselves as negotiators. Again, we were just providing the forum. I think the only thing we ask is that the homes that they offer, that they do be built, that is item F and item A, that the property shall revert back to R-1 zoning in the event the petitioner elects not to develop the property for multi -family use. I understand at least, Mr. Williams can correct me if I am wrong. Should that happen, I think that is an off chance but if they decide not to go through with this, we understand for that zoning to go back to R-1, that would have to go through this board and probably back to the City Council, is that correct? It couldn't just automatically revert? Williams: I think that is probably correct. It s a legislative action so it would probably have to go back to the City Council. Maynard: The reason that I brought it up is I just wanted to mention that is, again, what they suggested to us. That is an agreement between Lindsey & Associates and the Asbell Neighborhood Association and we hope if that should happen, I doubt that it will, but if that should happen that you would respect that agreement. One big concern here is of course, traffic. Mr. Lindsey said they are going to do what they can to work with us to help mitigate that. Certainly there will be more traffic on Porter Road. As Mr. Lindsey said, you are just going to have to reconcile that fact. Most people, in large, did reconcile that fact. The one thing we will not reconcile and we should not have to reconcile of course is the drainage. I have said this to Mr. Lindsey, I've said this to Tim Conklin, I have said it to Greg Boettcher, I've said it to the Mayor and I am going to say it to you Planning Commission • March 25, 2002 Page 19 folks. The drainage is a big worry, it is a huge worry for us and I think it is for this neighborhood. The neighborhood feels, from past experience, that there is just a high degree of skepticism with the city that it won't be done right, given what happened when Wedington Road was widened. And given what happened when that big dam that we call I-540 was built with not enough culverts under it. It created tremendous drainage problems for people in that neighborhood. I am not implying that the Lindseys would do anything or cut any comers. I don't know what else to do other than ask you, plead with you, please, please, please make sure that this is done right in terms of the drainage. If this were to go wrong and people were starting to bail themselves out, I'm not talking about a repeat of the 1980 flood where we will all be on our roofs. This just has to be done right and it should be done right. The fact that it hasn't been done right in the past, and I hope you can appreciate that people are very skeptical but willing to trust once again. Given our meeting, given the will of the neighborhood, we support this development and we hope you approve it. Thank you for your time. Estes: Thank you Richard. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring the matter back to the Commission for discussions, motions or comments. Mr. Petrie, would you please comment on the drainage issue, in particular, what requirements are -there regarding predevelopment flows and post development flows? Petrie: When we do have a large scale development presented, the one item the Engineering Division will be checking is to ensure that the post development flows will equal the predevelopment flows. That is the ordinance requirements and that is what we enforce. Estes: Thank you Mr. Petrie. Are there any other comments? Shackelford: A question for staff. The Bill of Assurance form that we've been given, is that a form that the city provides to the applicant? Conklin: That is a form that the City does provide if a Bill of Assurance is going to be offered to us. Shackelford: Ok, I was questioning number three, specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property to include and that is blank. Is that filled in at a later time? Conklin: They are not offering anything for number three. Shackelford: Ok, I just wanted to make sure I was reading that correctly. v u Planning Commission • • March 25, 2002 Page 20 Williams: Loren, I created this draft Bill of Assurance because in the past there were a number of Bills of Assurances offered by different developers. They didn't include rights of the city to enforce the Bill of Assurance or other problems so I felt like if we had a draft Bill of Assurance that I felt was enforceable then I would be able to tell you or the City Council that we in fact, did have a Bill of Assurance and therefore, I did draft up something. I simply had number three there where it says specific activities will not be allowed to include; because there might be certain times that that would be applicable but because it is not filled out now it just means that this was not one of those times. Shackelford: Ok, by the fact that it is blank, we just read that to mean that there are no restrictions in that area. Williams: That is correct. Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any discussion or any motions? Motion: Man: I will move for approval and recommendation to the City Council, the rezoning 02-7.00 based on our staff report and the attached Bill of Assurance that goes with this item. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Man to approve RZN 02-7.00, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any discussion? Hoffman: I just want to commend both parties for doing their homework ahead of time. It really indeed does make our job much easier and I would like that those of you in the audience who might be here on other contentious projects and those of you that may be watching tonight, take due note of this. It really does do wonders to be able to sit down across the table from each other and work things out. Thank you both. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Hoffman. We have a motion by Commissioner Man and a second by Commissioner Shackelford for approval of RZN 02- 7.00, is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02-7.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission • • March 25, 2002 Page 21 Estes: The motion to passes unanimously. RZN 02-7.00 will be forwarded to the Fayetteville City Council with a do pass recommendation by the Planning Commission. Thank you Mr. Lindsey. Theresa M; Bechaud c/o Countrywide Home Loans 4004 N. College, Suite F. