Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4411 r ORDINANCE NO. 4411 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02- 15 .00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 57.82 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF PERSIMMON STREET AND WEST OF 46TH STREET, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVE JORGENSEN OF JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. 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 A- 1 , Agricultural to R- 1 , Low Density 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 subject to a Bill of Assurance as offered by the applicant. PASSED and APPROVED this 3 d day of September. N _ 0 Cn N t rn � L Q < T� APPROVED : cnm ; o -r c C a By: DAN COODY, Mayor = -c- ;o r cn C, oe By: 1 . Bather Woodruff, City Clerk ir 20011 71 39 Ord . 4411 EXHIBIT "A" I PART OF THE SE '/4 OF THE SE '/4 OF SECTION 11 AND PART OF THE S W '/4 OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 12, ALL IN T16N, R31 W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SW 1 /4 , SW '/4 THENCE NO2027 '45"E 35 .00 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE NO2027 '4517E 622.88 FEET, THENCE N87°29' 18"W 1322.92 FEET, THENCE NO2012900"E 660. 10 FEET, THENCE S87031 '5599E 1324.03 FEET, THENCE S87010'4411E 1278.69 FEET, THENCE S02016132"W 1286.49 FEET, THENCE N87004103"W 1280.99 FEET TO THE P.O.B. ; CONTAINING 57.82 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. 20 71 394 I, Bette Stamps, Circuit Clerk and Ex-officio Recorder for Washington County, Arkansas, do hereby certify that this Instrument was filed for record In my office as indicated hereon and the same Is now duly recorded with the acknowledgement and certificate thereon in Record Book and Page as indicated thereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed a seal of said Court on the date indi- cated hereon. Belt amps Circuit k a lido Recorder by 0 NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4411 CROSS REFERENCE: ! 09/03/02 Ordinance No. 4411 Legal Description for RZN02- 15.00 as submitted by Dave Jorgensen on Z behalf of Larry Garriott for property located north of Persimmon Street and west of 46' Street. 3 06/12/02 Planning Division Correspondence 06/10/02 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 22-33) 06/06/02 Planning Division Correspondence 04/21 /02 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 11 . 12 - 11 . 18a) 7 04/18/02 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 10- 15) 04/13/02 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 10- 12) ry 06/12/02 Letter to Planning Dept. from David L. Jorgensen, P.E., Jorgensen & d Associates 9 Bill of Assurance from Larry Garriott 10 07/02/02 Staff Review Form �I 09/06/02 Memo to Tim Conklin, Planning Division, from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk NOTES : ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02715.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 57.82 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF PERSIMMON STREET AND WEST OF 46T" STREET, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVE JORGENSEN OF JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. 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 A-1 , Agricultural to R-1 , Low Density 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 subject to a Bill of Assurance as offered by the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2002. APPROVED: DRAFT By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: DRAFT By: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" PART OF THE SE '/a OF THE SE '/a OF SECTION 11 AND PART OF THE SW /40F THE SW '/a OF SECTION 12, ALL IN T16N, R31 W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SW CORNER OF SAID SW 1 /4 , SW '/4 THENCE NO2027'4511E 35 .00 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE NO2027145"E 622.88 FEET, THENCE N87029118"W 1322.92 FEET, THENCE NO2012100"E 660. 10 FEET, THENCE S87031 ' 5551E 1324.03 FEET, THENCE S87010'44"E 1278.69 FEET, THENCE S0201693213W 1286.49 FEET, THENCE N87004103"W 1280.99 FEET TO THE P.O.B. ; CONTAINING 57. 82 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. FAYETTENAtLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (501) 575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Dan Coody Fayetteville City Council FROM : Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner THRU: Hugh Earnest, Urban Development Director Tim Conklin, City Planner DATE: June 12, 2002 BACKGROUND RZN 02- 15 .00: Rezoning was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Larry Garriott for property owned by John & Louise Sager, Paul & Bernice Guisinger, RD & Kay Kight, Jean Ann Jones, James Guisinger, and Peggy Jones and located north of Persimmon Street and west of 46`" Street. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural and contains approximately 57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R- 1 , Low Density Residential. The site is located south of Wedington DriveHighway 16) and west of 46th Avenue. Persimmon Street is the south boundary of the site and 46t Avenue is the east boundary. The applicant proposes that various stub outs will be provided on both 46`" Avenue and Persimmon Street, both of which are designated as collector streets on the Master Street Plan. The site is currently a vacant field with six property owners, all of whom have signed the application form. Approximately 700 feet of the western portion of the property is in the floodplain of Owl Creek. There is a heavily wooded area along the north boundary. The site is flat with a few trees along the western portion. The site and surrounding area are designated as residential in General Plan 2020. Agricultural and residential land uses currently exist in the area. There are two residential neighborhoods within 'A mile of the site: Meadowlands to the east and Fieldstone to the north. A single family residence is located to the southeast and a bam is directly south. Large acreage single family residences are located to the west. A request to rezone this property from A- 1 Agricultural to R- 1 Low Density Residential was brought before the Planning Commission in April 1998. Residents presented concerns about traffic, drainage, and lot sizes. The Planning Commission denied the request with a vote of 4-4-0. The applicants appealed to City Council. City Council denied the appeal on May 5, 1998. CURRENTSTATUS The Planning Commission voted 6-2-0 to recommend the City Council approve the rezoning. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of RZN 02- 15 .00 : Rezoning (Garriott, pp 437/438). C:\Documents and Settings\tempuser\Local Settings\Temp\RZN Garriou.doc Planning Commission • . June 10, 2002 Page 22 RZN 02-15.00: Rezoning (Garriott, pp 437/438) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Larry Garriott for property owned by John & Louise Sager, Paul & Bernice Guisinger, RD & Kay Kight, Jean Ann Jones, James Guisinger, and Peggy Jones and located north of Persimmon Street and west of 46`s Street. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural and contains approximately 57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R- 1 , Low Density Residential. Hoffman: I had intended at the beginning of the meeting to let you know, and I didn't, that item 10 which is just an administrative item submitted by the City of Fayetteville for an alteration to the Master Street Plan has been withdrawn. Was anybody here that wanted to address the Commission on this item, item 10? If anybody wants to say something about it they are welcome to. Seeing nobody, we are going to go ahead then to item 11 which is RZN 02- 15 .00 which was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Larry Garriott for property owned by John and Louise Sager, Paul & Bernice Guisinger, RD & Kay Kight, Jean Ann Jones, James Guisinger, and Peggy Jones and located north of Persimmon Street and west of 46h Street. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural and contains approximately 57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R- 1 , Low Density Residential. Tim, would you like to give us the benefit of staff' s comments before we take the presentation from the applicant? Conklin: Staff is recommending approval. The property is currently zoned A- 1 , the General Plan 2020 does show this as residential on the land use plan. R- 1 zoning allows.40 units per acre. Single family homes are a use by right. It does allow conditional uses for duplexes. Back in 1998 the same request was made to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-4-0, failed to approve the rezoning. That was appealed to the City Council and the City Council denied the appeal on May 5, 1998. Thank you. Hoffman: Is the applicant here? Would you like to make a presentation or just answer questions? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am representing the owner, Larry Garriott on this project. As you noted, our request is to rezone from A- 1 to R- 1 . When I took this job I didn't think that was too far fetched. However, as I got into it I found out that back in 1998 the Planning Commission did tie the vote 4-4 and basically the bottom line was that the request was turned down. In light of this, we did go out there and make a true investigation to find out what we're getting into and determine how many lots we could really put on this property because reading in the newspaper, and as you well know, we are allowed four lots per acre with Planning Commission • June 10, 2002 Page 23 the request of R- 1 , which would put us up there to around 240 lots. The paper mentioned something like 232 lots, which if I lived out in that area, that would pretty well blow my mind too. I would say "Good griefl That is kind of ridiculous!" We did do a layout on the project to find out what we really could put out there and if you don't mind, I will hand out a real quick layout, just to let you know, so you' ll have something to look at. Hoffman: Make sure Renee gets one to put in the record please. Could you explain this please? Jorgensen: This property, I 'm sure you've all looked at your packet. It is located at the northwest comer of Persimmon and 46th Street, just west of 46th, north of Persimmon, a 'A mile stretch each direction. As you can see, we have proposed two entrances off of 46th Street and one entrance off of Persimmon Street. The lot layout in there is kind of a natural one in that we have got a 40 acre parcel and then we have got a 20 to the west. Everything drains in a southwesterly direction. In the southwest comer of that 40 acre parcel we've got a large area that is set aside for a detention pond and then in the southwest area of the 20 acres that is to the west is the floodplain and Owl Creek that goes through there. Drainage basically goes in a west, southwesterly direction so we've got two areas set aside for detention ponds. You can also notice that there is a maximum amount of 158 lots laid out in this thing. This is all we could get in here. I take that back, we could put in more if we went with smaller lots. Lot size dimensions are not on this right here but they range anywhere from 75 ' to 90' wide on the corners, 110' on the corners possibly, by 135 ' deep. This comes to about 2.6 lots per acre. Naturally that is well under the four lots per acre that is allowed. This puts us right around .39 acres per lot, which when you compare that with what we could put in, we could put in smaller sized lots if we ended up getting it rezoned to R- 1 , which is a stretch. Being that there is so much opposition to an R- 1 zoning, the owner would like to offer a Bill of Assurance to help move this thing along. Should it get approved, we would like to get it approved subject to this Bill of Assurance. The