HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4410 ORDINANCE NO. 4410
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 02-17.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 21 .03 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF DEANE STREET,
WEST OF SANG AVENUE, AND EAST OF PORTER AVENUE,
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVE JORGENSEN
OF JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF BLEAUX BARNES
AND SAM MATHIAS.
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-6, Low 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 20th day of August, 2002.
APPROVED: o
M
:t7z
oBy. `D �DAN COODY, y r
tai • 'k �; 4t \'�\\1 U) C` %n C)
A, o
Ln
• - i
AT
By 04
er4�oodruff, City CeK
2Q x2'' 171 391
1p Ord . 4410
EXHIBIT "A"
PART OF THE NW 1/40F THE NW 1/40F SECTION 8 AND PART OF THE SW 1/40F THE
SW 1/40F SECTION 5, ALL IN T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE SW CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 NW I/4 THENCE N00005124"W 330.00 FEET, THENCE
N89059'09"E 35.00 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N00005'24"W 327.97 FEET, THENCE
N89055102"E 588.66 FEET, THENCE N00001'30"E 659.78 FEET, THENCE N89059'07"E
51 .97 FEET, THENCE N00004'3211W 309.45 FEET, THENCE N87025156"E 476.84 FEET,
THENCE S00003151"W 991 .07 FEET, THENCE S89007'23"E 152.87 FEET, THENCE
S000371911W 325.72 FEET, THENCE 589059109"W 1264.55 FEET TO THE P.O. B.;
CONTAINING 21 .03 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF
WAY OF RECORD.
2Q 3 ? ? ? ? 392
I, Bette Btampa, Circuit Clerk and Ex-offido Reoord�r
kr Wal ing�On C9Unty, Prkansaa, do hereby ceri
that tMe Ine Ument wee filed for record in my o5r:�, as
Indicated hereon and the lama is now duty recorded
with the acknowledgement and cer!",cws there:;n
In Record Sock and Rage as indicated thrreon.
IN *7 NESS WHEREOF, ' have herer:nto s nlV
hand and affixed the seal of said Uua on the oae inai-
cated he
Bett Stamps
Cir Clerk an F -0 .i Reeo•der
by —_..--
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4410
CROSS REFERENCE:
08/20/02 Ordinance No. 4410
Exhibit "A" (RZN 02- 17.00)(Approximately 21 .03 acres located south of
2 Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue, and east of Porter Avenue,
Fayetteville, Arkansas, as submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen &
Associates on behalf of Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias)
�j 07/08/02 Planning Division Correspondence
07/08/02 Planning Commission Minutes (pages 26-32)
S 09/13/99 Planning Commission Minutes (pages 3- 12)
b 10/05/99 City Council Minutes (pages 7- 11)
10/19/99 City Council Minutes (pages 3-8)
g 11/02/99 City Council Minutes (page 2)
G� 11/16/99 City Council Minutes (pages 3-4)
�p 07/22/02 Revised Bill of Assurance
08/06/02 Staff Review Form
/ 08/21/02 Memo to Tim Conklin, Planning Division, from Heather Woodruff, City
Clerk
NOTES :
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02-17.00 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 21.03 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF
DEANE STREET, WEST OF SANG AVENUE, AND EAST OF PORTER
AVENUE, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVE
JORGENSEN O)F JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF BLEAUX
BARNES AND SAM MATHIAS.
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-6, Low 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 92002.
APPROVED: DRAFT
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST: D^K N��
By:
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
4p
EXHIBIT "A"
PART OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW '/< OF SECTION 8 AND PART OF THE SW '/4 OF THE S W
/< OF SECTION 5, ALL IN T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE SW
CORNER OF SAID NW '/< NW %< THENCEN00°05 '24"W 330.00FEET, THENCE N89°59'09"E
35 .00 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N00005724"W 327.97 FEET, THENCE N8905510295E
588.66 FEET, THENCE N00001130"E 659.78 FEET, THENCE N89059'0731E 51 .97 FEET,
THENCE N00004'32"W 309.45 FEET, THENCE N87025 ' 56"E 476.84 FEET, THENCE
S00003 '51 "W 991 .07 FEET, THENCE S89007'23"E 152.87 FEET, THENCE S00037' 19"W 325 .72
FEET, THENCE S89059509"W 1264.55 FEET TO THE P.O.B. ; CONTAINING 21 .03 ACRES
MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02-17.00 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 21 .03 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF
DEANE STREET, WEST OF SANG AVENUE, AND EAST OF PORTER
AVENUE, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVE
JORGENSEN OF JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF BLEAUX
BARNES AND SAM MATHIAS.
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-6, Low 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 , 2002.
APPROVED:
DRAFT/yrCT
By: K
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: K
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
PART OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW /40F SECTION 8 AND PART OF THE SW '/4 OF THE SW
'/4 OF SECTION 5, ALL IN T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SW
CORNER OF SAID NW '/4 NW '/4 THENCE N000051249'W 330.00 FEET, THENCE N89059'09"E
35 .00 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N00005724"W 327.97 FEET, THENCE N89055 '02"E
588.66 FEET, THENCE N00001930"E 659.78 FEET, THENCE N8905990759E 51 .97 FEET,
THENCE N00004'3271W 309.45 FEET, THENCE N87025956"E 476.84 FEET, THENCE
S00003151 "W 991 .07 FEET, THENCE S89007'23"E 152.87 FEET, THENCE S00037' 19"W 325.72
FEET, THENCE S89059' 09"W 1264.55 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 21 .03 ACRES
MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD.
so
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
DATE: July 8, 2002
RZN 02-17.00: Rezoning (Mathias/Barnes, pp 364/403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south
of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low
Density Residential and contains approximately 21 .03 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-6,
Low Density Multi-Family Residential.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as
part of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: July 8, 2002
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: August 6, 2002
Comments:
H:1 USERSICOMMOMREPORTYiPCREPOR7SIOO2 jutylmathias_nnO2-/7dm
N M
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located north of Wedington Drive and south of Deane Street, east of the I-
540 bypass in a residential area which consists of many different housing types and densities.
The University of Arkansas' Experimental Farm is located north of the property.
The applicant has requested to rezone this 21 .03 acre tract from R- 1 , Low Density Residential to
RMF-6, Low Density Multi-family Residential. The requested zoning designation would permit
the development of townhomes (attached dwellings that may be sold individually) as well as
duplexes and other attached units.
The property has potential to provide access to three main traffic routes in the area (Deane Street,
Porter Rd. and Sang Ave.).
The applicant has offered a bill of assurance with this request which addresses the configuration
of various structures within the development as well as screening and greenspace provisions.
This bill of assurance has been discussed with the Asbell Neighborhood Association. The
applicant has had several conversations with representatives from that organization during the
process of compiling materials for this rezoning request.
In 1999, a portion of this property (11 .64 acres which did not adjoin Sang Ave. or Porter Rd.)
was the subject of a rezoning request. The applicant at that time sought to rezone the property to
R-2, Medium Density Residential and to develop an apartment complex. Staff did recommend
approval of the request and the Planning Commission voted 5-2-0 to recommend the request to
the City Council. The neighborhood was very concerned about traffic and drainage issues
relating to the proposal. The City Council did not approve the rezoning. Minutes from Planning
Commission and City Council meetings regarding the 1999 request are included with this report.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North: U of A Experimental Farm, outside city
South: Residential, R- 1
East: Residential, R- 1
West: Residential, R- I & R-2
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: This project is between Porter Rd. (classified a collector on the Master Street
Plan) and Sang Street (a local street) on the south. The property also extends to
the north and adjoins Deane Street (classified a minor arterial on the Master Street
Plan).
H:I USERSICOMMOMREPORMPCREPOM 2001Vu1y1mathias_nn01.17doc
Water: 8" line along Sang Ave.
12" line along Deane St.
Sewer: Available on Sang Ave., Porter Rd. and to the north of the subject property
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property
to RMF-6, Low 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. This rezoning
specifically addresses the guiding policies within the General Plan regarding
Residential Areas. This section states in part "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 zoning is needed in order for the property to be developed as proposed
by the applicant. The property is currently zoned R-1 and may be developed
with single family lots meeting the bulk and area requirements set forth in
the Unified Development Ordinance for that zoning district.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: . The proposed zoning will not appreciably increase traffic danger and
congestion. Initial proposals by the applicant indicate street connections to
Porter Rd., Sang Ave. and Deane Street. Having multiple access points will
encourage the disbursement of traffic within the development.
Development of the property under current R-1 zoning would generate
approximately 805 vehicle trips per day (vpd) according to Institute of
Traffic Engineer's (ITE) software.
Under the applicant's proposal with RMF-6 zoning, the project would
generate approximately 738 vpd.
H:I USERSICOMMOMREPOR7SIPCREPORTS2002 1ju1y1ma1hias_rzn02-/7d"
The average rates applied to these different types of development do not vary
widely and in fact they indicate that the proposed zoning would result in a
decrease in traffic from a project developed at the maximum density
permitted under the current R-1 zoning designation.
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 population density greatly and will not
undesirably increase the load on public services.
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 USERSICOMMOMREPORntPCREPOR7S2002V ulylmathias_rzn01-l7doc
M
a
Exhibit "B"
I. §161.061 DISTRICT RMF-6 LOW DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
I.
,
A. Purpose. The Low Density Multi -family Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the
development of multifamily residences at a low density that is appropriate to the area and can serve as a transition
between higher densities and single family residential areas.
B. Uses.
1. Uses Permitted.
Unit 1
City -Wide Uses'by Right
Unit 8
Single -Family Dwellings
Unit 9
Multifamily Dwellings - Medium
Density
2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission.
Unit 2
City -Wide Uses by Conditional. Use
Permit
Unit 3
Public Protection and Utility Facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and Recreational Facilities
Unit 11
Mobile Home Park
Unit 25
Professional Offices
C. Density.
Families Per Acre 4 to 6
D. Bulk and Area Regulations.
1. Lot Width Minimum.
Mobile Home Park
100 Feet
Lot within a Mobile
Home Park
50 Feet
One Family
60 Feet
Two Family
60 Feet
Three or More
90 Feet
Professional Offices
100 Feet
UrU. NO. 4JLJ
C]
40
2- Lot Area Minimum.
Mobile Home Park
3 Acres
Lot Within a Mobile
Home Park
4,200 Sq -Ft`
Row House:
Development
Individual Lot
10,000 Sq. Ft.
2,500 Sq. Ft.
Single -Family
6,000 Sq. Ft.
Two -Family
7,000 Sq. Ft.
Three or More
9,000 Sq. Ft.
Fraternity or Sorority
2 Acres
Professional Offices
I Acre
a. Land Area Per Dwelline Unit.
Mobile Home
3,000
Sq.
Ft.
Apartments:
Two or More
2,000
Sq.
Ft.
Bedrooms
One Bedroom
1,700
Sq.
Ft.
No Bedroom
1,700
Sq.
Ft.
ratemity or Sorority
F
1,000
Sq.
Ft. per
Resident
F. Yard Requirements (feet).
FRONT YARD
SIDE YARD
REAR
YARD
25
8
25
Cross Reference: Variances Chapter 156.
F. Height Regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side
boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
(Code 1991, § 160.033; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(IH); Ord. No. 2320, 4-5-77; Ord. No. 2700, 2-2-81)
•
•
M
a
Mathias / Barnes Rezoning
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
For 84.12 Dwelling Units of Single Family Det
24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 805 16 47 55 30
24 hour
Peak
Hour
Two -Way
Volume
Enter
Exit
Saturday 849
43
36
Sunday 739
39
34
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
N so
Mathias / Barnes Rezoning
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
For 126 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium!