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Franky Joe & william J. Hackler 2418 Valley Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Elizabeth W. Landgraf 2426 Valley Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 William D. & Gayle Mckenzie 2440 Valley Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Lois Taylor 2452 Valley Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Vonda Kay Cook 2464 Valley Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Barbara E. Fitzpatrick & Natalie Karnes 2500 Valley Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Ijf n99 S4P�.f��i£ Yom= t� xj -r ... William T, Flynt 11332 W. Reed Valley Rd. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Carl & Sharon Myers 3129 Skillern Rd. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 i H. & Billie J. Stewart 1 Megan Dr. etteville. AR. 72703 Ronald G. & Krystyna j. Harland 2425 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Odell & Danita Ralston 2441 W. Megan Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Brian H. & Cindy A. Tippit 2453 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Victor M. Linares 2471 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Bethel M. Spencer 2485 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Christina E. & Deborah W. Thomas P.O. Box 1366 Fayetteville, AR. 72702 Christopher A. & Mary Jo Tucker 2517 Megan Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Susan Lee Carter 2531 Megan Dr. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Walter R.& Majorie N. Niblock P.O. Box 182 Fair ttP�;t�, R 7' W (Deborah Sexton Box 953 ayetteville, AR. 72702 r ._ Robert D. ------=— -- L—_ & Beulah F. Taylor 2577 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Christopher O. Mcclung 2591 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72703 James E. & Sue E. Devore 2615 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Troy A & Holli H. Kestner 1240 Porter Rd. Fayetteville, AR. 72703 Arnold D. Jacqueline S. King 1876 Holly Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Cynthia O.Grosse 2647 Megan Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Carl M. & Norma J. Osborn 3048 Straw Berry Fayetteville, AR. 72703 I Jesse D. Luper I Mrs. Everett Luper 1310 Porter Rd. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Jeff T. Mattie L. Black & Bettye S. Ross 5585 S. Sheiffer Rd. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Calvary Baptist Church 1410 Porter Rd. Fayetteville, AR. 72704 STAFF REVIEW FORM • X AGENDA REQUEST CONTRACT REVIEW GRANT REVIEW For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of April 17, 2002. Tim Conklin Planning Urban Development Name Division Department ACTION REQUIRED: To approve an ordinance for RZN 02-7.00 as submitted by Lindsey & Associates on behalf of the Estate of Marie Frankie Hughes for property located west of Porter Road and north of Valley Drive, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.94 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-12, Moderate Density Family Residential. COST TO CITY: Cost of this Request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name Account Number Funds Used To Date Program Name Project Number Remaining Balance Fund BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached Budget Manager Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: Accounting Manager Date Internal Auditor Date City orney watqZ Q L ADA Coordinator Date Purchasing Officer Date STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on March 25, 2002 the Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to recommend approval and to forward the rezoning to the City Council. Division Head Date Cross Reference y�-ov New Item: Yes Date Prev Ord/Res N: Date Orig Contract Date: Orig Contract Number: Lonse'M ite-o FAYETTEVItLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIIIE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDEN To: Tim Conklin, City Planner From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: July 18, 2002 Please find attached a copy of Ordinance No. 4406 rezoning property described in RZN 02-7.00, approximately 11.94 acres and located west of Porter Road and north of Valley Drive, Fayetteville, Arkansas, as submitted by Lindsey & Associates on behalf of the Estate of Marie Frankie Hughes. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit k 'UBLICATION do solemnly swear that I am gazette newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: 7 _was inserted in the regular editions on 7, ** Publication Charge: $ 15-34" Subscribed and sworn to before me this Ii day of d V Notary Publi My Commis M �i0ri ess: wA H NG ON COUNTY „ M Co mi 1ffl5rHiFffd�it An invoice will be sent. RECEIVED N0V 1 3 2002 CITY OF FAYE1TEv,__e CITY CLERICS OFFICE IEZONING PETITION RnN 02-7.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11.94 ACRES AND LOCATED WEST OF PORTER ROAD AND NORTH OF VALLEY DRIVE. FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMTTTEO BY UNDSEY 8 ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF MARIE ��V �aa FPANKIEUG , HHES. CityottFayetteviile'. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THE OF FCITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,�AgI(ANS4,R That � Section 1: at the we ciCCRBcetbn of the g desOmed property b hereby cherpad asfolbwa: From R-1, Low DensRy ResdeMlel to RMF-12. Moderate Dena y Mual-Fenny Residential as shown In ExhIM -A- atterhed hereto and made a pert hereof. That the official boning map of the Ctty of FayetteMe, Arl®roaa, Is hereby amended to reflect change provided In Section 1 above. xi APPROVED tN s the 16th day of JUy, 2002. ExI BrT A' PART OF THE SE - OF THE NE _ OF SECTION 7, II 6N, R30W IN WASHWGTON COUNTY; ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID BE 1/4, NE - THENCE S0V26'00'E 117.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNINQ THENCE NB9'54'11'E 1284.27 FEET, THENCE S00 °1917'E 576.70 FEET TO THE CENTER OF THE CREEK, THENCE ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID CREEK N81.4511 W 266.74 FEET, THENCE N7436'06W 184.84 FEET, THENCE N52055.14W 228,36 FEEL THENCE LEAVING SAID CREEK N00'3308W 270.60 FEET THENCE WEST 367.52 FEET, THENCE S01°26.00 -E 525.11 FEET, THENCE S89°4005W 291.00 FEE[ THENCE N01°26'00W 605.74 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 11.94 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF P6tCOR1) j. 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETI-EVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700 010 03 City f Fayetteville update 16ndex Maintenance • Document item Action 7/23/2002 13:59:44 Reference Date Ref. Taken Brief Description ORD 7162002 4406 RZN 02-7.00/PORTER RD -VALLEY DRIVE Enter Keywords........: ORD. 4406 REZONIGN RZN 02-7.00 11.94 ACRES PORTER ROAD VALLEY DRIVE LINDSEY & ASSOCIATES ESTATE HUGHES. MARIE FRANKIE File Reference #......: security Class........: Expiration Date.......: Date for Cont/Referred: Name Referred to......: MICROFILM 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.