minimum square footage on the houses is 1 ,800 sq.ft., which is what they propose, a two car garage, 80% brick houses, fully sodded yards, 7 %a pitch on the roof with architectural shingles. We would have to also agree to a privacy fence along Persimmon Street and 46th Street. Because of the traffic that I 'm talking about, the type of fence is something more than your standard board fence, shadow box fence, whatever you want to call it. I am talking about precast concrete panels with brick columns or something like that. The one, and probably the most important item, is the 158 lots maximum. To tell you the truth, we don't even know if we can get 158 lots because we still have to go through our drainage calculations to make sure that we can put the detention ponds Planning Commission • June 10, 2002 Page 24 in the areas set aside for this. As you can imagine, that is a fairly complex little process that we have to go through should we get it rezoned. That is going to be one of the next things we do is determine how large our detention area is set aside for these detention ponds. Taking that all into account, we would like to point out that $80 or $85 a foot times 1 ,800 sq.ft., we are talking about $ 170,000 houses on up to $225,000 or something like that. We believe that it is going to be a nice area. I have met with Mr. Jowers, being that he does have a lot of the property that surrounds this to the south and to the east, he wouldn't commit whether he thought this was a good idea or not, but at least it is getting a little bit better than what it was before. I also met with Paul Marinoni on this and he was non-committal on it also. Basically, we feel like we've got a good plan here. I know that there has been discussion of drainage. Like I said, all the drainage goes in a west, southwest direction. We do have to limit our post development flow to nothing more than what the predevelopment is and that is the reason for the two detention ponds that are set aside for this right here. If it is approved, we do have to present this layout, as you all know, to the Parks Department to find out if they would like a park in this area or if they would like money in lieu for the Youth Center, which is a strong possibility so we have still got to go through that. Then we will naturally have to bring the Preliminary Plat through the process as we normally do. I also noticed that in the traffic study that Persimmon and 46`h Street were designed, I 'm referring to page 4 of the staff report, that these two are designed as collector streets and will accommodate 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. They further go on to state that this should adequately accommodate the potential 2,300 trips that a 232 lot subdivision would generate. Like I said, we are going to have quite a bit less than that. That, combined with the fact that on the next page, the Wedington Hwy. 16 is designed for between 17,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day, it states that the additional traffic will not exceed the design capacities for this arterial street. I am sure that residents out there would beg to differ on this and at certain times of the day, there is no doubt in my mind that that could be somewhat tough getting out there on Wedington. I would be glad to answer any questions if you all have any. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Dave. At this time I will go ahead and take public comment. Who in the audience would like to address us on this rezoning? If you would come forward and say your name and give us the benefit of your ideas please. PUBLIC COMMENT: Adams: My name is Gary Adams and I live at 760 N. 46'h Street. Comment number one, two years ago we went through this same process and the Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 25 City Council postponed approving it because there was no infrastructure at that time to support what was being suggested and there has been no change in that infrastructure. I am just kind of wondering why we're doing this again without any upgrading in what is out there. Number two, each morning when I go to work it usually takes me somewhere between one and five minutes to get on Hwy. 16 as it is now. When you add how many ever people are going to be coming up that street trying to get on Hwy. 16 it is going to be almost impossible. Number three, in the last three weeks there have been three wrecks within a half a mile of that intersection. It is because people are pulling out onto Hwy. 16, which is a four lane highway to about 2/10 of a mile until you get to 46th Street it becomes a two lane highway instead of four lane and people fly through there, they don't pay attention, and without in my opinion, making it four lane out to Double Springs, it is going to be a terrific traffic bottleneck trying to get in and out of there if you make any additional housing developments out in that area. They have done that over the last five or ten years and we are just really kind of full of housing divisions out there. I would appreciate you voting against this proposal. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Adams. Who else would like to come and talk to us about this? Luttrell: I am Oie Luttrell at 4480 Luttrell Lane and to add to maybe what Mr. Adams has mentioned, and Dave Jorgensen, I think I was blown away when I read the paper and it said there is no opposition and no one knew about it and of course I didn't know about it. Such a development as what was listed in the paper was frightening because of the conditions that have already been mentioned to you. Certainly I think we realize that the owners should be allowed to develop this and our concern would be that the property would be comparable and I think all of you can identify with that kind of situation. Most of us out there have invested a little bit more into our property. The smallest house out there that adjoins this is 2,600 sq.fl. of living and heated space plus a double car garage and a good size lot area there with it. These are maybe a little older. The one I mentioned was built in 1969, but they are in good repair and there is still a lot of pride in the neighborhood and we, as a neighborhood just like anyone else, want to go ahead and preserve what we have. Understanding that there is going to be development and certainly the traffic is a problem and it will be more of a problem, and we understand that too I think; but certainly you can see our desires of the safety and concerns that happen with this. Certainly, it was heart warming to hear Mr. Jorgensen mention that at least they were looking back to some larger sized lots because again, that is smaller numbers of homes and the opportunity to have bigger homes which means again that maybe you won't have as much rental and other traffic and Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 26 things like that that are generated that way. I wanted to share one quick situation that I did a few years ago and that was I built that house that I mentioned, the 2,600 sq.ft. house adjacent to the Guisinger property back in the spring of 1969. Mr. Guisinger came out and visited with me when I was a young 28 year old building that house. He was concerned what was going to happen there, just as we are here today. His concern was that he owned the property there, the near sixty acres and there was an old house, the bottom line was he was concerned and I understood that as a young man and built that house as a pretty good size house and a nice home and it has withstood the years. I know that he had plans of course that didn't come through. He had a home on there that he wanted to repair and move there and maybe retire when it came about and it did not come through for him. Consequently, the old house even had to be tom down. There are concerns and that is what we're voicing to you, concerns as neighbors and concerns that again, this is something that is going on in our neighborhood and we would ask that you use good judgment and try to remember us as you would remember yourselves in a situation like that. Thank you so much. Hoffman : Thank you Mr. Luttrell. Is there anybody else? Cash: Good evening, my name is Arlene Cash. I am at 788 N. 46th Avenue. I have lived there for about one year. I moved to 46th Avenue from the Hyland Park area looking for a community where there was proven concern over the safety of children. I came to my home with a five year old, a nine year old, and a twelve year old. There are several families within five houses of ours where there are young children and young families who have moved here for the express purpose of looking at a community that is of the size and nature that will allow children to cross the street in relative safety. I say relative because of this. . . we have found cars going up and down that street at 40 or 50 miles per hour going up to Hwy. 16. We have seen tremendous increase of traffic. I have only lived there for a year but there must be some community from where they are coming to get to Hwy. 16 up past the lot that is being discussed today. So many cars in fact that this morning I just sat there and counted and I did wait seven minutes, this morning on a summer morning, to get out onto Hwy. 16 because the traffic coming through at 8 : 15 this morning. I think about school busses coming down that way. I think about children scurrying across the streets, I worry tremendously about the number of cars that are coming up there, but most importantly when we were looking for a community to live in, we looked at the reports of 1998 and we saw the concern this group gave to having the appropriate infrastructure in place before putting families in homes at that level and that density in that area and I just never would've thought that those concerns would be Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 27 overlooked. In fact, I don't believe they will be overlooked now. I encourage you to look back at why it was not approved in the past, to think about the infrastructure necessary to support that, to understand that young families have moved there in the last three years because of the kind of community that is there and because of the lack of traffic and danger that we feel for our children and ourselves. I thank you for your consideration and really encourage you once again to go there, look at that community, watch the traffic, there is nothing like being there and look at the kids that are crossing those streets and think about the danger that might put them in with the situation. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Ms. Cash. Goff: I am Miller Goff. I have lived in that area for several years now. A lot of things you hear creeping this, and creeping that, and sometimes you don't notice what is creeping up on you. It wasn't this group but another group facing me up there that decided to buy some land in this neighborhood, less than a mile, well in fact, part of the property would be across a street comer connecting southwest and northeast of land that the City already owns for the purpose of building a waste water treatment plant. The road, 46`h Street, have you been out there? Did you notice the lack of shoulders on 46`h Street? You've only got one street to access on as is planned on at the present time, it is 46`h Street. You've got two on 46 Street and one on Persimmon Street, but that is all saying the same thing, 46`h Street. If it is possible there needs to be another way to let the people get in and out while we wait on that traffic light that has to happen. With the event of the sewer plant, we are going to get a lot of heavy trucks I am imagining. The street won't take that kind of treatment that is there. Something needs to be done now or else all of what my neighbors have just told you are going to get worse instead of better real quick. I want to compliment Mr. Jorgensen and Mr. Garriott for being somewhat more reasonable than other people have been when property in that neighborhood has developed. I believe that there may not be a vehicle for this suggestion, but I would certainly think that there are people in the neighborhood who would be willing to work with them as a committee on finalizing their plans that would solve the problems, or at least help solve the problem, make them less offensive to the neighbors who live there, if it could be worked out where those people could all work together and then come back and present to you a plan that perhaps has a better chance of being implemented without so much noise. Does that make sense Mr. Jorgensen? Jorgensen: I hear you, it makes sense. Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 28 Goff: I believe it is possible that a street could be, another entrance back to Hwy. 16 could happen. I don't know that that is right but the way that the property lays there there is some more property to be developed who knows when that is going to need some access other than there on Hwy. 16. 1 think a little longer range planning might be beneficial to everybody concerned and this might could be done without as many shouting matches as there is likely to be if it goes on the way it is right now. Thank you very much. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Goff. Shirley: My name is Greg Shirley. I live at 718 N. 46'h Avenue and there is not a lot that I can add to that. Everything that has been said so far I agree with. I notice that some of the subdivisions such as this that have been built on Hwy. 16 so far tend to empty directly onto Hwy. 16. In this case it would empty directly through our neighborhood basically. Mr. Jowers called me to ask me to come to this meeting and I do know that he is concerned about it as well as the rest of us and I appreciate you all thinking real carefully for us about it. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you. Calico: My name is Clifford Calico and I live at 5180 Persimmon, which just north of us, the property just comes back on the north of our property. Of course it has been stated before, we went through this in 1998, four years ago or whatever, and at that time, we haven't seen the proposed plot as to what is proposed behind our property, but previously they had planned to put a park or something of that nature. In any case, that is neither here nor there. We are retired, we don't have to fight that traffic at 8:00 every morning but on occasion we do have to go out on Hwy. 16 for one reason or another at 8:00 in the morning and it is dangerous to get out on Hwy. 16. It is just as tough to get back on Hwy. 16 because you have to cross the traffic that is coming into town. We don't need anymore congestion than what we've got out there. Now we know that that property sometime is going to sell. The owners have a right to sell it and it is going to sell sometime but we would like to see it developed in such a way that there is a minimum of congestion and better access to it. You said something about maybe there is going to be two accesses to it, one off Persimmon, we haven't seen any of this and don't know what that is but in any case, I just wanted to ask you to vote against this until the infrastructure has been brought up to a level to where we alleviate some of this traffic congestion. You just can't believe how tough it is. I guess we get a lot of traffic that comes in off that 648 through Farmington through there that comes up on 46'h. Out in front of our house we don't get quite as much of that as the Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 29 folks that live on 46th but it is just a continuous stream of traffic in and out of there. We would just ask that you vote against this as is proposed now until the infrastructure is improved. Thank you very much. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Calico. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this rezoning? Once I close public comment you won't have a chance to come back up here so if anybody else would like to speak. Once I close public comment that's it, we'll just be having discussion between the applicant and the Commission so I just wanted to make sure if anybody else would like to speak now is the time. Ok, seeing no one else, I will close public comment. Dave? Jorgensen: I meant to mention that 46th Street and Persimmon will have to be improved in accordance with city regulations. We are talking curb and gutter and widening, whatever is required by the City and storm drainage. I agree, that right there would be kind of tough to accommodate all of the traffic without the widening and that kind of stuff right there so I just wanted to point that out that that is something that will have to be done. Hoffman: Thanks Dave, Commissioners? Bunch: Tim, could you tell us what designation Persimmon has on the Master Street Plan and also if there are any additional plans on Persimmon and 54th and 46th associated with the Waste Water Treatment Plant project? Conklin: The Waste Water Treatment Plant has not been brought forward to the Planning Commission at this time. It will in the near future. I don't have that information this evening. With regard to the designation, Persimmon is designated as a collector, 46th is designated as a collector. You may recall with the Boys and Girls Club, right of way was dedicated as part of that plat and Persimmon was actually built as part of Lindsey's project off of Shiloh Road, that part of Persimmon so it is on the Master Street Plan to be built. Bunch: So we don't know yet what the plans are for 54th and 46th associated with the trucking from the Waste Water Treatment Plant? Conklin: That has not been brought through the planning process at this time. Bunch: At one time I think there was some mention of a southern route. Conklin: I am not going to guess on that because I have not sat down with engineers and the Public Works Director and we have not brought that through and it Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 30 would just be a guess at this time to make any statements with regard to how they are going to access that facility. Bunch: Thank you. Ward: Tim, on the findings of fact by the staff, could you kind of go over that as far as the findings on rezoning, findings of traffic, and so on? Conklin: Sure. This area that we are looking at potentially rezoning, there was a large annexation that went out to Double Springs Road in 1982 so this area was brought into the city about 20 years ago. Since then, we've seen development occur on both sides of Wedington Drive. We have seen developments are zoned R-1, R-1.5, R-2, typically your single family home development zoned R-1, minimum lot width is 70', 8,000 sq.ft. With regard to the findings that we looked at, this is an area that the City of Fayetteville cost shared to improve Wedington Drive. 1.8 million dollars was our cost share for that. We are spending another million dollars to help with the Boys and Girls Club. This is an area that is being urbanized. R-1 zoning is your typical zoning designation that you see for single-family homes. It is an urban type residential neighborhood that you get. We have recently seen other development on this side of town. Bridgeport, the final plats have recently been approved off of Mount Comfort Road off of 5151 Street we have seen a couple more annexations and R-1 development occurring. It is consistent with our land use plan with regard to residential and the urban type of development that we're looking for. Ward: What about the traffic? Conklin: With regard to traffic, we did classify our streets as part of the Master Street Plan update back in 1995, this street is shown as a collector street. It is not currently built to those standards but onsite and offsite improvements would be addressed at the time of development. The traffic with a collector is 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. This is something that we do look at and address. It is not designed to be a four lane street, it is designed to be a two lane street, it is a 36' street that allows turn lanes at intersections and allows parking on both sides. Ward: Ok, thanks. Hoffman: I have a couple of questions Tim. Could you tell me which elementary school will serve this development? Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 31 Conklin: Asbell elementary. The school district boundaries are somewhat odd I say that because south of Persimmon it is Jefferson school district. Just as a point of some information that I can give you tonight. Hoffman: It is Asbell then? Conklin: I believe it is Ramey Junior High. Hoffman: Where is the nearest fire station? Conklin: The nearest fire station would be Eagle Street. Hoover: I just want to make a comment. At subdivision, because we didn't know there was any opposition, we didn't ask for the developer to meet with the neighbors and I am a little concerned that since we do have some opposition, it sounds rather friendly like this is certainly going in a better direction than it was a couple of years ago but I am hesitant to vote for this until they do have some communication. I think it is probably not possibly as bad as what they think it might be but I don't know how other Commissioners feel about that. I hate for it to end up being appealed to the Council again and going through that whole process. Hoffman: Have the neighbors seen this plat or no? Jorgensen: No. Conklin: Just a point of clarification, this is a rezoning and it did not go through the Technical Plat, Subdivision Committee process. We do encourage applicants to meet with the neighborhood associations. We do encourage them to register with our Community Affairs office because there is no way for us to know if they are not registered to get that information out to the developers. We are trying to make progress in bringing together the applicants and the neighborhood associations. I encourage any of the neighbors out there that have a neighborhood association to get with Maureen Hoover and we will give you updates to our Planning process. Hoffman: I want to remind the applicant that we have eight Commissioners here tonight and a rezoning requires five positive votes so after you hear the discussion it is your call if you would like for us to table it or not. Motion: Estes: This of course is a rezoning request. Each of the issues which have been so well articulated through public comment will be considered and action Planning Commission • • June 10, 2002 Page 32 will be taken when we look at the Preliminary Plat and the Large Scale Development. I certainly agree with each of the individuals that have come forward and provided us with public comment. I share your concerns. The fact is that we participate in a free market economy. I would not want to participate in any other economy. Because we do, private development always precedes the need for public infrastructure and that is exactly what we're dealing with here. We must focus on the fact that this is a rezoning request. The material that we have from staff and the specific findings of fact which we must make in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance tell us that this property is consistent with the 2020 plan, that the site has access to collectors and principal arterials, and that the proposed rezoning is justified in that it keeps with the future land use plan. We are told that the proposed zoning will increase traffic but should not appreciably increase traffic danger or congestion. I understand that that is a subjective finding in that the great majority of you who have offered public comment disagree with that. We are told that the proposed zoning will increase population density but should not undesirably increase the load on public services. Again, I understand that this is a subjective finding and that the great majority of you who have offered public comment disagree with that. We are told that it is impractical to use this land for any other purpose than is presented or permitted under its existing zoning classifications. It is for these reasons that I am going to do the same that I did in April of 1998 when we heard this once before, and that is move for approval of RZN 02-15.00. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Ward: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Ward. Conklin: Is that subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant? Estes: Yes. Ward: I think that since this has had trouble in the past I think it is pretty unique that we do have a Bill of Assurance already on the table that kind of delineates a lot of the problems that were before and that there are going to be larger lots, a lot less density than what was proposed earlier. With that, I am definitely going to be for this R- 1 zoning on this particular piece of property. Hoffman: Is there anyone else? Planning Commission • June 10, 2002 Page 33 Bunch: Since typically the City Council has been taking three readings on the rezonings, this will give adequate time for public comment and also for the neighbors to get in contact with the developer and with the developer's engineer. To expedite the process and to insure that the neighbors and the developers will have an opportunity to talk, I will also be supporting this recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning. Shackelford: Obviously I will be in support of it for the reasons already stated. I would like to address however, the applicant and encourage them to get involved with the neighbors who have voiced these concerns. These concerns will come before us again in Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development and it would be a lot better if we are all on the same page and have addressed those prior to that point. Thank you. Hoffman: I will weigh in. I am concerned about the determination of the increase in traffic congestion and associated danger with that. The fact that Wedington is not four lane to this point is my concern. I do travel that area. I can not support the rezoning request at this time but I do want to say that I think that Mr. Jorgensen is certainly headed in the right direction and I want to be very encouraging about the, I'm assuming, ongoing dialogue that you will be having with the neighbors. I just won't be voting for the rezoning at this time. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-15.00 was approved by a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Hoffman and Hoover voting no. Hoffman: The motion carries on a vote of six to two. Thank you everybody for coming down. fl RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 1 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: Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: June 6, 2002 RZN 02-15.00: Rezoning (Garriott, pp 437/438) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Larry Garriott for property owned by John & Louise Sager, Paul & Bernice Guisinger, RD & Kay Kight, Jean Ann Jones, James Guisinger, and Peggy Jones and located north of Persimmon Street and west of 46th Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density 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 June 10, 2002 COUNCIL ACTION: July 2, 2002 Required YES O Approved O Denied H:IUSEJLflCOMLNOMSHE/LWX7R7SiPC12002 REPOR731R7N 0243 GARRl01T.DOC 40 a BACKGROUND: RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 2 The site is located south of Wedington Drive (Highway 16) and west of 46`s Avenue. Persimmon Street is the south boundary of the site and 46th Avenue is the east boundary. The applicant proposes that various stub outs will be provided on both 46th Avenue and Persimmon Street, both of which are designated as collector streets on the Master Street Plan. The site is currently a vacant field with six property owners, all of whom have signed the application form. Approximately 700 feet of the western portion of the property is in the floodplain of Owl Creek. There is a heavily wooded area along the north boundary. The site is flat with a few trees along the western portion. The site and surrounding area are designated as residential in General Plan 2020. Agricultural and residential land uses currently exist in the area. There are two residential neighborhoods within '/, mile of the site: Meadowlands to the east and Fieldstone to the north. A single family residence is located to the southeast and a barn is directly south. Large acreage single family residences are located to the west. A request to rezone this property from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Low Density Residential was brought before the Planning Commission in April 1998. Residents presented concerns about traffic, drainage, and lot sizes. The Planning Commission denied the request with a vote of 4-4-0. The applicants appealed to City Council. City Council denied the appeal on May 5, 1998. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Agricultural, Residential / A-1 Agricultural and R-1 Low Density Residential South: Agricultural, Residential / A -I Agricultural / Other areas are in Washington County East: Agricultural, Residential / A-1 Agricultural West: Agricultural, Residential / A-1 Agricultural INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: North: Wedington Drive is approximately V2 mile north / Principal Arterial South: Persimmon Street / Collector East: 46`h Avenue / Collector West: 54`" Avenue is approximately V2 mile west / Collector Water: The developer will have to extend water to the south along 46`h Avenue and west along Persimmon Street. Sewer: An 8" sewer line is located along the west of the property along Owl Creek. H: IUSERSICOMMOMSHF.LLJ REPORIS1PL11002 REPORISWZN02-15 GARR/O7T.DOC M RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 3 LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site as Residential. Rezoning this property to R-1, Low Density Residential is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: General Plan 2020 designates the site as Residential. R-1, Low Density Residential is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. The site is also consistent with section 9.8.f of General Plan 2020, which states: 9.8 f Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative transportation modes, community amenities, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods and services. The site has access to collectors and principal arterials which link it with retail and commercial goods and services. Water and sewer services are located nearby to provide service to the site. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed rezoning is justified as it is in keeping with the Future Land Use Plan. The residential zoning is necessary to build residential lots with less than two acres. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning will increase traffic but should not appreciably increase traffic danger or congestion. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation software, for 232 single family units on this site (57.82 acres x 4 families/acre, as allowed by the UDO), the average weekday volume is 2,220 trips and the average Saturday volume is 2,341 trips. There are currently no traffic counts for the two collector streets (46`h Avenue and Persimmon Street ) and based on existing density, traffic counts should be relatively low. Therefore, the collector streets, designed for 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day, should adequately accommodate the potential 2,300 trips generated by this site. N:IUSERS CO,4LAXJMSHFIJJREPORISI O2002 REPORISWZN 02-/5 GARRIOIT.DOC RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 4 Additional traffic generated by the site will not exceed the design capacity for the principal arterial street, Wedington Drive,'// mile north. Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department 2000 traffic counts for the segment of Wedington Drive west of 46'h Avenue is 1,700 and for the segment east of 46'h Avenue is 13,000. Each segment should adequately accommodate the additional 2,300 trips per day since principal arterial streets are designed to accommodate between 17,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day. 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 increase population density but should not undesirably increase the load on public services, including schools, water, and sewer facilities. On this site, the maximum number of units for a single family development is 232. Using 2000 Census data for Fayetteville that indicates there are 2.21 persons per occupied unit, the estimated population for a single family development is 513. If the zoning were to remain as A-1, Agricultural, the estimated population for a single family development would be 65. R-1, Low Density Residential — Single Family Maximum number of units = 57.82 acres x 4 families/acres = 232 units Estimated population = 232 units x 2.21 persons/occupied unit = 512 persons A-1, Agricultural— Single Family Maximum number of units = 57.82 acres / 2 acres = 29 units Estimated population = 29 x 2.21 = 65 persons 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 N:1 USERS1COAACMWFJJJ REPOR731 PO2002 REFORLS P2W 0I-15 GARR/OIT.DOG M RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 5 From Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations City of Fayetteville, Unified Development Ordinance §161.03 DISTRICT A -I AGRICULTURAL. A. Purposes. The regulations of the Agricultural District are designed to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural areas; obtain economy of public funds in the providing of public improvements and services of orderly growth; conserve the tax base; prevent unsightly development, increase scenic attractiveness; and conserve open space. B. Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. Unit I City -Wide Uses by Right Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities Unit 6 Agriculture Unit 7 Animal Husbandry Unit 8 Single -Family and Two -Family Dwellings 2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission. Unit 2 City -Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities Unit 20 Commercial Recreation; Large Sites C. Bulk and Area Regulations. Lot Width Minimum 200 ft. Lot Area Minimum: Residential 2 acre Nonresidential 2 acre Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acre D. Yard Requirements (feet). FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD 35 20 35 E. Height Requirements. There shall be no maximum height limits in the A-1 District, provided, however, that any building which exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured from the required yard lines. (Code 1991, §160.030; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(1); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-89) H:IUSERSICOAAVMSUFJLVtL QRI11P02001 REPOR7SNZN 02.15 GARRIOrr.DOC n] 40 From Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations City of Fayetteville, Unified Development Ordinance § 161.04 DISTRICT R-1: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 6 A. Purpose. The Low Density Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. B. Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. Unit I City -Wide Uses by Right Unit 26 Single -Family Dwelling 2. UsesPermissible on Appeal to the 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 8 Single -Family and Two -Family Dwellings C. Density. SINGLE-FAMILY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS DWELLINGS 4 or Less Families Per 7 or Less Families Per Acre Acre D_ Bulk and Area Regulations. Single -Family Two -Family Lot 70 ft. 80 ft. Minimum Width Lot Area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq.ft. Minimum Land Area 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Per Dwelling Unit E. Yard Requirements (feet). FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD 25 8 20 F. Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. (Code 1991, §160.031) H:IUSERSlCOA4.CMSNELLPRE ORIYFO2002 R£POR7S RZH 02-15 GARRIO7T..DOC RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 11 RZN 02-15.00: Rezoning (Garriott, pp 437/438) Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 232 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing June 03, 2002 Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 9.57 3.69 1.00 2220 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.19 0.00 1.00 44 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.56 0.00 1.00 130 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.75 0.90 1.00 174 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.65 0.00 1.00 151 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.36 0.00 1.00 84 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1.01 1.05 1.00 234 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 10.09 3.67 1.00 2341 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.51 0.00 1.00 118 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.43 0.00 1.00 100 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.94 0.99 1.00 218 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS I ![ I r • [ !//I J! Iki WIrr !'I 1iPr JJI iiII N 157 April 21, 1998 Jeff Erf, Fayetteville citizen, asked if the City would have exclusive rights to the community room. Alderman Williams thought it would be dependent on whatever the lease agreement is with the A&P Commission. Sue Clemons, citizen, asked if there would be a problem with the issuance of the bonds if the City dedicated a room to local usage. She was informed this will be researched. Alderman Miller moved to table the ordinance. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 8 to 0. RAZE AND REMOVAL/2173 DEANE STREET Mayor Hanna introduced approval for raze and removal of structure at 2173 W. Deane as per ordinance 3948. No representative of the property owner was present. Alderman Schaper stated the Council has additional documentation that notice was served. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated there has not been any further activity.' Alderman Daniel moved the Council approve the raze and removal. Alderman Schaper seconded. There were no comments from the audience. Upon roll call, the resolution carried on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 50-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE. NEW BUSINESS hiSI J rj *1WA4Z4Ius Mayor Hanna introduce an appeal of rezoning request RZ98-7.00 submitted by_.Michele Harrington on behalf of Mark Marquess and Dan Dykema for property located a the southwest corner of 46 St. and Persimmon and contains approximately 60 acres. The request is to rezone the property from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low 11 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriott Page 11.12 158 a a April 21, 1998 Density Residential. I: Alderman Pettus stated she would abstain because of an attorney - client relationship. Alderman Young stated a person involved is a client of his company and he would not participate in the discussion and would abstain on the vote. Alderman Schaper had it confirmed that this was an appeal by right and did not need to be voted on. Michele Harrington, attorney, stated this is an appeal from a 4-4 vote of the Planning Commission, a close call at that level. Staff had recommended this rezoning. The 2020 Plan designates this parcel as residential. She explained the situation of the property and its relation to other subdivisions. It is inside the city limits and utilities are present on the site. There is an R-1 parcel immediately to the north of this parcel; it will not be the first R-1 in the area. The remaining surrounding land is residential in use. There will be a 5 -acre neighborhood park. The developer will improve half a mile of frontage. They expect to build about 15% fewer homes than would be permitted under R-1 ,. density. The present usage developed without sewer, which is the reason for the larger lots. This is a flat parcel and is the kind of parcel not inclined to large lots. The traffic of this subdivision would go north on 46th. There will not be a large flow turning left in the morning hours. Wedington is being widened near there and may be widened further due to growth in the area. Ms. Harrington stated the developer will consider entering into a bill of assurance regarding density, so that he doesn't go over a certain number of lots. He can also consider fencing around the property. There could also be no drives entering onto the street. Ms. Harrington stated there is less than a one-year supply of available lots in this growth area of the city. This development would follow the normal growth the staff has considered in the sewage treatment time frame. Ms. Harrington pointed out one of the important considerations for- landowners is to be able to use their land in the highest and best use they can. That is what this family is trying to do. 12 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-IS Garriou Page ll.l2a N 159 April 21, 1998 Ms. Harrington stated the drainage around the area will be channelled. The neighbors to the immediate southwest will benefit from this, as it is channelled into Owl Creek. Cyrus Kooshesh, citizen, expressed concerns about the traffic. He stated the immediate neighboring houses average over 25,000 sq. ft. He stated he would ask the builder to use larger lots and build larger homes. The drainage now is a problem. Bill Jowers, 452 N. 46th Street, understood this project is for 206 homes. He would like to see fewer houses. Traffic will also be a problem. He has noticed a lot more water in the creek than in the past, because of the development already there. Greg Spencer, realtor, addressed the number and size of houses. In researching the multiple listing for Northwest Arkansas he found one house on the market west of the bypass that would fit into this market. There were seven lots available. There is a need for this size house on the west side of Fayetteville. Gary Adam, an area resident, expressed the difficulty of accessing the highway, because of the heavy traffic. He suggested constructing the four -lane highway past 46th Street. He believed there was enough affordable housing in the area. He asked that the developer consider higher priced housing. Steve Estu, Engineering Design Associates, addressed the drainage issues. He stated the development's drainage would be taking their water directly to Owl Creek, which would bypass two property owners. The subdivision would be contributing to the traffic problem. 46th Street was shown as a collector street on the Master Street Plan. He believed the subdivision would improve the streets in the area. Tom Sagger represented the owners. He stated the property had been in his wife's family for over 100 years. The property was owned by elder people. He stated the traffic problem was all over Fayetteville. The Wedington Sewer Improvement district went with the property. They had been paying for the Sewer Improvement District since the beginning. He asked the council to consider the R-1 rezoning request. A citizen who lives on Persimmon Street expressed concern about homes and bridges flooding along Owl Creek. He does not believe all the water can be contained from the subdivision. He believes the owners have a right to develop their property; however, the 13 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-/5 Garriott Page 11.13 160 A to April 21, 1998 area needs nicer homes. There is plenty of affordable housing in the area. He added if people can afford nice homes on the east side of town, they can afford it on the west side of town. Alderman Schaper questioned the amount of street frontage the property had. Mr. Mark Marquess, developer, replied the property had approximately one quarter of a mile of frontage on 46th Street as well as a quarter of a mile along Persimmon Street. Alderman Schaper expressed concern about the subdivision only having one access. He noted the city had required more ingresses and egresses on other subdivisions. Mr. Marquess listed a number of subdivisions in the area with only one entrance. He did not believed the subdivision had an usual design. He noted three stubouts had been planned to the north for the future development of the adjacent property. He believed it was in line with the way the other development occurred in. town. Alderman Daniel stated she was concerned about connections because they have seen so many cul-de-sacs in the past. It has created problems. The City was now insists on more connections. She noted stubouts do not mean a street will be connected in the future. Once people move into the neighborhood, it hard to make the connection. Mr. Marquess stated he was not asking for anything out of the ordinary. They are trying to be reasonable. Accessibility and traffic problems are common all over town. He asked the councilmen if they have noted what has happened to Fayetteville within the last four years in regard to residential growth and new homes sold compared to cities to the north. Fayetteville has lost new housing starts; it has decreased over the last three years. Of Fayetteville, Springdale, and Rogers, we are the only town to lose housing starts. In response to questions from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Marquess stated the stubout locations would be determined by the Planning Commission during the large scale development. Mayor Hanna asked which school district the property is in. Mr. Sagger replied the west 20 is in the Farmington School 1 14 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Carrion Page 11.13a M 161 Iii district. April 21, 1998 Mayor Hanna noted some of the traffic would turn toward Farmington, which would help the traffic situation. Alderman Schaper cautioned Mr. Marquess that the sewer plant could still be located in the area. Mayor Hanna called a point of order. He stated the Council was hearing the appeal; however, it needed to come before the Council as an ordinance. Alett Little, Planning Director, agreed. The item came to Council as an appeal from the petitioner, rather than a recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is an amendment to the zoning ordinance and would have to be amended by appeal. The appeal would be considered through the ordinance process. The item needs to be placed on its first reading then go through three readings. Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Trumbo asked Charles. Venable,assistant to the Public Works Director, for his opinion on the impact of the traffic generated by the development. Venable replied the traffic generated would depend on the school district. Each home would generate eight to ten trips per day. Two hundred homes would generate approximately 2,000 trips per day. Alderman Schaper asked what the traffic count is on the highway. Venable stated that section of the highway carries approximately 7,000 trips a day. 7,000 on a two-lane is not too bad. The highway could carry approximately 14,000-16,.000. The need for four -lane in the area can not be justified at the present time. The sections under construction now will help the situation. Alderman Schaper stated the problem with the traffic would not be the capacity of the road, but would be the left turn lane. Venable replied it might be possible to have a left turn lane installed. 