24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 738 9 47 45 23
24 hour Peak Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit
Saturday 714 32 28
Sunday 610 28 29
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
ASBELL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
2615 Megan Drive
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
July 8, 2002
Dear Commissioners:
This is a summary of a neighborhood vote regarding the proposed rezoning and development of RZN 02-
17, located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave., and east of Porter Road. The vote was taken by
ballot following a meeting on May 23, 2002, at Calvary Baptist Church on Porter Road between Bleaux
Barnes and Sam Mathias of Mathias Properties and residents of the Asbell neighborhood. ANA members
not present at the meeting were allowed to e-mail or call in their votes later.
The meeting was open to all residents of the Asbell area who reside and/or own property within the
boundaries of the neighborhood association. The meeting was advertised three weeks in advance to
association members and 5 to 7 days in advance to residents of the neighborhood by door-to-door
canvassing with flyers. Over three hundred flyers were distributed throughout the neighborhood.
We realize there is nothing binding in this vote. It is presented to you, the Planning Commission for the
City of Fayetteville, to give you an idea of the opinion of the neighborhood about this rezoning and this
development. All but two votes were from association members.
May 23 Meeting — 33 people attending (20 households)
For Against Abstain
Total Present 29 2 0
Total (including
ANA members not
present) 42 2 3
The ANA Board voted 7-0-2 to approve.
The following is a breakdown of the above results by different blocks in the neighborhood.
For Against Abstain
Sane Ave
3
0 0
Lawson (b'twn
Sang & Porter)
10
0
1
Porter
6
0 0
Megan Drive
9
0 0
Stable/Arthur Hart/
Houston
4
0
1
Holly (Sang and Porter)
5
0 0
Hat£eld/Valley
3
0
0
Turner/Vista/Wedington
2
2
1
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (501) 442-9127 • FAX (501) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
THOMAS HENNELLY, P.E.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E.
City of Fayetteville 6/10/02
113 W. Mountian
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Att: Planning Dept.
Re: Rezone property between Porter Rd & Sang
Attached herewith please find the documents required for rezoning the above referenced
property.
The property is between Porter and Sang Street and extends to Deane Street to the north
and consists of approximately 21 acres. The owner wishes to rezone from A-1 to RMF6.
We have met with the neighbors and I believe we have their support. The property to the
west is R-2. To the east the zoning is R-1 and to the south is R-1. .
An 8" waterline exists on Sang Ave and a 12"waterline exists on Deane Street. Sewer is
available on Sang, Porter and to the north.
If this property is rezoned, the developer wishes to develop a subdivision which will
have a street running east -west connecting sang and Porter Street and also a street to the
north connecting to Deane Street. This will insure improved traffic flow.
The developer proposes town houses on the south and patio homes on the interior of the
property. The request is to rezone from R-1 to RMF 6, which would allow 6 units per
acre. There will also be single family homes along Sang & Porter streets.
If rezoned, we will proceed with the normal process of submitting a concept plan for
parks review then the preliminary plat for review.
We do have exterior elevations of the units to be built. In addition, the developer
proposes to install 2" diameter trees along the south boundary and a privacy fence along
this south boundary line. A green space is reserved where the flood plain exists.
Please review and call me concerning any questions you may have.
Thank you,
David L. J gensen
• STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING •
ft
cos-noo
One Mile View
R-1
MATHIAS-BARNES
R'2 d> -ly� DlryWto ` LSFC
/WVEOAK faA 3
1 '. L.j2RI ON AI r ' ;:♦ - %N:Vq. -. I I l IY I NYON+?'a 0 STRANGE 5TANGE r.'r/ !eY,—rniJr.--
ci a/4t !
JC Y 1 o G-Ztd O 1 F : i3
IA! . 2 JP1LllR , . ¢ i -_-_�YYY f___ _ _ /F �' '.
21 O I AN $t
A-1 R r? 1 P -t + w _ d •' .t
WISE m • I ..i 4 cl °° C.2 I to a rJ m
viRI - .R-1, u o °1f.2 ,I tt?. U
1 ' ,>° z O F pj s F,
:I. �..} o • as L �.. °, pr—. ----,e---'--°-
o yV 0° - I L i R I
'an _.....o Lt �'w�vW 0 CM VELA St
A t . v R-2 ° $ i o.
O o
°
R1. 1.Z o + _
EAIRer S'l R'$ ..! `R. t..`yR IRZ tm, t-? �'+ t c� O°°c° Subject Property
NECK I ARD IRn7'+
- A-1 c0cc it R.1 LRAM O0.,r ..Jt. RI
R'2 -
,y t r
L' Y 'F ST :'!+R?1 If A.tr A,t j + .. R.T fj'Q 4-R2. R d .. _R r
• •R a-l� ccc j Ri Pf A°DR.- R.2
a ..il S u `�. .m 1 P.! R!
NASsnk �,-I r ' �✓if R I ` R .. ,
N • rl Ri 5 • + . t- P.1 YOu PENMIX ST R,1.5 R-2
T- ry - i O �- R' c Jo ELAN DR-Ff a - p NP CONf00.T 0.0' R-1 MENDrjIX 5{_ y/SON 5�
r dd rt
R2 I � 2 gc�r'' a+ u, - .An5DN Si raN R! Pf r R -f �1 rv66W5
-�---+ LAW$ONSr n
ic • ° ft -I aPd0LLv 51 R 1 r._ R.1 '.._: "CCO R-2 6
ft -a rw Ir c I r r R-1 CFJA0. S' RI 1e R-2y� 1.•— Rt - . e1 R 1 Rt ` 11A ST.. lw i jR 1_.
SS U VAu vDR u
- J -1L
2
tRP D0.R AY ,✓- r_ 0f.• , a,. •
OPA 0_ W J.-:.:rf
.c" 's R i .. "• P 1J 11 -
�m' ° R� i / x0000 ;! Rltr SipCM1Av L4 �� rZ. ..'RI R.-; _O
c 3 -.
w Ij RL3 ' R.3
ft4M4•:....... iR
o - _ tR:3•
A.1 R-2 1 4RGNPR
I^ vl 1 Y .. OR crn . . Ri2 R-3 R4r=y 6R-3
OSAG
1 ArvC- Rr
ST OREN CIv' !S,.--.'
,Ai`rJlir;lrl!!rl� NAro[ P.! I. a JjR.J 3
c1.. ¢ I i R P f rash-'ss�!•'
Overview Legend Boundary
Subject Property ''.,,, Planning Area Master Street Plan
- I 00cc0 Freeway/Expressway
IIY�D' RZN02-17.00 ° o Overlay District
___I o°oca_°
L _ _I City LimitstI Printipal Arterial
Streets - �• Minor Arterial
OutsitleCity
`, '\,- Existing � S - Collector
'r_..... Ao4 Planned ••••• HistoncCollector
lJ
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Mile
M
M
enrosano° MATHIAS-BARNES
Futu
.......................................
........................... ......... ............. .....
....... ........
....
uture an use
........................ ........ ..... ........................ ................ ....... .... ...
................................ .........................................................................
....................................................................
...................
.........
......
0 Parks
::: Ms N.DR:.............
.......................................................................................................................................
Residential
:..' .' ..... .. .. ...: - 'r. .. :
Mixed Use
..::
.. .. .. a .'.: .. ... .. ..
jOffice
'.:: .... :.... `
.. . . .:: - .. .. .,
�� , Historic
�is ammerual
...................... .... ...... .. .::. ..:
::: ..
community commercial
. .. .. .... ..; .. .-
'*.,' Neighborhood Commercial
u 1AWSOnS S .. ...
.
L\ Regional Commercial
Industrial
.. .... .a .. .. ....
.... ...
O University
Overview Legend
Subject Property Streets Boundary
RZN02-17.00 '.r Existing r"a�r Planning Area
C7' (((s if Planned 000000° Overlay District
L _ _I City Limits
0 125 250 500 750 1.000
Feet
Planning Commission • •
July 8, 2002
Page 26
RZN 02-17.00: Rezoning (MathiasBarnes, pp 364/403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south
of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-6,
Low Density Multi -Family Residential.
Hoffman: The next item on the agenda is another rezoning. it is RZN 02-17.00 which was
submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam
Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Deane Street, west of
Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to rezone to
RMF-6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. Staff, do you have a report before
we get to the applicant?
Conklin: This rezoning request is for RMF-6. Prior to filing the application they did meet
with staff and the applicant has met with the Neighborhood Association. There is
a Bill of Assurance in your packet. I would like to make sure that everyone
understands that this was offered voluntarily by the applicant. It is my
understanding also this evening that there have been some modifications to this
Bill of Assurance and the applicant will have to talk to you about that this evening
with regard to how that Bill of Assurance may have changed. I don't have that in
my possession this evening at this time. RMF-6 is one of the new zoning districts
that we adopted over a year ago. It allows for multi -family structures, apartments.
It also allows for single-family duplex or triplex. The Bill of Assurance that they
are proposing does limit the type of units that are proposed within the RMF-6.
They are proposing I believe a total of seven single-family homes as part of this
development. This piece of property a few years ago did come before the
Planning Commission and City Council. The request at that time was to rezone it
to R-2. There was quite a bit of opposition with regard to the proposed use for
student apartments or student housing. It was ultimately denied by the City
Council. This request once again, goes back to this RMF-6, which is a total of a
maximum density of six units per acre. It is significantly less density than what
was requested a few years ago. That is all I have.
Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Is the applicant present?
Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and on behalf of the developers on this project I am
here to represent them and we have Bleaux Barnes, who is one of the owners on it
and also we have Richard Maynard here with us who is with the Asbell
Neighborhood Association. To carry on what'fim was talking about RMF-6, we
have got 21 acres. We are allowed six units per acre, which brings us to 126
units, which is what we propose on this. We did meet with the Neighborhood
Association and we did come up with a plan that hopefully you have in your
packet. This is going to turn into what will eventually be the preliminary plat of
this project and the reason we did this is to show the neighbors what this project is
Planning Commission • .
July 8, 2002
Page 27
going to look like and tweak it so that they are satisfied. For instance, we have all
the lots adjacent to Porter Road and Sang Road as single-family. Those are lots
111 and 112 and lots 10, 23, and 24 are single-family. All of the lots along the
south boundary line, there are eight condominium lots, which there are four units
per each one of those so that is 32 units. We also have a single-family lot number
59 on Deane Street. Lots 60 and 61, we are reserving those for five units
combined on both of those lots and then all of the rest of them are what we call
patio homes. For instance, lot 17 is a lot 17A and 17B and the reason for this is
so that we can have separate ownership on each one of these units because their
market is for single-family houses. The owners even went to the trouble of
drawing up exterior elevations so that you can see what it looks like. This is a
condominium unit. The patio units, this is not correct in that the patio units now
have two car garages, which is one of the reasons that we changed the Bill of
Assurance. In working with the Neighborhood Association and getting all of this
information, we are also tweaking that Bill of Assurance making sure that it
satisfies them and that is one of the things that we changed on the Bill of
Assurance that each one of the patio homes has a two car garage. In addition to
that, the owners are in the process of developing covenants. Here again, this is
premature. Normally we don't do this until a little bit later on in the process but
at this particular point they are calling for 80% brick, front yards sodded,
architectural shingles and they want to also do something like mailboxes that are
either brick or something that is uniform throughout the whole project. The
interest is to build a project here that satisfies the surrounding neighbors. By the
way, we like working with neighborhood associations for that exact reason. I
would be glad to answer any questions.
Hoffman: Do you have the revised Bill of Assurance that you can address or do you want to
do that later?
Jorgensen: We can address that now. I just did this this afternoon and it is redlined but if you
have a Bill of Assurance in your packet, item number two, and this may have
already been corrected, does your version say seven units on two lots?
Warrick: I marked that out and wrote five.
Jorgensen: That is one item that we're correcting. At the end of that it says on two lots along
Deane Street for a total of 126 units, I just wanted to clarify that there is a total of
126 units. Item number four, it reads "condominium units will have two
bedrooms each with a one car garage." Also, another sentence right after that.
"Each patio home will have two or three bedrooms with a two car garage." That
is added after that item number four. Item number five is "The petitioner agrees
to install a view obscuring hedge along the back of the other properties along
Sang Avenue." This was requested. In addition to that, we have added item
number ten and I will read that. "Petitioner specifically agrees that all such
restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and
Planning Commission • •
July 8, 2002
Page 28
until specifically released by a 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 the
Final Plat, which includes all the petitioner's property." That is a result of
meeting with everybody several times and you might say refining it.
Hoffman: Thank you. Would you provide the staff with a final copy of that for their
records?
Jorgensen: Sure.
Hoffman: Do you have any more presentation before I take public comment?
Jorgensen: I think that is it. I would be glad to answer questions.
Hoffman: I will go ahead and take public comment on this rezoning.
Maynard: Good evening. My name is Richard Maynard. I am here both as an adjoining
property owner and also for spokesperson for the Asbell Neighborhood
Association. For a couple of years I have been pushing for these preliminary
meetings with developers and neighborhoods and now I've had two in as many
months so kind of be careful what you ask for because they do get kind of time
consuming but I am glad that we have them. I think as you all know, we did have
this meeting on May 23`d with Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias. Just to give you a
little bit about that, because I think it is important and it is pertinent to this and
just how we do that. As a neighborhood association we are not there advocating
necessarily for the neighborhood but we are providing the forum to let this
dialogue happen. I don't know how we could've advertised this anymore. I put it
out on over 300 flyers. We skipped. the apartment complex. We didn't have as
great of a turnout. We had about 33 people from about 20 households, which is a
lot less than the one we had with the Lindsey development. My feeling about it is
in that sense it is like an election. You can choose to come and participate or
choose not to come and participate. If you don't mind, I would like to just give
you if you are interested the results of these if I may.
Hoffman: Hand those to Renee.
Maynard: Basically what it does is it just explains how we go about doing this because I
know you are just seeing the result of the process and not the process itself. I am
not going to take a lot of time even talking about that but that is really how it
should be. There are a lot of these things I think can get worked out before it ever
reaches this far or even before it gets very far in the planning office. Although,
we try to involve the planning office every step of the way because we don't want
to go making agreements with each other that wouldn't fit into the city plan. I
just wanted to break it down so you kind of saw where the people were coming
Planning Commission • •
July 8, 2002
Page 29
from. Some people weren't there but voted anyway. Of course, as I said last
time, we realize that this is not a binding vote. It is just to let you know how the
neighborhood feels about it. I think it is pretty clear the neighborhood feels fine
about it so far and now we just sort of leave it up to you because none of us are
engineers or we are not builders or we're not contractors. If I may, I would just
like to say that this process works, it just does. The worst thing that could happen
out of this is that a developer or neighborhood could meet together and the
neighborhood says no. Then the developer has a better idea of whether they want
to proceed or not. That is really I think all it should mean. More than that, what
this does and what Mr. Jorgensen mentioned, the whole tenure is much different,
it is much friendlier than coming up here and battling out through you and asking
you to play an arbitrator in the whole process. Things come out and it becomes a
dialogue. I think in the interview that some of you may have read a few weeks
ago, Mr. Mathias said it actually makes us better developers. If I may just give
you a couple of examples. When I first saw this it was a very, very preliminary
idea from Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias. It was a horseshoe development. There
was now outlet onto Dean and I know Mr. Conklin wasn't very fond of it from the
city's point of view but I had another for it from a neighborhood perspective. I
said "I don't think you realize every development along Porter all empties out
onto Porter." Maybe they would've found that out on their own, maybe not, but
that is something from a neighborhood perspective that comes out. At out
neighborhood meeting a couple who lives across the way on Porter were bothered
that the new street would empty right out onto their driveway. Because of that
they were able to make an adjustment and still make this development work. We
were talking at one time about a private fence along those Sang properties where I
live. I said "Why do that? We already have a fence there, chainlink fence to a
pasture fence. Why don't you put a hedge row there?" That is something that
comes out of these meetings. It is not just presenting something to the
neighborhood and the neighborhood going thumbs up or thumbs down. I think
we really try to work out what we can work out beforehand. How far a
neighborhood wants to go with that, I guess that is up to another neighborhood
and another developer. We kind of stop there. We didn't want to get too much
into materials and certainly not as the head of this organization, I didn't want to
be putting myself into a negotiator position because I don't think that would be
appropriate and it didn't get brought out in the meeting. I do want to point out
that the revisions on the Bill of Assurance. Yes, they were not things that we
were bickering over by any means. I think it really was fine tuning. I simply
made the case that anything you are sure of put in the Bill of Assurance. To my
mind, the Bill of Assurance truly is between the neighborhood and the developer,
whether you agree or not I don't know. There is nothing taken away in other
words. If you know you are going to do a two car garage, what is the problem?
Why don't you go ahead and put it in there? They were absolutely agreeable.
That is really all I have to say about it. Please keep in mind, we have already had
another situation, and I hope this idea catches on. This idea will really not work if
this becomes a neighborhood referendum. In other words, this will not work if
Planning Commission • •
July 8, 2002
Page 30
just because the neighborhood says it is ok it goes through or quite frankly, just
because the neighborhood says no that it doesn't go through. I don't believe in
that at all. I have never advocated that. Basically what we are saying is that it
looks good to us and now it is up to you. Thank you.
Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Maynard. Is there anybody else that would like to address us?
Davison: Hi. I am still Sharon Davison. I sort of have to be a little sarcastic here and say I
think that it is great that we are all so happy that developers are finally showing
some minimal consideration and speaking with the neighborhoods. I think it is
sort of sad that we have to be so grateful that they are finally doing the decent
thing that they should have done to begin with. I would also like to clarify for
people that aren't really in a lot of these processes that when City Planners say
staff recommends, these things are saying these people have followed the rules, or
whatever they say they have to do so we say they can. Very rarely do they
vigorously say we think this is a great project so do it. We need to listen to some
of these things. Lets also understand that with our neighborhoods when they are
saying ok. Well, they are resigned to having to say ok. It is wonderful that they
can have little things that actually turn into big things such as primarily where the
dumpster is located. These are issues and these are issues that developers have
chosen to ignore until we have really applied pressure. I think you all may have
had phone calls, you may have been paying attention the past year, neighborhoods
are feeling pinched and we are all really, really looking to you to help us out here.
It is great that we can rely on you for exactly what Mr. Maynard said, the details. I
appreciate going to Subdivision and having Commissioner Bunch say "Well, what
about these parking spaces? or what about these numbers?" That is what I feel
you are supposed to be doing for us and I appreciate you doing for us. My
problem is not that this may not be the persons right to develop, not that this may
not even be an appropriate project, but it is the timing of these projects. Look at
what we just discussed. All the building we are going to do with the Broyles and
Lazenby field. We have people over there by Wedington. Well, the thing is we
can't handle it all right now. I was wondering are we at this limited sewer
capacity? Does anyone know our current capacity rate at this point as of, we can
even say July 151. What is our sewer capacity? Can anyone tell us that? Are we
operating at 99.4% as I have been told?
Conklin: I don't have that information.
Davison: But we can keep approving everything and not know? This is part of my issue
and why I brought up a complaint at the City Council about dragging our feet on
impact fees. We have volumes of these projects. These are people that are living
in these neighborhoods that are still suffering with sewage water runoff in their
backyard in this very area. Simply as we are up oh Mount Sequoyah dealing with
sewage runoff and we don't have these things fixed. The question came does
building drive infrastructure? You know, I think the whole point of planning is
Planning Commission • •
July 8, 2002
Page 31
meaning you build the infrastructure and then you build the units. We are at the
point now where we are building things and saying "Oh, ok, well later we'll fix
it." I loved Mr. Earnest's eventually comments. He wanted to approve a lot of
developments because eventually this is all going to go in over there. Wedington
has we think 20,000 max cars on it although we were given erroneous figures of
13,000. Here is the deal, why are we not at a moratorium? We were at a certain
deal about capacity. You approve these yet we have to see. Will you inform me
of this Ms. Hoffman?
Hoffman: I will do my best. We are here to discuss this rezoning. This is not a forum for
impact fees. I know that we have got the • consultants and we have had many
public meetings and those are in process. I can just tell you that a standard
condition of approval prior to approving any new residential development is that
they are made aware that should sewer capacity not be available at the time of
construction they don't get a building permit. That is the standard that we follow
for any new development or rezonings that are approved by this Commission and
by City Council.
Davison: I appreciate that. That is very important to me that people are coming in. My
thing is I am not trusting some of the numbers I am getting such as from Mr.
Hugh Earnest as our city representative. Therefore: I am very leery as to
wondering why Mr. Conklin doesn't know our sewer capacity and how we can
keep doing this. I would like to request that Mr. Conklin...
Hoffman: Do you have anymore comments based on this project?
Davison: Based on this project, do we have the sewer capacity at this time for it? Thank
you.
Hoffman: Thank you Ms. Davison.
Hoskins: I am Anetta Hoskins and I am a home owner adjacent to both of these little
properties. I have been there sixteen years and I have enjoyed having cattle on
both my south side and my west side and I really enjoy that. However, I realize
that things can't stay the same and I am very pleased with this proposed
development that is going in. Thank you.
Hoffman: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address
us on this rezoning? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close public discussion and
bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission.
Estes: This project of course has had a history. Those of us with institutional history has
some memory of that. Some of the participants no longer serve, other participants
have passed away and are no longer with us. The last time that this was before us
I, together with Commissioner Hoover, voted against this rezoning request. All of
Planning Commission • •
July 8, 2002
Page 32
the reasons that I voted against it are no longer with us. I am very pleased that the
developer has met with Mr. Maynard and with the neighborhood association. I
am very pleased that the matters and concerns that I had when we saw this before
have been resolved and have been worked out. It is for those reasons that I would
move that we forward to the full City Council for its consideration RZN 02-17.00.
Hoffman: I have a motion for approval of this rezoning and forwarding to City Council by
Commissioner Estes.
Shackelford: I will second.
Ward: Does that include the new changes and the covenants?
Estes: The Bill of Assurance of course is not within our providence to dictate or to
request but let me address Mr. Jorgensen in that regard. Mr. Jorgensen, as the
movement I have heard your comments and I have heard the amendments to the
Bill of Assurance so let me say that. Let me also say that the form that you are
using for the Bill of Assurance references our Chancery Courts. By Amendment
80 we no longer have Chancery Courts, we have Circuit Courts so you need to
also strike the reference Chancery Courts from your Bill of Assurance.
Jorgensen: Ok.
Estes: It is the Circuit Court, strike Chancery Court. Amendment 80 was passed and we
now just have Circuit Court. Mr. Ward, is that responsive to your thoughts?
Ward: More than enough.
Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would
you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-17.00 was approved
by a vote of 8-0-0.
Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously on a vote of eight to zero.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 3
RZ99-28: REZONING
REALTY RESOURCES, PP364
This item was submitted by William S. Hahn on behalf of William M. Weatherford and Larry &
Brenda Swain for property located at 2200 and 2201 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.64 acres. The request is to rezone the
property to R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Michelle Harrington and William Hahn were present on behalf of the request.
Staff Recommendation
.Staff recommended approval of the proposed R-2 zoning.
Committee Discussion
Johnson: Staff, could you give us your explanation of this recommendation on this
rezoning.
Conklin: Staff did recommend approval of the rezoning. This site is located on Deane
Street to the north is the University of Arkansas Experimental Farm. It does adjoin R-1 zoning
on the east boundary. However, four of the structures on Sang Avenue are duplexes and one
structure is a 5-plex. On the west boundary line, it does adjoin R-1 zoning and R-2 zoning. If
you'll refer to page 2.6 in the agenda, Linda Jo Place on the western boundary has developed
with townhouses and it's zoned R-2. Staff has recommended approval based on the findings in
this report that additional multi -family residential dwellings in this area are appropriate and
consistent with the 2020 Plan. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them at
this time.