15 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriott Page 11.14 162 M M April 21, 1998 Alderman Schaper asked if the left turn lane could be required as on off -site improvement. Little ke the determinationand the awould have to andtheHighway Department would have toaagree. The item was left on the first reading. Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution declaring the Human Dignity Policy of the City of Fayetteville and establishing the Fayetteville Human Dignity Council. Alderman Zurcher read the resolution. He stated he had been working on the resolution for over a year. He.stated the city had seen an unprecedented amount of growth. With growth always comes problems. A lot of the problems come from different groups of people living together in the same community. The resolution deals with a lot of those problems, not in a reactive way, which has to do with the courts, but in a proactive way, which has to do with education and public forum and getting material out to the public on how to live with the different groups and how to live in peace. Alderman Zurcher stated if it were up to him, he would pass the resolution as presented; however, he had seen some opposition on the Council. Some had questions with some merit about two parts of the resolution. Alderman Zurcher stated one point of opposition is has to do with the City's bidding procedures. To him, the. City should use its power of persuasion to make sure everyone treats people right. The best way to do this is through the pocketbook. Alderman Zurcher stated the other section of the resolution he has heard comments and fears about is the section regarding the Human Dignity Council. Some people were afraid this committee would have enforcement powers. He had not written any enforcement power into the resolution, trying to get away from a system of fining people who discriminate.. He does not want to go that way. Alderman Zurcher stated that before the Council began to discuss the resolution, he wanted to propose an amendment to it. The amendment would be to strike Section 1 (B) and (C) as well as Section 2. He stated he would like to see these thing later. He stated he would like to make the amendment in the form of a I 16 Planning Commissio June 10, 200 RZN02-15 Garrio Page 11.14 r-" W M 163 r [J motion. April 21, 1998 Alderman Zurcher stated he would like to mention that the University of Arkansas of Fayetteville has a policy very similar to this resolution. Their policy includes all of these groups. He believes the County would also have a similar policy. He added the City is not currently discriminating against these human conditions. He believed they needed to have it on record in case future councils and administration are not as fair as this one. Alderman Williams asked Alderman Zurcher to define "familial status." Alderman Zurcher replied "familial status" was the marital status. Alderman Miller added the term could also mean non-traditional families. Mayor Hanna asked how the City of Fayetteville would know this.. If someone were to apply for a job, how would the City know their sexual orientation. Alderman Schaper responded that the City is still a small town. A lot of people know other people and they talk about other people. Mayor Hanna stated he does not feel the •City of Fayetteville needs to aspire to the higher standards of the University of Arkansas and the public schools because they have already gone there. Alderman Daniel presented policies from the University and the. County. She added the Affirmative Action Equal Employment opportunity of the University mentions that they do not condone the discriminatory treatment of students or faculty based on age, disability, ethnic origin, marital status, race, sex, or sexual orientation, and any of the activities, etc. Washington County stated it was their policy to provide employment opportunities to all qualified persons, to prohibit any discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex., age, national origin, sexual orientation, political, affiliation, veteran status, or disability. Alderman Pettus noted neither of the policies mention the word 1 Planning Commission 7 June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriott Page 11.15 164 a a April 21, 1998 ancestry. She questioned how that is different from race or national origin. Alderman Zurcher replied it would be if they come from a certain family. Alderman Williams asked if some departments have age requirements, such as firemen. Mayor Hanna replied there are age requirements for firemen and policemen. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated the City follows all State laws on age requirements. He noted there are five Federal laws which cover all of these. The City has a non- discriminatory policy. He was not sure of the wording. Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the City's policy, "City employment shall be on the basis of merit, including such factors as abilities, capabilities, aptitude, and experience, without regard to race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, or political affiliation." Alderman Miller noted the resolution would add "familial status" and "sexual orientation" and "ancestry" to the hiring policy. He commended Alderman Zurcher for bringing the resolution forward. The resolution does nothing but put into words what the City is already doing. He stated he did have some problems with the committee and the part forcing bidders to abide by the City's hiring practices. In the same way, he has a problem with the United States telling other countries they can not trade with Cuba because the United States does not approve of the way they are doing business. He had been with the civil rights organization during the `60s and did not support the Vietnam War. He sees this as an on going process to get rid of personal hates and fears and learning to live together. . John Adams, citizen, stated Alderman Miller was waffling in his support. He stated Alderman Zurcher's amendment gutted the resolution. It removed all economic sting and all power of persuasion. He stated the City of San Francisco has a wider ranging ordinance that has been held up in Federal court. He suggested Alderman Zurcher withdraw his amendment to the resolution and add the exemption of companies engaged in interstate commerce. He felt it was shameful for the Council to look through other ordinances or for other justification for a 18 r I Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriolt Page 11.15a 165 April 21, 1998 decision that they should make. He felt they were looking for excuses and abandoning responsibility He tofelt this would be a goodstart. HeurgedAlderman Zurcher withdraw his amendment to the resolution. Alderman Zurcher explained he had mis-spoke in referring to the change as an amendment. The resolution was being considered as changed; an amendment was not being considered. Alderman Miller explained he was against the committee because morality is a personal issue. He believes eating animal flesh is a sin. He would not be a part of a committee that would impose morals on other people. Mr. Gene Fulture, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, asked Alderman Zurcher why this is needed, if the City is currently practicing it. Alderman Zurcher replied this Council and administration are fair and just and do not discriminate, That may not be true in the future with a different council and administration. He felt the city should be proud that they are a tolerant place to be. It is good for business and a good example to other cities. Mr. Fulture asked if all the employment rights in the proposed resolution were already protected under current Federal law. In response to questions from Mr. Fulture, Alderman Zurcher stated he would not pursue the resolution if the phase "sexual orientation" were removed. Mr. Fulture stated the City has more important business to attend to than to delve into the sexual orientation of its citizens. He felt the City is to take care of streets and other similar items. Alderman Zurcher replied it is the City's responsibility to ensure fairness to all its citizens. In response to questions from Mr. Fulture, Alderman Schaper asked the speaker to address the item on the floor. Mr. Fulture stated the issue of sexual orientation should never be brought U. He did not believe the City needed more bureaucracy. He asked how this would affect our children, if the City were to place a stamp of approval on this kind of sexual 19 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriott Page 11.16 166 ~ April 21, 1998 orientation. Mr. Rhett Beard, Unitarian minister, stated he had worked closely with Alderman Zurcher in the creation of this resolution. He believed the resolution could be a good and positive, healthy and honorable thing for the City to do. He believed the passage of some form of this resolution would provide a positive statement of policy that affirms the worth and dignity of all people. He commended the City on not discriminating and invited the City to announce it proudly to the community and state that they advocate basic human justice and fairness. Frank Periginee, English Professor, stated a resolution of this nature was needed. It would be nice for Fayetteville to let everyone know that the City wants to see open dialog and that no one would be harmed professionally or personally if they were to speak out on an issue. He asked the City to reconsider the ideal of a Human Dignity Council. He felt the committee could do a lot of good things. They could solve problems of discrimination and racism. The City needs to provide a forum for citizens to work out their differences, withoutresorting to lawsuits. Gary Carnahand stated the City has always selected bids on qualifications and price. He was surprised the city was willing to state there was something more important than price and qualifications. He stated the intent was to have a gay protection ordinance in the City of Fayetteville. He asked for them to define "sexual orientation" to avoid lawsuits. He stated "sexual orientation" was a behavior. If the definition was sexual practice, then it had to mean practice that was not normal or mainstream. Alderman Schaper called a point of order. He did not believe the Council needed to listen to discussion of an item that was not on the table. Mr. Carnahand stated most cities did not have a policy like this. The only city he knew of was San Francisco. Erin Jenkins, citizen, thought the resolution would love, acceptance, tolerance, brotherhood, sisterhood, respect, and dignity to all in the community. Since does not discriminate, she did not see a problem with they did not discriminate. She did not see a problem stating the truth. 