Johnson: Commissioners, any additional questions of staff? Ms. Harrington?
Harrington: My name is Micki Harrington. I'm here tonight representing Realty Resources,
Chartered and Mr. Hahn, the representative, is here with me tonight. We are requesting as Tim
indicated, approval of R-2 zoning on this property. We believe that it is a good location for R-2
zoning because of what is around it and across from it. It is an infill situation in an area that is
very appropriate for it and it's serviced by the University of Arkansas bus system which
hopefully will allow a lot of transportation needs to be met with the bus system and not require
more cars to the University because the bus system is right there. We think itis a good place to
put an R-2 development but we're happy to answer questions and help with details as you need.
Johnson: Do you have any questions of Ms. Harrington at this time?
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 4
Ward: How many units do you plan on putting on this?
Harrington: It's not certain yet but they're talking roughly 120 to 140 depending on the site
needs and demands.
Johnson: Any other Commissioners with initial questions.
Estes: Staff, how many units would an R-2 zoning accommodate?
Conklin: R-2 zoning does allow up to 24 units per acre. This would allow 275.
Estes: Thanks.
Johnson: So, the maximum that you're contemplating, although, of.course, you're not
bound to this would be about half.
Harrington: About 12 to 15 units per acre.
Public Comment
Richard Maynard, residing at 1717 N. Sang was present in opposition to the rezoning.
Maynard: I'm here with my neighbors today. Should I introduce them?
Johnson:
No.
If they wish
to speak individually,
they may. Otherwise, if they merely want
to let us know
that
they support
your position, they can do that through a show of hands.
Maynard: I own the property at 1717 N. Sang. First, I want to make it clear that we do not
object to Mr. Weatherford's selling of his property. We sit on Sang Avenue which is on the east
side. We've all enjoyed that little bucolic pasture for a long time. We know it isn't going to last
forever. We certainly don't want to interfere with his right to sell his property. Nor do we object
to Mr. Hahn developing that property. In fact, in a way, I would welcome it. What we do object
to is this drastic change to that neighborhood and to our quality of life and to our investments. I
moved here about 5 years ago and I looked around quite a bit in Fayetteville to find a place that I
thought I would be happy with and that I could build a home. I did find a really nice piece of
property. Ms. Lavender, one of my neighbor's here, her husband built it about 40 years ago but
it hadn't been kept up. One of the first things that I was a little bit nervous about was there was a
mobile home park across from me and as Tim said, there were several duplexes going south of
me to Ms. Hoskin's home. She lives by the Baptist church there and she is here with us tonight.
There's a 5-plex right to the south of me. It made me nervous. I came down to this office to find
out exactly what the zoning was and it all said R-1. I didn't know what R-1 meant and I asked
them about that and the reason those were R-1, they can say there are duplexes there now and
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 5
they can say there's a quad-plex there and there's a mobile home across the street. The mobile
home may be different zoning but those were still R-1. Those were there before the city limits
expanded so they were grandfathered in. Right now, that neighborhood that we are talking about
is primarily R-1. It is primarily designed for low density residential. I can only think that your
predecessors, the City Planners that came before, had a reason if those duplexes were there and
that mobile home was there to call it R -1 and not see in the future that as R-2. What's over there
on the west that is R-2 on Linda Joe Place and as Tim said, they are duplexes. In fact, until very
recently because I don't have any real cause to go over there, I didn't know that they weren't
single family homes. I don't know if they are rentals over there or if they are owned. Those are
nice places there. They don't adversely add to the population density. I came down here last
Thursday, just to get some clarification of what Mr. Hahn had in mind here and I did talk to
Brent and he helped me out quite a bit on some things. The main thing that we were concerned
with was what exactly did he have in mind. Did he have in mind what is over at Linda Jo Place?
Those nice, well kept duplexes or did he have something else in mind. Brent told me he didn't
really know. We really couldn't ask that. Once you rezone that, it seems like as I read this, you
have quite a bit of latitude as to what you're going to put in there. As I look at 12 to 14 units, in
an 11 acre space of land, I'm not quite sure how Mr. Hahn is going to that and keep the parking
regulations and keep the green ordinance and by the way, I have a question on that --
Johnson: You're several steps ahead of where we are in this process. Tonight, we're only
looking at the issue of rezoning. We can't get into green space issues and development issues.
We'll look at that if and when this ever gets rezoned.
Maynard: The only thing that I can see that he can probably do is go up and that means 2
story townhouses probably 8 units per building. That is going to be a drastic change. That is
going to add so much population to that small area of land. Also, Ms. Doege knows more about
his-than-I-de-and4'4I-let-her-speak to hates part-of-this-is-en-fleod-plai . Again, I don't know
what Mr. Hahn has in mind. How is he going to rectify that? Is he going to build up the land
and if so, where is that water going to go inside of our own back yards? I realize maybe this isn't
an issue that I can talk about tonight but we live there and these are concerns of ours. Access is
another problem I have. The only access I see is on Deane Avenue. So, we have lots of concerns
that maybe I can't address tonight or maybe you can't answer but that's a problem that we have.
We would like to see something like Linda Jo Place, like something that is going to add to the
quality of the neighborhood then we would be okay with that. We knew that property was going
to be sold and developed at some point. We're not going to keep things as they are but we are
trying to protect our quality of life because we live there and we own property there. In my own
particular case, because it was R-1, over the past 5 years I have spent a lot of time, a lot money,
I've taken out a second mortgage and worked a second job to make this into a home that I would
be happy with. Now, you're going to change the rules on me. I don't quite understand what
compelling need there is. If I can refer and I think this is something I can talk about, is on the
final pages of this, the findings of the staff. I'm not going to comment on number 1. I don't
know that much about it to comment on it: I will comment on number. 2:
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 6
"A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time
the rezoning is proposed."
The finding of the staff was that yes, it was justified and yes, it is needed. Our question is why?
Why is it needed? I can only think of 2 reasons. If you're putting apartments in there for college
students, the only reason that I can think of is that there's a dearth of college housing available
now which is an interesting thing because I teach in a special program at the University. When I
was on my way to the office yesterday, I went by the College Park Apartments. There's a big,
red sign out there with apartments available $199 and up. I got an idea and I started calling other
places. I called Faucette Properties. They have apartments available.. I called Washington Plaza,
just a half a block over from us on Deane and Lewis and they had apartments available. The
program I work at is an English program for international students. They come to us before they
go into the University. One thing we do get for them is housing. I talked to our housing
coordinator today and asked how much trouble they had finding apartments for our students and
she said none at all. There can always be more college housing. I understand that. We are a
growing university. What concerns me is when that starts to take prevalence over the people
who live and work in this city. There are houses available and there are places to put more
college housing. What we have there in this property that he's asking to rezone and you're
considering tonight is primarily residential. You don't have anything like you have to the east of
us. You don't have anything like you have at College Park Apartments. As I said before, it's
going to be a drastic change to that, neighborhood: It's going to be change that will dictate how
that neighborhood will be for now and forever. Like I said, we moved in there with an
understanding and we know situations change. We understand that. I don't buy this that there is
a compelling need to build affordable college housing at least right there. There are other places
to do it. We'll always need some. The only other need I can see and I'm sorry to say it. This is
a very valuable property. I wish I owned it myself. Somebody does stand a change to make a lot
^finon y-oc'-this. It4—mtn-h-more�aluabls-propertythan-mifle-is-but-mifle-is-afl-ifl vestment,— —
too. I'm not just talking about a dollar investment. Although, we're all concerned about that.
We're very concerned about how this college housing is going to effect our property investment.
More importantly, we're talking about our investment and our quality of life that we have there.
Number 3:
"A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion."
Again, there is a bus line on Deane Street. It runs once an hour. Maybe, the University will
increase that. Again, we live there. There's a lot of traffic going down Sang now. I guess I can't
ask what the access plans are for this idea that Mr. Hahn has. I can tell you there is a lot of traffic
now. If you've ever come down on the bypass and gone off onto Porter Road about 8:00 in the
morning, you will sit there for a few minutes. I've made that mistake. I visit my mother
sometimes up in Bella Vista and once in a while I'll stay over and I'll forget and not take the
cloverleaf onto Garland but I'll go to Porter out of habit. You can sit there for awhile as people
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 7
are coming off of Mt. Comfort and then as it goes under the bypass it ells around into Deane.
About an eighth of a mile which I'm sure there will be an access, we're going to have students
coming out. Of course, not all of them. It will take them about 1 day to figure out the shortest
route to the University is down Sang. That's a straight shot. There's no stoplight from Deane to
Wedington and people speed down there. We put up with it all the time. We've called and
complained and nothing ever really gets done about it. There is a school there. There is a trailer
park right across from me. Kids play out there. They shouldn't but they do and that's a fact.
There is Asbell School. If you can imagine for a second that kind of added traffic going down
there. I don't know how you're going to change that. Are you going to put a stoplight there and
back up traffic more? Or put a stop sign there? If you ever drive down there, pay attention.
Right past the Baptist church, it kind of crests and right over that crest there's a cross walk. If
you're going the 20 to 25 mph speed limit, there is no chance to stop. There's none. I'm not
trying to say somebody didn't do their job. I'm just saying that I think if you took another look
at that and imagine what the effect of the density of population that you're adding there. We're
talking about 12 to 14 units or 120 to 140 new units. There will be at least a couple of people in
each unit and we're talking about an increase of population of about 300 to 400 people and all.of
them have cars. We were all students at one time. We know what happens when we rush to get
to school. When we get older, we become a little bit more responsible and you think about it. I
cannot believe that this is not going to add adversly to traffic. It doesn't have anywhere to go
except down Sang and over to Garland. This is going to add heavy traffic. I don't care if the
University puts in 5 buses. Finally, I want to mention one thing about number 4. To me, it
seems this zone was recommended primarily on number 4 as the best explanation. There may be
water lines. There may be enough sewage capacity. We have a concern about the flood plain as
I mentioned before. It seems like this is based pretty much on finding number four. The most
important point, I saved for last and it's the last thing you have in your criteria which is 5.a:
t -would be imptactical-tomsethe-Iand-f-o"nybf-the-usespermitted-under-its cxisting
zoning classification."
Why? That's my question. Why would that be impractical. That is a residential neighborhood.
I don't care if people are renting there or people like myself and my neighbors own and live
there. That is a residential area. It would be a beautiful spot for a home. It would be a beautiful
spot for home for people of middle income and who could afford $60,000 or $70,000 homes. I
know people and you do, too, who cannot find that kind of home in Fayetteville. They're to
moving West Fork. They're moving to Farmington. They're moving to Springdale. I feel that is
what you might be asking me to do because I can't afford a $90,000 home or a $100,000 home
either. I have a home and I'd like to keep my home. I teach college students and I don't have
anything against them but I know what I was like 25 years ago. I was a pretty good kid but I
wouldn't want me then living behind me now. If homes are impractical, we don't care. More
expensive homes or duplexes if you want but something that is going to fit in the nature of what
that neighborhood is. What kind of bothers me about this whole thing is that it seems like the
burden to keep things R-1 is put on my neighbors and me. It's R-1 now and we're up here
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 8
having to convince you to keep it R-1 or at least get more specifications as to what he has in
mind instead of leaving it up to him to give a compelling reason why they need to change this
outside of making a great business deal. I hope: to God that isn't your consideration tonight on
the amount of money somebody has to make. If that's it, then we don't stand a chance because
our properties don't come anywhere near that value. At the very least, I would ask you if you
would -- what you decide here to tonight is going to have a tremendous effect on us and the
neighborhood. It will change the nature of that neighborhood forever. Before you rush into a
decision, at least give it a second look. You're:welcome to come onto my property through the
back gate. I have a good panorama of that view. Imagine what that neighborhood could look
like. Also, try to imagine what it's going to look like with 300 or 400 college age students in
there. We have to live there, ladies and gentlemen. You don't. Mr. Hahn doesn't. Mr.
Weatherford doesn't. We are the ones that have to live there. Thank you.
Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Maynard. Are there others who would address us on this proposed
rezoning?
Faye Doege residing with her mother at 1745 N. Sang was present in opposition to the proposed
rezoning.
Doege: I'm going to address one problem which is a little complicated. When those
houses were first built on Sang Avenue, there were no apartment houses or anything across the
street. There was no trailer park. My dad built those houses. Then they developed the
Washington Plaza apartment house. That was fine. We needed low cost apartments for people.
Unfortunately, one thing they did was to bring in 20 tons of fill and they raised the level of the
land there. That wasn't too bad because that water had places to go. It went east and it went
west and it went south. We had some natural absorbing areas there and one of the places that
used to collect most of the water from Washington Plaza was a place where they decided to build
this new apartment house, The Encore apartments which is across the street from our place now.
Now, they have concreted all that land that used to absorb the water that ran off of Washington
Plaza. Now that water from Washington Plaza washes through there onto Sang and across Sang
into our property which has been causing a little bit of a problem but we have been able to get
by. One of the reasons we have been able to get by is the kind of soil that we have over there.
The soil on the west side of Sang is Captina silt loam. It has a slow percolation rate but it has
moderately good drainage so when we have a lot a rain, it will puddle a little bit but it will
eventually soak in and you can't say that about every place in Fayetteville because there are a lot
of places where it puddles and it will not soak in after a long, hot summer but it will eventually
sink in. The place where most of the water goes from across the street and from our place and
from the University Farm where it drains down Sang, is into this property where they want to
build the apartments. That soil there is Pembroke silt loam and it has good drainage. Not only
that, that whole area has excellent drainage because it used to be a vineyard about 50 years ago.
A man named Rudolph had a vineyard there. That was low property there and he came in and
put in drain tiles under all that property there. He used clay tiles with holes in them and he
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 9
buried them deep and planted his grapes on top of them. That not only helped him but it helps us
now. We're getting all this extra water from the east and it is absorbing because we have this
wonderful drainage system there. They're going to bring in these apartment houses and they're
going to do like the apartment houses at Washington Plaza and Encore. They're going to put
concrete and buildings and they're going to cover all that wonderful absorbing soil. They're
probably going to raise it, too. If they go ahead and bring in all this fill and they raise this up a
foot or two, the water will go back on us. Our soil isn't as absorbent as that and we're lucky we
have that land next door but it isn't going to absorb it. It's going to be up to us and up to the
people on the west side of Porter. I drove over there today and saw a woman who lives in one of
the units on Linda Jo and I asked her if her unit had ever flooded. She said, no, it had gotten very
close but it had never flooded. The unit 2 doors down from her had flooded this year. They
actually had water in the building. That happened with the wonderful drainage system that we
have on Mr. Weatherford's land. When they cover that up with concrete and they will cover it
up with concrete and that's the way you build apartment buildings anymore to provide these
wonderful places to park. They are going to flood. Are the engineers going to come and lift our
houses off the foundation? I know we are not going to be able to live in our house if they
completely pave all that property over there. Who is going to buy our houses when they flood
every year? We're sunk. There's nothing we can do. The only answer I can see is for a
reasonable person to put in either single dwelling or duplexes that continue to allow most of that
land to be lawn which will continue to absorb all this rain. That way, we're not going to get their
runoff and the people over on Porter aren't going to get their runoff. I know they have all these
wonderful culverts planned and they'll have water running underneath. All that does is just shunt
it off somewhere else and we're still going to have it in spite of whatever they plan.
Further Commission Discussion
Johnson: Several of those comments really go to issues that we would have to address and
address very carefully but not at this stage. The drainage issues are very serious. I think you'll
find that the city, every year, does more and more to assure that new developments don't create
new drainage problems. In a place such as this, one of the best ways that you can keep up if this
gets rezoned, once this development is proposed, is to follow it through the process and see what
is being done about the drainage plan because it is my experience since I've been on the
Commission that much more care is taken in `99 on drainage issues than even was 4 or 5 years
ago. This is not the time when we have any authority to deal with that rather that is at the
development stage. The other thing I would observe is there are 2 adjacent properties that in the
foreseeable future, won't be developed in anyway other than as they now exist. The University
Experimental Farm across Deane Street; I've not heard of any plan to do anything other than
leave that for the foreseeable future as farm which helps the adjacent area in terms of intense
development. The same is true on the smaller tract to the south which, I believe, has 2 churches
on it.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 10
Harrington: I wanted to take a brief opportunity to make a couple of comments. With all due
respect to Mr. Maynard and the neighbors over there. I don't believe that the impact is going to
be as large as they think. I turned onto Sang and turned around in a large apartment building
directly across the street from all of these houses. I'm afraid that this R-1 area is really no longer
R-1. In reality it has not been for many, many years because of the number of duplex, triplex, 5-
plex apartments, etc. I would like to think of this as a true R-1 but there is very little R-1 left in
this area and has not been for some time especially with a mobile home park right there and the
apartments that are already in existence. If this is done nicely as this developer intends to do and
he does, of course, intend to comply with all the city regulations and there are many as Ms.
Johnson has mentioned regarding the drainage. If there is a chance that it's not going to work,
this project will not go in and that will be discovered at the development stage when the drainage
is evaluated. The reason that R-2 is being looked at here is because it would be a very difficult
property to develop as R- 1 given the surrounding mixed uses across the street where there's a
grain elevator, etc. It's not terribly conducive to R-1 and even with very small R-1 as you all
know, you have many bitter battles in here about the lower price home and the small lot R-1 for
the same reason that apartments are opposed. I believe that this developer intends to find a way
to do to this in such a way that it will not be a negative impact on the area and will provide much
needed housing. The need for housing continues to go up and maybe there are apartments
available today but that doesn't mean next year and the year after. There is very little, if any, R-2
on this entire side of town available at this point. So, I wanted to briefly address those items. I
have the realtor here who has explored the market very seriously and can certainly address your
concerns about what the needs of the market are. I don't know if you want to take the time with
that so I'll just look for direction on whether you would like to have some comments from him or
from Mr. Hahn.
Johnson: Commissioners are certainly free to raise questions to the people Ms. Harrington
has made available.
Estes: I have several questions for staff. The status quo is R-1. We must make 4
specific findings of fact to grant the applicant's request. The first finding regards the 2020 Plan
which lists this property as residential. That finding is met. The second finding of fact that we
must make is that the proposed zoning is needed. That's the first question I have for staff. Do
we truly have a shortage of R-2 property? As I ask that question, I think about the Lindsey
Development that is going in to the northwest of this. I think of all the vacant apartment ads I
see in the Northwest Arkansas Times each morning. Is there truly a shortage of R-2 property in
the City of Fayetteville?
Conklin: Trying to answer your question accurately, as staff, we don't have a detailed
market analysis to determine how much R-2 land is available in this community. We do know
that there is not much R-2 land existing which is undeveloped in Fayetteville. When we looked
at this recommendation and whether or not to recommend additional multi -family, this is an area
where the existing land use is very mixed. It was on the U of A bus route and it was possible to
S.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 11
build additional apartments east of the bypass instead of on the other side of the bypass. As staff,
we felt like it was justified at this time.
Estes: The third finding of fact that we must make is that it does not appreciably increase
traffic congestion. As I listened to the applicant's presentation, 140 units, 2 cars per unit, 2 day
trips, that makes 560 trips. Upon what basis was the finding made that the proposed zoning
would not increase traffic?
Conklin: At this time, Deane Street, in my opinion does not have any traffic problems. If
this does have students that live in these apartments, these students are not going to all be leaving
at 8:00 in the morning. Looking at other apartments in this area, this morning there was little or
no traffic when we were out there, even in the R-3 zone directly to the east on the east side of
Sang Avenue.
Estes: The fourth finding of fact is the determination that the proposed zoning will not
alter population density. Listening to the applicant's presentation, I make the finding as a matter
of fact that it will increase population density. How did staff reach the conclusion the proposed
zoning would not alter the population density?
Conklin: Let me clarify that the finding states that the proposed zonings would not alter the
population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including
schools, water, and sewer facilities. With regard to schools, I contacted the school district. The
school district has told me that they will accommodate future growth and student population in
Fayetteville. With regard to water and sewer facilities, at the time of development, our City
Engineering Division, does sit down and make recommendation on what improvements are
needed on site and off site to be able to handle the additional load. Therefore, as staff, we
believe that finding can be met.
Estes: I have no further questions.
Ward: We were talking about the number of units they are proposing and with R-2
zoning, you can put in duplexes on this property kind of like the site to the west. It looks to me,
quickly calculating, they could do 125 units of duplexes on this property with the density that we
allow on duplexes. If the units themselves are not going to be any more than what is allowable
as far as duplexes, I'm not sure that there is that much difference or would change that much as
far as apartment complexes.
MOTION
Ward: I will recommend approval of RZ99-28.
Johnson: Is there a second.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 12
Marr: Second.
Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Marr to
approve RZ99-28. I remind you that a rezoning requires 5 positive votes and then if the rezoning
passes at this level, it goes to the City Council for finalizing.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioners Estes and Hoover voted
against the motion.
p M•
679
October 5, 1999
City Council Minutes
Page 7
Mr. Todd thanked him for saying so, but added that it takes fifty "atta-boys" to erase one screw -
up.
Alderman Austin said he would second that, saying "atta-boy."
Mayor Hanna asked for further comments.
Alderman Daniel stated that she was very happy how this had worked out and added that she
hoped all of the old wounds on this subject would be healed now.
Upon roll call, the resolution was approved unanimously, 8-0-0.
RESOLUTION 129-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
RZ 99-28
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-28 submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf
of William M. Weatherford and Larry and Brenda Swain for property located at 2200 & 2201 W.
Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1;. Low Density Residential and contains approximately
11.64 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Alderman Daniel stated that this property was in Ward 4, her ward. She said she would like to
make a motion to leave the item on the first reading.
Mr. Rose and Mayor Hanna commented that they didn't need to make a motion in order to do
that.
Alderman Russell said that he would like to hear from Michele Harrington and the others who
had come tonight about this agenda item.
Mickey Harrington, representing Realty Resources, introduced herself. She stated that this was a
classic case of an infill in an area that is already densely settled. It is an R-1 neighborhood from
a long time ago, but it should be considered an R-2 given its population. She noted several
pieces of R-3 zoning in the area. This would become an. apartment complex development that
would be built in such a way to preserve the row of pine trees in the area. There have been
concerns stated at the Planning Commission level that she wished to address. One was that this
would be a drastic change for the neighborhood; she disagreed because the neighborhood was
already heavily populated with rental homes, rental duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes and five-
plexes, rental apartments and rental mobile homes. This would change a field into a dwelling
a a
October 5, 1999
City Council Minutes'
Page 8
area, but she felt this was a natural evolution of the City as it grows. This development would be
targeted at students; there would be a bus route servicing this apartment complex. There had
been concern that students would take Sang Avenue to get to the university, but she thought that
most people going to the university would take Garland Avenue instead. She and the Planning
Department didn't believe that the traffic. situation would be affected. She also didn't believe
that the quality of life would be affected by this development because the neighborhood was
already largely R-2 and R-3 zoning. Flooding and storm water run-off had also been mentioned
at the Planning Commission meeting; this developer would be required to meet all requirements
of the City on this subject and she didn't think run-off would be a significant problem at all.