20 promote community Fayetteville stating with r Planning Commission, June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriou Page 11.16a a 167 n April 21, 1998 David Garcia, citizen, stated this is an issue of discrimination and prejudice. This ordinance goes further than the question of gayness and is important to a lot of other people. He stated that when he moved here 10 years ago, the community was very warm and receptive. This is changing. He recited several examples of prejudice directed at him or people known to him and likened it to what the gay community is experiencing. Ken Maddox, pastor, stated there is no place for prejudice or discrimination in this community but sexual orientation is not a special class. He asked city leaders to step back and consider the direction they are taking the city. Charlie Brown, ward 1 resident, stated this policy could be harmful in that it elevates the rights of certain minority groups to that of a special status based on their chosen actions and lifestyles. Rights pertaining to discrimination involve inalienable rights, which present no choice. We have a choice in our actions. He did not support a special interest committee. He read from a magazine regarding a gay rights hidden agenda. Shohreh Noorbakhsh, Fayetteville resident, read from Romans, Chapter 1, of the Bible. She spoke about God's judgement on nations that practice what he abominates. Sam Campbell, citizen, clarified that part of the resolution has been withdrawn. He stated Alderman Zurcher is really after the whole thing, part now and part at another time. This type of action diverts dollars from the police department, street maintenance, etc. Section 1, which encourages all institutions, organizations, and businesses, is vague but seems to exempt no one. He thought the human dignity council would be a reversal of the democratic process. He thought there would be problems with rental housing. Vickie Kelly, citizen, stated you can't see a person's sexual preference or their choice of religion. She stated gays are invisible and are therefore discriminated against. It is their invisibility that allows others to say they are already protected. She noted religion is a choice and a protected right. Lamar Pettus, past president of the Arkansas Bar Association and Washington County Bar Association, citizen, and Vietnam veteran stated he was the most discriminated person in the audience because he is left handed. He stated this is the type of resolution that would be added in lawsuits against the City. He 21 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriott Page 11.17 168 a a April 21, 1998 responded to comments made earlier by Stephen Miller regarding protesting the Vietnam war. A citizen asked if this has been reviewed by legal counsel. He stated this will be answerable to the people. Making this a legal matter will cause trouble. Assistant City Attorney McCarty responded that this has been reviewed by the legal department. Asking the people what they want regarding this is a separate issue. A citizen stated she would leave this meeting feeling less safe than she did before but was encouraged that the city government could transcend the petty differences that exist in the community. Joe Hart, citizen, stated racial discrimination in hiring was changed when races were counted to enable affirmative action. The City will have to know if a person is homosexual if they adopt this resolution.. The City will have to prove it h'as been tolerant and open. People would have to be asked and able to prove their sexual orientation. Sexuality does not belong in the work place. Alderman Miller stated he has faced prejudice for not being Christian. He stated Christians should not pick and chose which parts of the Bible to quote. Alderman Pettus thought the resolution was having the opposite effect of what was intended. She saw division, dislike, and distrust. These feelings were very personal, moral, and religious and should not be imposed on others of either side. Alderman Zurcher stated he did not expect anyone to endorse a lifestyle or choice. He felt this is an excuse. His resolution is about banning discrimination. Alderman Williams supported the resolution as changed. He thought the term sexual orientation needs to be defined. He suggested saying homosexual or heterosexual orientation. He agreed religious belief is an invisible and protected choice. He stated this resolution says what the City of Fayetteville is already doing is correct, that it does not discriminate in this way. He suggested having it say the City shall continue to insure that all qualified applicants are not discriminated planning Commission 22 June l0, 2002 RZN02 15 Garriott Page 11.17a N M 169 u April 21, 1998 against. Alderman Trumbo stated he has problems with the way this resolution is written and its broad context. He felt it will open up a lot of potential litigation. This has not yet been done on a state or federal level. Alderman Schaper stated people are valuable to the city if they can do the job, regardless of other considerations. He stated there is no established religion in this country. People have a right to conduct themselves in private as they wish, as long as they are not hurting someone else. That is part of human dignity and responsibility. Alderman Daniel felt there has been a lot of misinterpretation of the resolution. Alderman Young stated many people think this idea is fine, but are unaware of the technical aspects. The removal of certain aspects has brought it into compliance with what people would be in favor of. Alderman Williams questioned the last whereas. clause. Alderman Zurcher suggested striking it. Alderman Williams proposed having what was paragraph A read, "The City shall therefore continue to insure that all qualified applicants for all City positions shall have equal access to such employment opportunities regardless of race, sex, religion, color or national origin, age, ancestry, familial status, homosexual or heterosexual orientation, or disability." Alderman Zurcher stated sexual orientation is universally accepted as meaning homosexual or bisexual. Alderman Schaper agreed it is an accepted term. Alderman Williams agreed to that. Alderman Williams stated he made that motion [as proposed above]. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 6 to 2, with Aldermen Trumbo and Pettus voting no. Alderman Schaper moved the resolution. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 6 to 2, with Planning Commission 23 June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriott Page 11.18 170 m April 21, 1998 Aldermen Trumbo and Pettus voting no. RESOLUTION 51-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. EMINENT DOMAIN/CG?R RTRRR/24TH ST. Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution approving an offer of $18,000 as full settlement of the eminent domain action against Jerry D. Sweetser on property for the 24th Street Improvements. Alderman Trumbo stated he would abstain on this because of a client relationship. George Faucette, realtor, handed out and reviewed a map. He stated Mr. Sweetser lost one lot and potentially the value of another lot worth $35,000 to $40,000. Alderman Schaper stated a utility easement makes that piece of it unbuildable. He was informed this is a new utility easement. He noted the City's appraisel did not reflect this. He thought throwing out the City's appraisal could be dangerous. Alderman Williams moved to accept the settlement offer. Alderman Miller seconded. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated staff would take this as a budget adjustment on the sales tax for the balance. Alderman Williams added that to his motion. Upon roll call, the resolution carried on a vote of 6-0-1, with Alderman Zurcher absent for the vote and Alderman Trumbo abstaining. RESOLUTION 52-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. STREET NAME CHASE Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance changing the name of a section of Cato Springs Road between U.S. Highway 71 and the junction of Razorback Road, a distance of approximately .39 miles, to Razorback Road. Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Miller stated that since the City rebuilt the street 24 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 RZN02-15 Garriott Page 11.18a p Planning Commission Minutes April13, 1998 Page -10- Submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of the applicants for property located at the southwest comer of 46th Street and Persimmon and contains approximately 60 acres. The request is to rezone the property from A-1, Agricultural to R -I, Low Density Residential. Findings I. The proposed rezoning will allow the development of the land for residential purposes as shown on General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan. 2. There are many considerations that determine how property can be developed and at what price an individual is willing to pay for a particular piece of property. A professional market and feasibility study would be necessary to completely understand the current supply and demand for property zoned R-1. 3. Rezoning this property to R-1 will not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. 4. Rezoning this property R-1 would not alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from A-1 to R-1. No conditions of approval. Michele Harrington, representing applicant, appeared before the commission. She stated this was only 1/4 mile past the 71 bypass which was inside the city limits. She stated the engineers and Mr. Markus were present for any questions. Public: Cyrus Kooshesh, who lives on 46th street, appeared before the commission. He stated the property in question was actually 1.3 miles from the bypass. He noted his concerns as follows: 1. The range of the size of houses were presently 1.99 acres, the rest 1.5 to 3 acres. He stated he was not in opposition to selling the lot. However, he stated sometimes the City approves plans, and afterward fmd problems previous administration did not consider. 2. He stated he understood R -I could have up to 4 houses per acre which would be 240 houses maximum. When those 240 houses go up you would need to allow for people who would have at least two cars which would cause traffic overflow. He further stated Highway 16 West has worse traffic at the lights. He stated they had asked the City Council to negotiate for either the City or the State for a road to Double Spring Road and bypass. 3. His next item of concern was drainage. He showed the commission two pictures of his backyard which was standing in water at the present time. He stated the City allowed a church to be built and prior to that it would drain, now a dam has been built to contain the water. His house is approximately 1/8 of mile and 1.5 miles from 46th street. 4. He requested for the commission to consider the number of houses and limit per acre. He stated there were currently 2600 to 2700 square foot houses on existing property at the present time. r r Planning Commission Minutes April13, 1998 Page -11- Bill Gilet, who lives on 46th street, appeared before the commission. He stated originally this was an improvement district and were still paying for improvements in this area. He further stated that anyone developing in this area would be getting a free ride. He requested to keep this area and allow enough affordable housing there. He noted a development to the east of 46th had started and were going to build houses and was not able to complete the project and now it was messed up, and stated he would not want anymore of that in this area or location. He stated his wife currently owns 200 acres which was approximately 1/4 mile from neighbors. Discussion: The applicant, Mr. Marquess, appeared before the commission. He wanted to address some of the issues presented before the commission. Issues: He stated 1/4 north back on Hwy 16 was a subdivision consisting of 190 homes; Fieldstone subdivision was 1/4 of mile; Meadowlands Subdivision and Heritage Village, and therefore, this area was not as remote as it appeared. He stated R-1 maximum was 240 lots and their plans would not contain near that many houses. He further noted plans include dedicating 25 acres for parks and recreation. As to the drainage issue, Mr. Marquess stated he believed the property was upstream from the proposed property which was south and the water flow went south and west. He further stated commercial expansion was going on out there, and noted they were not requesting R-2 or R1.5, they were requesting R-1. ❑ Mr. Odom noted his concern zoning should not be R-1 and asked if any consideration had been given to R -E. Mr. Marquess stated density lots running at least $40,000 to $60,000 minimum. Unfortunately, the only area that could substantiate a R -E designation was on the east side. Traditionally in that area of 2 miles average lot price supports $12,000 to $20,000 lot price. ❑ Mr. Reynolds noted Salem Street has three subdivisions yet to be built, Crystal Springs has two phases to build, and inquired if R -A or R -L was a consideration. Mr. Marquess stated a market analysis was prepared on the west side, and nothing supported that issue. He further noted Heritage Village was building its last 45 lots and some are duplex; Magnolia Crossing was down to its last 50 lots; Fieldstone subdivision opened up there last phase, and these were approximately 4-5 miles away from this lot. O Mr. Reynolds inquired if proposed project was compatible to. the neighborhood currently there, and Mr. Marquess stated it would be within 1/4 miles. Mr. Marquess stated most of the homes in this area were not $300,000+. Mr. Marquess further stated out of the 300 homes were cut down to 3 acre lots, they would fmd less than 5% of homes over $125 to $150,000. Another issue of concern was property to the north does touch property already zoned R-1. In reviewing the plat it was noted the majority of the property adjoining was zoned A-1. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -12- 0 Ms. Harrington addressed the improvements and stated the landowner would also be paying sewer fines, and many issues regarding traffic, drainage, etc. would be addressed at Subdivision Committee. She further stated when bypass came in everyone knew west would be developed and was designated residential on our 20/20 plan. Mr. Estes stated it appeared zoning was consistent and allowed residential purposes as shown on general plan 20/20. In addition, it would be impractical to use the land for any other uses permitted under its existing zoning classification, and for these reasons he moved to approve this request. Mr. Ward seconded said motion. Mr. Odom stated he was in agreement with Mr. Estes' majority of assessment which indicates master plan does indicate it to be residential. However, he was not convinced R-1 should be the correct zoning to be consistent with the surrounding area. And therefore, would not approve this request due to the adjacent landowners concerns. The roll call was given and motion failed on a vote of 4-4-0. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Forney, Mr. Odom and Ms. Hoover voted nay. Mr. Odom stated the applicant could appeal to the City Council. !\ :N IMN [• 00 so One eWigView GARRIOT RI SUBJECT PROPERTY -ii ❑ iiriF.? .............: .... Eiii5i i iiiiiF. p. ,_ ,...-iiffif ifiiii?ipiiiEE ?i`iuV. � Overview f Legend Boundary - Subject Property "' ., planning Area Master Street Plan RZN02-15.00 0_x_8 Overlay District /�, Freeway/Expressway 00 _ I City Limits +^sry,�, Principal Arterial Streets �.-, Outside City y Mina ARmial r---� .%s��Z �+ Existing - %- Collector Planned ••••• Historic Collector 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. _ . Miles F2 F1 C•f R-0 A4 At R-2 A-1 A -t N a R1NO2-15.00 Future Landuse GARRIOT ........ Future Landuse V Parks Private Open Space [LI Residential Mixed Use Office Historic Commertlel Community Commercial Neighbortood Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial University Overview Legend Subject Property Streets Boundary • RZN02.15.00 '%..,Esisting '\.., Planning Area Planned c B Overlay District 00000 _ _I City Limits 0 200 400 800 1200 116RAeet JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (501) 442-9127 • FAX (501) 582-4807 L+ �+ CECE�C1� DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S. F �VED THOMAS HENNELLY, P.E. CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E. JUN 1 7 2002 City of Fayetteville PLANNING DIV. 6/12/02 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville AR 72701 An: Planning Dept Re: Rezoning of Guisinger Property As agreed at the Planning Commission meeting, the owner offers the attached bill of assurance for your use regarding the above referenced rezoning request. Please call concerning any questions you may have. Thank you, David L. Jorgensen, P.E. • STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING • 'e0 z isvo ctZ9/3/0 Ord. 4411 BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE The buyer / developer of property located at the NW Comer of 46'" & Persiman Street more particularly described as approximately 59.60 Acres in part of section I land part of section 12 of Tl6N, R 31W in Washington county Arkansas hereby voluntarily offers this Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. This Bill of Assurance is offered to assist in the rezoning of the above described property. The petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonably rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request. Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. I. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to single-family only with 158 building lots. Minimum lot width shall be 83' at the setback line except at curves and cul de sacs. 2. Exterior of homes shall have 80% brick. 3. Minimum house size shall be 1850 SF heated and air conditioned space. 4. Each house shall have a 2 car garage. 5. All yards shall be sodded. 6. Roof pitch shall be 71/2" to 12" with architectural shingles. 7. A concrete privacy fence shall be installed along Persimon & 46ih street. 8. There shall be 2 entrances onto 46'" street and I onto Persimon Street and each entrance will be landscaped and steel fence installed similar to the Jower's property. 9. All improvements shall be made to Persimon & 46'" Street as required by the City. 10. Quality of construction of ail houses shall be reviewed and approved by an architectural committee. 11. Maintenance of all common space shall be made by a Property Owners Association. 12. All mailhoxeyhall be decorative iron and identical throughout the project. 13. The deve34er shall install trees along the north property line extending from 46t° Street west 500'. Size shall b ' and spaced 30' apart where possible. Existing trees in this area will be saved if possible. 14. Protective covenants shall be filed for control of all of the above items. 15. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's Property. 5SS WHE OF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated above, as the owner, or buye Petitioner) voluntarj4 )offer all such assurances. Date NOTARY OATH STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Date And now on this _ day of 2002, appeared before me, Larry Garriott and after being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above. My Commission Expires: BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE The buyer / developer of property located at the NW Comer of 46th & Persiman Street more particularly described as approximately 59.60 Acres in part of section hand part of section 12 of Ti 6N, R 31 W in Washington county Arkansas hereby voluntarily offers this Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. This Bill of Assurance is offered to assist in the rezoning of the above described property. The petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonably rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request. Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to single-family only with 158 building lots. 2. Exterior of homes shall have 80% brick. 3. Minimum house size shall be 1800 SF heated and air conditioned space. 4. Each house shall have a 2 car garage. 5. All yards shall be sodded. 6. Roof pitch shall be 71 /2" to 12" with architectural shingles. 7. A privacy fence shall be installed along Persimon & 46th street. 8. There shall be 2 entrances onto 46th street and I onto Persimon Street and each entrance will be landscaped and steel fence installed similar to the Jower's property. 9. All improvements shall be made to Persimon & 46th Street as required by the City. 0 10. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated above, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all /such assurances. Date NOTARY OATH Date STATE OF ARKANSAS ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON And now on this 6 r day of 2002, appeared before me, Larry Garriott and after being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above. My Commission Expires: E ICIAL SEAL" erine A. Gilson blic, State of Arkansas ty of Washington ission Exp. 03/02/2008 STAFF REVIEW FORM X Agenda Request Contract Review Grant Review For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of July 2, 2002. FROM: Tim Conklin Planning Urban Development Name Division Department ACTION REQUESTED: To approve an ordinance for RZN 02-15.00 as submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Larry Garriott for property located north of Persimmon Street and west of 46th Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density 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 BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached Budget Coordinator Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: A9egttin, Manager Date ADA Coordinator Date C' y Atto ney Date Internal Auditor Date Purchasing Officer Date STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on June 10, 2002 the Planning Commission voted 6-2-0 to recommend the rezoning be approved by the City Council. —-cQ. Cross Reference Div' 'on pa e De t nt Director Date New Item: Yes No Admini rative Services Date Prev Ord/Res#: Direc o Mayor Da e Orig Contract Date: FAYETTEVII!LE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Tim Conklin, Planning Division From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: September 6, 2002 Please find attached a copy of Ordinance No. 4411 Rezoning Petition RZN 02-15.00 for a parcel containing approximately 57.82 acres located North of Persimmon Street and West of 46`" Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, as submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the property owners. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit Note: As of Friday, September 6, 2002, I spoke with Renee Thomas in regards to her calling the contractor for an original Bill of Assurance. She stated she would call. 010 03 Cityo Fayetteville 9/09/2002 Update exMaintenance • 14:59:12 Document Item Action Reference Date Ref. Taken Brief Description ORD 9032002 4411 RZN 02-15/PERSIMMON ST -W 46TH ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Enter Keywords........: ORD. 4411 REZONING RZN 02-15 57.82 ACRES N PERSIMMON STREET W 46TH STREET PERSIMMON 46TH DAVE JORGENSEN JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATED 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. M RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 7 Looking north at site. Looking east from site. H: tUSERS)CO R ONMFJJJV%FFQRTSPC1S001 REFOR73V2N 01-1! GARPJOTI.DOC 46"'.% critic M a RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 8 ,- Meadowlands 46'h A' critic Looking northeast from site. i -_ Ct f - ti r tg'x" as rt`pt ate rvgvrw t .. { �,p�p4�pa" n ''- ♦ p }h, t fY`,G ,},fi+Ii±F�'-49 �` yt �A: f�w� b?s�.r `W^prr. Si •,` v e?. `}+% y }��..'"�• .f f4,., f l , �i Y� i Y ��.+�^ I ! a4 r' �.'! '�.�, ., - ✓ � � , ��U i �♦ t 4 ♦1 . ,y Y ? v� d(r ` Y .+k`'jP)i[': i,f���-tn-i f�t�:�lYi y .� �I �ji 5• i'.' ��(y���ygTp}{��.' a7�.� i-}.'J!-�♦AM1.YW y, �l� ._� ���rk�'�'�'ts� ,, - ice• rii:r �.'((.& y}T I •f �� pl'' y,J..Y[[Y1r (�4��� �� `�' 'III � L.e� tP ��RI�� �j t�44 Looking northwest from site. N: tUSERl1COMMOMRNFJIJIREPOR 7SPC 2002 REPOR7SRZN 02-15 GARRIOTT DO(' CO A • *. 0 - - .r%.'J ♦ , ♦jj yI4 � f 1 u 1C rl�,��♦rr �nw w� ! u Y. 111 N RZN 02-15.00 (Garriott) Page 10 Persimmon Road Looking southwest from site. H:; USERSCOMMOHSHE LJWEPORIS'PO20d2 REPORTSRZH02-IS GARRIOIT.DOC