There would be every attempt made to make this a quality development and a different kind of
apartment complex, and they would have the parking run along the outer edge of the property so
that the buildings would not be along the edge of the street. She felt that turning this infill piece
of property into an R-2 zoning would not cause any problems for the neighbors and would end
up being a good development for the City, the area and the university students.
Jeff Whitmer, Lindsey & Associates Realty, was introduced by Ms. Harrington. He stated that
Realty Resources had contacted him last year to find property on which to build apartments that '
met three criteria: 1) to be near the university, 2) to be on a bus route, and 3) to have the correct
zoning. Using Highway 62 and Highway 71B as their borders, there was nothing on the market
at that time except property that was not already zoned. They found this piece and contacted the
owner who had said that he couldn't sell the property with its R-1 zoning. They chose the
property because they thought an apartment complex would blend in with what was already
there: Everything to the west -- a row of apartments, duplexes and single-family residences — is
already zoned R-2, except for one piece with a duplex on it. Directly across the street from this
mixture is R-3 zoning -- a 22 -unit mobile home park and a 38 -unit apartment complex. The
University of Arkansas Experimental Farm and Feed Mill are to the north. To the south is a
vacant field. Of the 78 housing units in the area he had described, 71 are rental units,
approximately 90%.
Alderman Santos asked whether the Planning Commission required a.Bill of Assurance for the
12-15 units per acre proposed.
Ms. Harrington replied that they did not request a Bill of Assurance because the Planning
Commission was reluctant to require those because of the tracking required. The number of units
would be determined at the Large Scale Development stage.
Richard Maynard, 1717 N. Sang Avenue, introduced himself as an adjoining property owner.
Three weeks ago he had come down before the Planning Commission regarding this rezoning.
He stated that he was joined by many neighbors who were opposed to this rezoning because it
would have a major negative impact on their homes, their way of life, their property values, the
neighborhood and the City of Fayetteville. He asked for a show of hands to show those opposed
E
a 681
Ii
• October 5, 1999
City Council Minutes
Page 9
to this project; approximately 18 people raised their hands. He stated that this all comes down to
the question of "why": why are we doing this, what compelling need is there to change this
rezoning, how does it benefit the community, how does it improve the neighborhood and how
does it serve the university. He hoped that the Council would consider the question "why" rather
than "why not." He admitted that if he didn't live in the neighborhood, he might also think why
not. He might also think that in reality that the zoning was not R-1 because of the duplexes, the
quadplex, and the trailer park. If he only looked there, where Ms. Harrington wants all to look,
he would also say to himself that there is very little R-1 property left in the area and there has not
been in some time. But that would not correlate with the map he saw that afternoon in the
Planning Department office which showed R-1 zoning through most of that area. You would see
the mobile home park and the Encore Apartments, but those were a relatively contained area.
One block east of that past Lewis Avenue is R-1 zoning; south of the Asbell school are R-1
homes; south of the Baptist church are R-1 homes; west of him across Porter Avenue are R-1
homes. What you would find are little niches carved out in the area for R-2 apartments. The
map in the area shows 95% R-1 zoning. When he came here six years ago, he looked for months
for a property that he could afford in a neighborhood that he liked with a huge backyard. The
house was in bad need of repair and he had developed it into an investment and into his home.
He saw the mobile home park, the duplexes and the quad-plex to the South of him, and he
questioned whether this would be a good place for him to live. The duplexes existed in that area
before there was any zoning and are zoned R-1. The only area zoned R-3 is a compact 11-12
acre area Right now, they were changing the rules on his neighborhood and on his neighbors
who had bought into this neighborhood and thought they were safe. They were talking about
changing the rules so that two people could make a deal. He had no idea what this would do to
his property values. Ms. Harrington could say what she would but it gave him no faith in what
would happen to his home unless the Council could give him a good reason as to why this
needed to change at this time. If the status quo is R-1, then they should give him convincing
evidence as to why it should be changed. He understood that before they could grant this there
had to be four specific findings of fact that must be made to grant the applicant's request for
rezoning. He had spoken with Mr. Conklin and Alderman Santos and questioned how this would
affect the flood plain. Nobody could guarantee that this private development would not have a
disastrous impact on his property. He had given each of the Councilmen a packet including
letters of protest from the neighbors about this rezoning. The four findings of the staff include
the first finding, that land use be consistent with the 2020 Plan, designating what would be
residential and commercial. Because this is an apartment complex and would be residential, he
agreed that this would be consistent with the letter but not the spirit of the Plan. The second
finding is a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified or needed at the time
rezoning is proposed. Mr. Estes was the only one on the Planning Commission that asked how
the Planning staff had come to this recommendation, and there had been no clear answer. Mr.
Maynard could only come up with one justification for this, and it was that the university needs
more housing. He had done research into this and had included a list of randomly -chosen
apartments to show the availability of housing at this time. He had also included the Campus
682 N N
October 5, 1999
City Council Minutes
Page 10
Master Plan, which showed that they had proposed 2300 new beds. He didn't think this was the
impetus behind this rezoning but rather a proposal to put as many apartments in this area as
possible. The third finding regards the impact on the traffic situation of Sang Avenue. He had
spoken to Perry Franklin in the Traffic Department. He knew this would be a student population
and he knew that you couldn't put 280-300+ cars on that road. He knew that Sang Avenue
would be the choice to the university and that no student would be using that bus route even if
they increased it. He felt that they were inviting a tragedy to happen by increasing the density in
front of an R-1 area in front of the school. Those living there already were conscious of the
small children playing in the area. He didn't think that those living in a transient neighborhood
would have that same awareness and care for the neighborhood. The fourth finding concerns
whether this would increase the need for public services. Planning Commissioner Marilyn
Johnson had pointed out that the experimental farm was north of there and this project would
probably not constitute an increase on the water and sewer lines. He hoped that this was not the
only consideration that they would have. There is nothing like this in the neighborhood, Sang to
Porter, Deane to Wedington. Additionally, Mr. Maynard pointed out that it would it be
impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing classification. He had
gotten an education in his neighborhood in the last three weeks. Megan Place and Linda Jo Place
have beautiful homes there. If he could be assured that the R-2 apartments going in there would
be the same, there wouldn't be a problem. He sees R-2 and R-3 zoning only in certain areas.
There is Porter Place at the corner of Deane and Porter, which is an eyesore and is not even
completed and seems to be falling apart already. He is afraid that something similar would be
going into his own backyard. And finally, his neighbors were concerned about the traffic and the
flood plain. They had had flooding problems already and would have to shell out a lot of money
for flood insurance. He wanted to ask the Council whether they could guarantee that they
wouldn't be ruined by this, and wouldn't have to move because of this, that it wouldn't create
more flooding problems. There were a lot of good intentions and beliefs here, but that wasn't
good enough for him and his neighbors. This neighborhood, he admits, is imbalanced but he
knew that if they put this complex in here it would be a disaster and would deteriorate property
values. Right now it was a beautiful, peaceful, livable neighborhood. At some point he felt this
would have to become personal. Would they want this in their backyard and behind their
property. If not, how could they ask for them to have it in theirs. Once the zoning was changed,
the impact would. be irreversible. He hoped that they would at least think about this before they
voted on it, and vote no, because if they didn't vote no, they would. basically be telling him he
needed to find a new home.
Mayor Hanna asked for further comments from the Council.
Alderman Davis asked if this was on the third year Flood Plan. '
Mr. Conklin replied that it does contain areas classified as Zone A; no detailed study bad been
conducted by FEMA. They would have to, as part of this project, calculate the amount of water
M M 683
October 5, 1999
' City Council Minutes
Page 11
coming onto and leaving the site.
Alderman Austin asked Mr. Conklin if he would comment on the R-1 and R-2 zoning in the
neighborhood, given that Ms. Harrington and Mr. Maynard seemed to disagree on this.
Mr. Conklin asked them to refer to C.2 page 8 to the zoning map with its classifications. To the
west is R-2 zoning which has developed with duplexes; further to the west is R-1. To the east of
the site is R-1 and R-3 zoning. With regard to the amount of R-1 versus R-2 zoning, further to
the south is primarily R-1; to the east is R-2 and R-3.
Alderman Austin commented that he had a constituent that would like to comment on this
rezoning at a future time.
Ms. Harrington asked to address some of Mr. Maynard's comments. As to why change the
zoning, she felt that the landowner needed to be considered. If Mr. Maynard had been the owner
of this land and had not been able to sell it, would he feel this would be a viable project. The
Weatherfords and the Swains had tried to sell this property as an R-1 and had failed. She held up
a map showing that there was a lot of R-3 zoning in the area. The landowners have a right to
market their property and sell it. Ultimately, the landowners would be the most affected. Also,
how could you have a lot of duplexes and tri-plexes in an R-1 zone. The City would rarely
rezone property that had been grandfathered in; it was up to the discretion of the landowner if
they wanted to add another unit or change the use. Lastly, looking at the apartment availability
for right now only was short-sighted.
Mr. Maynard responded that yes, he might try to sell his property too. But they were not against
Mr. Weatherford trying to sell his property, they simply wanted him to do it within the rules. He
stated that he had heard that the basis of why Mr. Weatherford hadn't been able to sell the
property was based on the amount he was asking for the property. The people who had attended
tonight believed that they, too, were affected by this rezoning. Yes, Mr.: Weatherford.had a right
to sell his property for as much money as he could but he needed to take into consideration all of
the people he was affecting.
Alderman Santos asked when the sign notice about this project came up and down.
Mr. Conklin stated that the sign should remain up until the City Council acts on the request, and
admitted that sometimes the sign would inadvertently disappear.
Alderman Young added that this was a good reason why they should save this for another night.
THE ITEM WAS LEFT ON THE FIRST READING.
% s93
I. City Council Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 3
OLD BUSINESS
RZ 99-28.00
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-28 submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of
William M. Weatherford and Larry and Brenda Swain for property located at 2200 & 2201 W. Deane
Street. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.64 acres. The
request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. This item was left on the first
reading at the October 5, 1999 City Council meeting.
Mayor Hanna noted that Richard Maynard had passed out a packet. at the last City Council meeting that
included a petition from the neighbors and some letters. He also stated that he had gotten a call from Mr.
Weatherford requesting that they leave this item on the second reading because he and his attorney would
be out of town for tonight's meeting.
Alderman Trumbo mentioned that he would like to allow everyone who had come to tonight's meeting
have an opportunity to speak tonight.
I Mayor Hanna stated that Mr. Maynard had given him a list of speakers opposing the proposal.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Mayor Hanna asked the Council for their comments.
Alderman Daniel mentioned that she had checked with the courthouse records and had found that Mr.
Weatherford was not the legal owner of the property in question.
Jeff Whitmer, Lindsey & Associates Realty, stated that he had the deeds which showed that Mr.
Weatherford owned the property but they had not been filed with the County Courthouse yet.. He said that
he would bring them to the next Council meeting.
Alderman Daniel said that she had received about 25 e -mails and calls opposing this item and two calls in
favor.
Mayor Hanna introduced Father Douglas Simmons as one of the speakers representing the opposition to
this rezoning.
Father Douglas Simmons, 1558 Stable, stated that his reason for opposing this item was because of its
hazard. The more dense the population, the more dangerous the area is for its residents. This area has
small roads with no shoulders or sidewalks, only ditches. There had been many accidents at the
intersection of Deane Street and Porter Road. People use Porter Road as a shortcut to Highway 71. The
proposed apartment complex would house many students who would use Deane Street, Sang Avenue, and
Porter Road. It has been his experience from.living in other cities like Fayetteville whose streets did not
increase in proportion to the size of the population..
694
City Council Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 4
Fay Dogee, 1745 Sang Avenue, stated that she has lived at her house for three years. Prior to that, she
lived at 1615 Sang Avenue, across from the Encore Apartments. Prior to that apartment complex was
built, she never experienced any flooding problems or high water. The empty land there had been lower
than the street. The soil had been covered in order to construct the apartments, which resulted in flooding
and stone water run-off. The pasture in question for this rezoning would also require that the soil be
covered to construct the apartments. Currently, the soil there is listed as pembroke silt loam which has
very good drainage and acts like a blotter. It is also lower than the land to the east on Sang Avenue.
Naturally, the apartment complex builder will bring in more soil to raise the level of the property to that of
the road, which will then result in a canal. She could not imagine that any construction they could do
would guarantee that the neighbors would not have resulting flooding problems. She had checked and
had found that the apartments at Linda Jo Place had flooded this year. She believed this rezoning would
lead to a rezoning request from the property owner on the south. She couldn't see any reason why they
could deny that future rezoning request; the City would virtually be saying to her and her neighbors that
they, as lower middle class homeowners in that area, shouldn't mind the rezoning, shouldn't mind that
their kids needed to dodge speeding cars, shouldn't mind the increase in partying and noise in the area,
and shouldn't matter that their property values were reduced. On October 7 and 8, her brother, a civil
engineer, J.M. Lavender came to surmise the situation. In Oklahoma City where he works, rezoning '
changes were not made unless there was an overwhelming need to do so, and he had found it strange that
zoning regulations here were considered as suggestions. She had also found available property that could
be developed closer to the university. She asked that the Council leave their neighborhood as it is.
Chris Norris, 2122W. Lawson, stated that he and his wife had lived there for three years. He wanted to
know why they had not been informed of this rezoning. They had been informed by Richard Maynard
who had put a flyer on their door. They had decided to buy their home in that neighborhood because it
was close to Asbell School, had a big backyard, and was next to a church and afield. If this complex
went in, they would have to move. Their child walks to and from school and rides his bike in the
neighborhood. In his opinion, this rezoning would break the City's agreement with the neighborhood
with the current rezoning. He asked why they would want to put children in danger.
Faylene Honniger stated that she and her daughter had moved into their house on Hatfield almost two
years ago. She had bought this house for her daughter for when she grew up. She said there were fifteen
kids on her street where cars are constantly speeding. Her daughter is not allowed to walk by herself to or
from school. Kids don't always think before they step out into the street. Recently she had found out that
her whole street had been rezoned flood plain and they had not been informed by the City. Her neighbor
had been told by her bank, telling her that she needed to get flood insurance. Less people would be
interested in buying the houses in her neighborhood now. Part of the field for this apartment complex had
been determined to be within the flood plain. She had asked a City worker why they had been zoned as
flood plain; she had been told that it was due to the growth in the area, although Ms. Honniger thought
there had not been that much construction. She could not imagine any engineer telling her that her home
would not flood due to this new apartment complex. She knew in her heart that this was not right.
Alderman Davis asked for the date on the most current flood plain map.
M N 695
City Council Minutes
I.
October 19, 1999
Page 5
Tim Conklin, City Planner, answered that it was July 21, 1999. The Corps of Engineers and FEMA had
reevaluated the Fayetteville area and were producing more current maps. The City maps showed the
designations at that date, not for the future, and showed who was required to get flood insurance.
Alderman Davis stated that the, flood insurance rate maps changed constantly.
Mr. Conklin agreed.
Alderman Davis mentioned that flood insurance was very expensive.
Mr. Conklin answered yes and no. If your property had not been in the flood plain and had been built
correctly according to the existing flood maps of its time, then it would not be very expensive, it would be
grandfathered in. But if you do build below the flood elevation, then it could be a substantial increase.
Annetta Hoskins, 1601 N. Sang Avenue, stated she and her husband had owned their home for 13 %_
years. They had enjoyed Mr. Weatherford's cattle living across her back fence. She was not opposed to
Mr. Weatherford selling the property, nor the buyer developing the propety, but she was opposed to the
density being proposed. She didn't believe the property was limited to 140 units. She was concerned
with the increase in traffic the development would bring. She was concerned with the flood plain; Mr.
Weatherford's property looks like a lake after a heavy rain. She agreed with Ms. Harrington's comments
at the last Council meeting that it is the owners who are hurt; she pointed out that they, too, are owners.
Jim DeVore, 2615 Megan, stated that most of his concerns had already been expressed. He felt his
property would definitely be a part of any storm water run-off. The rainwater after the last rain had been
4'7" deep; one of his neighbors had had expensive damage done to his car due to the flooding. He felt that
the planning done in the City for the flood control had not been very good. Considering the people
affected by the run-off and the traffic from this development, it would not be necessary.
Richard Maynard asked for a show of hands for people opposed to this proposal. He deferred his time to
speak until after Mr. Hahn's attorney had spoken.
Wayne Krug, the petitioner and Michele Harrington's partner, asked to respond to the major concerns of
the citizens who had already spoken before Council. He pointed out that this would truly be a fill-in
zoning; there is a mixture of zoning in the area. Across the street is R-3 zoning which allows an even
higher density zoning than what they were proposing. Currently they have a field in the location, which is
not a good use of land for the landowner. He felt this was not a great change to the neighborhood in terms
of zoning. The change in zoning had been approved by the City's Planning staff and concurred with
sound planning strategy for the City. Issues of traffic, drainage, and screenage would all be dealt with
further in the development process. He stated that the issues of drainage and run-off would behandled by
the engineers. As for speeding traffic, he said that in his experience of the university, the students didn't
tear out of class and speed through residential streets. He thought a legitimate concern would bethe
increase in the amount of traffic that this apartment complex would cause, but he didn't think it was right
to not do anything in this area that might increase traffic. As for putting duplexes in instead of
696
City Council Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 6
apartments, you could put in 135 units rather than 140 units, less than a 5% increase from the duplex
density. He thought they would be pleased with the development they were putting in. If the property
were rezoned, the property owners were not legally bound by the 140 units he was talking about. This
project would not materially.harm others. The planning professional's felt the zoning was proper and fit
with the surrounding property: Access, drainage and other issues would be addressed during the large
scale process.
Alderman Santos asked if the developer had any intentions of providing a bill of assurance.
Mr. Krug replied developers would provide a bill of assurance stating that the development would be
between 12 and 15 units per acre rather than 20 and 24.
Mr. Nelson, Reality Resources, stated he was the developer hoping to purchase and rezone the property.
Other projects they had worked on they had not be able to get more than twelve units per acre. They did
large amenity package and a lot of green space. They were not trying to place too many units on one
space. It was unattractive and it was not what the students wanted. They were trying to take the
institutional feel out of the housing. This was a more upscale student housing project, with a lot of open
space and recreation facility.
Alderman Austin noted this property had been part of the solution to the flooding problem in the area.
He asked if the client would place a bill of assurance that everything possible would be done to manage
the water on the property, but to take care of the water that had been coming onto the property that the
neighbors had been talking about..
Mr. Krug stated they would have to do that irregardless.
Alderman Young clarified that the city had a drainage ordinance which the developer had to comply with.
Mr. Maynard stated he had been told very little. He was allowed to ask very little. He felt they had a
right to know what was going back there. He respected property rights, but property did affect other
property. The owner had the right to sell his property as long as it did not affect the rights of others. He
thought the owner could sell his property under the current zoning, but he was asking more than the
market would allow. He was concerned about the flooding. He expressed concern about the increase of
traffic this development would cause.
Mr. Krug stated the University was trying to recruit an additional one thousand student a year for the next
five years. Those students needed to live somewhere and it was nice to live close to the university. __Zoning was a function of government restriction on the property. Zoning was to keep alike uses together.
Alderman Daniels noted there was a proposal to build several new dorms on campus and they were
wanting to increase student enrollment.
Alderman Santos added the Chancler's goal was increase enrollment by 50% by the year 2010. He was
M % 697
' City Council Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page .7
wanting to
increase the percentage of students
living on campus from about
27% to approximately 40% in
the future.
It would
still
create an off campus
demand for several
thousand
off -campus units.
Alderman Davis added that was what they were hoping for, but reality was a different question. His
concern was that the Cliffs had an additional 200 units in the process of being constructed. They had also
just approved another 225 units close to the University Farms. All these units would be coming on line by
next fall. The city currently had a lot of vacancies in the newspapers for apartments. He was not sure that
they could prove at this time that there was a need for more apartments.
Mayor Hanna replied he was not sure that it was the council's charge to debate the need. He thought they
were to listen to both sides and make the best judgment they could.
Alderman Russell questioned what the traffic increase would be.
Mr. Conklin stated they had done a trip generation calculation using the Institute of Transportation
Engineers with 140 dwelling units they would expect in a twenty-four hour, two-way volume, of 928
trips. That was 928 trips going two -ways.
I
.Mr. Krug stated most of the traffic would not be twenty-four hours a day. He thought they would be
running approximately 80 vehicles an hour over the two or three exits. If they were to compare .with any
other reasonable intersection, they would find that it was not a large increase in traffic.
Ms. Doege stated she use to be a student. There was not way in the world she would only make two trips
a day. She was constantly make trips. She thought the estimate was too low for a student and needed to
be increased two to three times.
Alderman Russell asked if the equation to determine traffic estimate was if uniform or did they had a
factor to plug in there type of development or was it uniform for all type of dwelling unit and what type of
people they had living there.
Mr. Conklin replied there were different factors they could put into the program. There was not a factor
for students. All apartments were factored the same.
Alderman Austin questioned the different types of streets in the city.\
Mr. Conklin stated the city had a master street plan that classified streets by how they functioned and the
traffic they served. They had a local residential street that handled the traffic out of a subdivision. A
collector street which was a two-lane street, 36' wide which handled 4,000-6,000 vehicles per day. The
next street was a minor arterial street. It was a four -lane street it was 54' wide. It handled anywhere from
12,800 to 14,500 vehicles per day. Deane Street was classified as a minor artierial. It was currently built
as two-lane. They did have a principle arterial, which was also a four -lane street with a median boulevard
in the middle. Those were the city's major streets like College Avenue. Sang was classified as a local
street which was for 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day.
City Council Minutes ___
October 19,1999
Page 8
Alderman Russell asked to see a show of hands for people who where here for this issue. Most of the
audience raised there hands.
Alderman Young stated there were reasons to vote for the rezoning and there were reason to vote against
it. It was not going to be an easy decision.
Mayor Hanna thanked the people for coming.
ITEM WAS LEFT ON THE SECOND READING.
PASSENGER BUS
An ordinance approving a Bid Waiver to purchase one used Diesel -Powered Forward Control Passenger
Bus. This will allow the Mayor and City Clerk to approve for purchase the unit recommended by the
Fleet Operations Division, the Youth Center Director, and the Equipment Committee. This unit will be
primarily utilized by the Fayetteville Youth Center.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Alderman Austin moved to
suspend
the
rules and move
to the second reading. Alderman Davis
seconded the motion. Upon
roll call
the
motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Alderman Santos moved to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading. Alderman
Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time.
Alderman Daniels asked if the equipment had been located yet.
Mayor Hanna replied it had not been located yet. They were giving the fleet manager the latitude got out
and look for one. If he found one that met the guidelines that the equipment committee had approved.
This would give him the authority to go out and purchase it.
Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE 4193 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
a
708
N
City Council Minutes __November 2, 1999
Page 2
HANNA MOORE LEASE
A resolution approving a lease agreement with Hanna Moore Development for a six-month lease
for heated storage located at 1671 Fred Hanna Drive per bid 99-77. The agreement will be for
the period from November 1,• 1999 to April 30, 2000.
RESOLUTION 141-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Alderman Davis moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Alderman Daniel seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
RZ 99-28
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-28.00 submitted by Michele Harrington
on behalf of William M. Weatherford and Larry and Brenda Swain for property located
at 2200 and 2201 W. Deane Street. Item was postponed until November 16, 1999 City
Council meeting.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
A resolution approving the 2000-2004 Capital Improvements Program. This is a planning
document; any funding will be submitted with the 2000 Operating Budget.
Alderman Austin moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Santos seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0.
RESOLUTION 142-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
RZ 99-29 PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-29.00. The request is to rezone approximately
1.0 acres of land located along Sycamore Street from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5,
Moderate Density Residential, to allow the development of an upper -scale six -unit residential
Planned Unit Development. The ordinance was left on the first reading at the October 19, 1999
City Council meeting.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Mayor Hanna stated he had received a petition from the Board of Directors of the Richardson
Center. He had also received a number of letters concerning the rezoning.
M
OLD BUSINESS
723
City Council Minutes
November 16, 1999
Page 3
RZ 99-28
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-28.00 submitted by Michele Harrington on
behalf of William M. Weatherford and Larry and Brenda Swain for property located at 2200 and
2201 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 11.64 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density
Residential. This item was left on• the second reading at the October 19, 1999 City Council
meeting.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time.
Mayor Hanna stated the ordinance was on the third reading. He noted there had been a
neighborhood meeting at Asbell School last Thursday. He added the City had received. a Bill of
Assurance from the developers limiting their development to what they originally told them they
would do. Mr. Richard Maynard made the statement that he would not address the issue tonight,
unless the partitioners addressed the issue, then he reserved the right to speak. He asked the
council if they needed to discuss the issue further or if they were ready to vote on the issue.
Alderman Daniel stated the neighborhood meeting had been very good. She stated that she could
not support the rezoning. She represented them. She had lived on the street for several years.
She had bought a home on Deane Street. She felt it was still her neighborhood. There were still
some property owners in the neighborhood. It was a neighborhood in transition. There were a
lot of apartments and duplexes in the area; however, there were property owners who wanted to
maintain their property and property values. Even though the City had strict ordinances she
thought there might be problems with drainage. Deane Street was getting very busy and she felt
the traffic was increasing. She would like to see less dense and high quality development.
Alderman Austin stated the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission had approved the
rezoning. The projections indicated there was a need for more in the future. He thought it was a
good plan. The streets were ready to handle more traffic than what this project would generate.
There was a need for densifying inside the beltway. However, there were several reasons to vote
against it. The sewer capacity and the traffic on Sang Avenue would be greater, because there is
a light on Wedington Drive. The environment of family atmosphere would be disrupted. There
was no traffic light on Deane and Porter Road. There might be late night noises for the
neighbors. He thought it was the right time for the project, but the wrong place. He would
oppose the rezoning.
Alderman Santos stated he was very sympathetic to the neighbors, but he thought the City had
agreed on a policy for the future development of Fayetteville. They had planned to encourage
higher density inside the bypass, along transit lines, and near schools and universities. They
Li
1
a . IS
724
' City Council Minutes
November 16, 1999
Page 4
were going to preserve hillsides, wooded areas and vista views. He thought this was the kind of
project that followed all of those goals that they had professed to endorse, except when it came to
applying them to real life, which meant that no matter where they tried to place a development of
this type of density they were going to get this sort of complaints. This parcel was surrounded by
multi -family dwellings on the east, with duplexes and apartments to the west. The property
owner on the south supported this rezoning. The property owner on the north was the University
Farms. He could see how they could say they. had these goals of increasing the density inside the
City limits and preserving hillsides and all those noble goals without causing some
inconvenience to the most immediate neighbors. In this case most of the neighbors were in
multi -family units. He thought they needed to, either follow or change their goals. He asked
whether the Council wanted to encourage sprawl and the planning principles or not.
Alderman Young stated he would take exception to the views of Alderman Santos.. They all
embraced the ideas increasing density. Everyone was looking to the land use plan and pointing
out one aspect of increasing density. It was how they did it. It was not by rezoning into a higher
density. The whole idea of infill was that they were to infill that particular lot. They would
increase the density of the area but not by rezoning. If they increased the zoning, that was in
conflict with other parts of the plan, affecting compatibility.. He looked at the Grey Apartments;
at the time they were constructed, the apartments would not be built, because the regulations had
been put into affect by the citizens of Fayetteville. He was going to oppose this development.
He did not believe these apartments would be compatible with the surrounding area.
Alderman Russell stated if they did need student housing and did not allow them to be developed
in areas like this; then they would be pushed out toward the edges of town and would increase
sprawl. The people of Fayetteville were going to be the ones to pay the price of that. He thought
if this was in his backyard he would be arguing against the rezoning because of property values.
The right of the property owner argument did not weigh well with him because he thought the
property had been zoned R-1 for a long time. Perhaps the property owners could not get the
money they wanted for their property and were forced to sell it within the current zones. Another
reason to vote against the rezoning was that they had not, to his knowledge, had anyone from the
University state that this supported the University's goals. He thought in the future they would
need more student housing, but he did not believe the need was there now. He would be
opposing the rezoning.
Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call the ordinance failed by a vote of 1-7-0,
Alderman Santos voting for the rezoning.
ORDINANCE FAILED BY VOTE OF 1-7-0.
JUL-22-2002 1116R FROM: 70:7187695 P:1'3
.. - • •
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
U + fl SUNH0.1i)oF • FAX
SURES • r/1 Y6LT9Yf1.Lf! �71XAN7Af 7170] • (f•I)Y7.9127•iw7((SUt)111-4/01
,, .
Number of Pages: (including cover)
Phone; (501)442-9127
Fax:(501)582-4807
ARKS Y I•i � •.� ili•'.•' w!(•IYII .. q9! 1 ♦ �✓��r 7' • M•. _4ry n� � � ( yYnt• 1 �" :111 Y." )�r l��� r
y� gi ii Bp i4 `er
SSv✓7p3.«e
�D%?Q�r•(tia.S
JLL-22-2@02 11:1711 FROM: 70:7187695 P:2'3
.. _ _ - .II Is'•,1 rnVrcn. .ca Y.w.,i 02
JULg17-2n 11'06n FMMe
• TW73P:2�J
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR 111 )1 CITY OF FAYXI"IEVILLE
i.. . .1 1 1 w I ' 1. 1 . . \ ♦ ..1 • 1, •, ' 1 .., I � .III.
,\1 I 1 .I.. •,I wl� • 1 1 .. , 1.1 ,.
-.II 1 •. ♦ 1 '4111 1111 .Irl•.,•- iig,_•.
-1 +1 1 1 •rl' I 1
♦• 1 II1 1111 I11 1 J 1 ♦1 .•Y w
.\ w 1 w II. I ♦ It . 1 1 -• y n I
•4:r .' •• - ru
- ,.r t.'( i.
' - 1. �/ I1 I I .1.. 11 '.•. I• p
.,IJll,yl • \. YI •. u.. 1. •
,iN. •wa'. 1 • n ..111 r
• •1 1 ' 11 11 . -
111' II 1 \ r1 1 .1 1 • 1 -I. ,•.I .'1 1•..
1 L • 1 I, .1 .b• 11 "11 •1.1 11 Ln- 1
1.1 1 1 •1 1' itJ,l •ql •111 111. 1 1 11 1 • � I•
L1 � I IJ
a.
' I L1'1 •+ 1 +1 1 Il 1111 r 1 11+1. • 1 L - v. -• I.I .L I .•11.•11 . , \ • -
1L
I r. 1 �tl Irl• 4` n, 1 Ir
I l 1 1 • 1'♦. q •1' 11 I11]fl!,,,
r1r1 1
1 I•• '.11 11111 • 1 •� 1111 II Y P. 1 1 1
In11 ,. `r 11 1r 1 I. 1'
1 .L 1. Y •/rl.: It- d 111 1 LI .- I,.,. .•
rl `l.0 1 :1Tit). r 11..cii
�• 11 IJ. rIl r' • Ir I r l.. 1
1111 1 1 1. • P11 1 1 111 I11 \ l 1
1'.
JUL-22-2002 MION 10:46FlM ID:
JUL-22-2002 11:17A FROM:
07/22/2002 1046 14797580•
0
JLL-17- 11:07A FROM:
TO:7197695
MATHIAS PROPERTIES•
1D:75!
P:3/3
PAGE 03
P13/3
V.
i, 'le. I, d' .I, . I. • , 11.: , . 4F1. I ,I':1 '1 .I
1 _• . 11 : 1 \ . 111 •, ,. •1
,I 1 • . ,'.111•, 1 .,, •� •.
k,_r_ilrfrJ,c.JIv:,iii 1 1 • 7 I :. 11 11.. .1
I ..1 ♦ I ♦:.11 VI 11 I`. 11 y V11♦ YI r 1 '1 p 111
1 11 . I 111 , 1 -J14r
♦.. / .1
• ♦I ' n •L.
1. 1I -I ♦ . 11'1 1 Ic 1 1
11 1 ' 1' 11 111/11• ••
.
..11 11Y ♦. 1 .''T•1 1 1 V 1I
7_
One
�•_� III ..,1 .• •.ru u. : i.n :P 1...
.r r 1 1" 1 .• n. 1 r '
1 y 1 r :1.1 lu-. 1 1 •1
'11 1• 1.- •-I. . I III
y•
1 I• .1 I .1'11 1 ''.I 1"I X 1 1
r �
NOTARY
Ti.
JLL-22-2002 MON 10:46A11 ID! PPGE:3
STAFF REVIEW FORM
X Agenda Request
Contract Review
Grant Review
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of August 6, 2002.
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning Urban Development
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUESTED: To approve an ordinance for RZN 02-17.00 as submitted
by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias for
property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue, and
east of Porter Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is
to rezone to RMF-6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential.
COST TO CITY:
$0
Cost of this request
Account Number
Category/Project Budget
Funds used to date
Project Number Remaining balance
Category/Project Name
Program Name
Fund
BUDGET
REVIEW:
Budgeted Item
Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget
Coordinator
Administrative
Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Acme tin anager Date ADA Coordinator Date
C/ity o ney Internal Auditor Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on July 8, 2002 the
Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend the rezoning be
approved by the City Council.
Cross Reference
New Item: Yes No
Prev Ord/Res#:
Orig Contract Date:
STAFF REVIEW FORM
X Agenda Request
Contract Review
Grant Review
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of August 6, 2002.
Tim Conklin
Name
Planning Urban Development
Division Department
ACTION REQUESTED: To approve an ordinance for RZN 02-17.00 as submitted
by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias for
property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue, and
east of Porter Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is
to rezone to RMF-6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential.
COST TO CITY:
$0
Cost of this request
Account Number
Category/Project Budget
Funds used to date
Project Number Remaining balance
Category/Project Name
rogram Name
BUDGET
REVIEW:
Budgeted Item
Budget Adjustment Attached
Services Director
Budget
Coordinator
Administrative
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Accounting Manager Date ADA Coordinator Date
City Attorney Date Internal Auditor Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on July 8, 2002 the
Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend the rezoning be
approved by the City Council.
v
Date
Department Director Date
Administrative Services Date
Director
Mayor
Date
Cross Reference
New Item: Yes No
Prev Ord/Res#:
Orig Contract Date:
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Tim Conklin, Planning Division
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: August 21, 2002
Please find attached a copy of Ordinance No. 4410 rezoning that property described in rezoning
Petition RZN 02-17.00 located South of Deane Street, West of Sang Avenue, and East of Porter
Avenue, as submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on Behalf of Bleaux Barnes
and Sam Mathias. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit
010 03 City of etteville 8/23/2002
update In Maintenance • 16:37:04
Document Item Action
Reference Date Ref. Taken Brief Description
ORD 8202002 4410 RZN 02-17.00/DEANE ST & SANGE AVE
Enter Keywords........: ORD. 4410
REZONING
RZN 02-17.00
21.03 ACRES
DEANE STREET
SANGE AVENUE
PORTER AVENUE
JORGENSEN, DAVE
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
BLEAUX BARNES & SAM MATHIAS
File Reference #......: MICROFILM
Security Class........:
Expiration Date.......:
Date for Cont/Referred:
Name Referred to......:
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.