HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4413 ORDINANCE NO. 4413
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 02-21 .00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 17.39 ACRES LOCATED AT 10 BISHOP DRIVE
AND 35 APPLEBY ROAD, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS
SUBMITTED BY DIXIE DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF FERN
YOUNKIN REVOCABLE TRUST
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-O, Residential Office, as shown in Exhibit A attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this 3`d day of September, 2002.
APPROVED:
/t 0 1 11 t By.
DAN COODY, Mayo N
rri
Y. e v o
70
a a
a oodruff, City ler c .n n
r �
20 ^ ? 1 71 -495
Ord . 4413
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 02-21 .00
A PART OF THE SOUTH HALF (S %2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW %4) OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), ALL IN SECTION
THIRTY FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30)
WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID POINT BEING
IN APPLEBY ROAD AND FROM WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED ONE (1 ), BLOCK NUMBERED ONE ( 1 )
OF QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1 , TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS, BEARS S01017'04"W 24.69 FEET; THENCE S88040'42"E ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S %2) OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW
'/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) 383 .71 FEET TO A POINT FROM
WHICH A SET REFERENCE IRON BEARS S01017104"W 23 . 82 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) S0101710495W 316.46
FEET TO A SET IRON ON THE NORTH LINE OF NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE N88°27 '27"W 1 .47 FEET TO
AN EXISTING IRON AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS
ADDITION; THENCE S01 °34'03"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTH
HEIGHTS ADDITION 101 .33 FEET TO A SET IRON; THENCE LEAVING THE WEST
LINE OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION N88040142"W 173.03FEET; THENCE
S01017104"W 1562.58 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID
POINT BEING IN DRAKE STREET AND FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON SET
ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STREET BEARS NOl ° 17'04"E 30.20
FEET; THENCE N88°34' 03"W 208.71 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
IRON AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED THIRTY SEVEN (37), OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSS, BEARS N01017'04"E 30.00 FEET; THENCE NO] 17'04"E
1979.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 11 . 162 ACRES MORE
OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS . THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED 11 . 162 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAYS OF
APPLEBY ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY AND DRAKE STREET
ALONG THE ENTIRE SOUTH BOUNDARY.
ALSO,
A PART OF THE SOUTH HALF (S 'h) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 'h) AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) ALL IN SECTION
THIRTY-FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30)
WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING
05 2 :2052 : 71 39 6
• • Ord . 4413
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF (S %2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QfUARTER (NW '/4), SAID POINT BEING
IN APPLEBY ROAD AND FROM 3 WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED ONE ( 1 ), BLOCK NUMBERED ONE ( 1 )
OF QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE I, TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS, BEARS SO1 ° 17 '04"W 24.69 FEET; THENCE S88°40'42"E ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S ''/2) OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER
(NW'/a) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) 383 .71 FEET TO A POINT FROM
WHICH A SET REFERENCE IRON BEARS S01017904"W 23.82 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S%2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) SO1017504" 316.46
FEET TO A SET IRON ON THE NORTH LINE OF NORHT HEIGHTS ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE N88°27 '27"W 1 .47 FEET TO
AN EXISTING IRON AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS
ADDITION, THENCE S0103410377W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTH
HEIGHTS ADDITION 188. 73 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION; THENCE S88°27'27"E ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION 0.66 FEET TO AN EXISTING
FENCE CORNER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED TWENTY
ONE (21 ), BLOCK NUMBERED FIVE (5) OF THE BISHOP ADDITION TO THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ; THENCE SOI ° 12 '06"W ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF BLOCKS NUMBERED FIVE (5) AND ONE ( 1 ), OF SAID BISHOP ADDITION TO A
PONT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW ''/4) OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID POINT BEING IN DRAKE STREET AND
FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON SET AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
NUMBERED TWELVE ( 12), BLOCK NUMBERED ONE ( 1 ), OF SAID BISHOP
ADDITION BEARS N0101210611E 30.36 FEET; THENCE N88°34'039'W ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) 174.75 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON
SET ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF DRAKE STREET BEARS N01017 '0499E
30.20 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW %4) NO1 ° 17 '04"E 1562.58
FEET TO A SET IRON; THENCE S88°40'42"E 173 .03 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.229 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 6.229 ACRE
TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAYS OF APPLEBY ROAD ALONG
THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY AND DRAKE STREET ALONG THE ENTIRE
SOUTH BOUNDARY.
20 ! r' : 71397
for Washington Stamps, Circuit Clerk and Ex-omci Recorder
that this instrument warms ' �kansas, do hereby certify
indicated her filed for record in my office as
Will the aeon an the same is nov duly recorded
in Record cokn'ledgement and certificate thereon
and Page as indicated thereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed the seat of said Court on t
cated hereon he date indi-
Bett S mps
Cir ark Ex-of ciO Recorder
y
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4413
CROSS REFERENCE:
09/03/02 Ordinance No. 4413
Exhibit "A" Legal Description for RZN 02-21 .00 submitted by Dixie
2 Development on behalf of Fern Younkin Revocable Trust for property
located at 10 Bishop Drive and 35 Appleby Road.
3 Copy of Bill of Assurance from Dixie Development, Inc.
07/22/02 Planning Division Correspondence
5 07/22/02 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 23-42)
08/20/02 Staff Review Form
09/06/02 Memo to Tim Conklin, Planning Division, . from Heather Woodruff, City
7 Clerk
NOTES :
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 02-21.00 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 17.39 ACRES LOCATED AT 10 BISHOP
DRIVE AND 35 APPLEBY ROAD, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS
SUBMITTED BY DIXIE DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF FERN
YOUNKIN REVOCABLE TRUST.
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-O, Residential Office, as shown in Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in
Section 1 above.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2002.
APPROVED:
By:�
PFS
DAN COODY, ayor
ATTEST:
By:
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 02-21.00
A PART OF THE SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), ALL IN SECTION
THIRTY FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30)
WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW %4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID POINT BEING
IN APPLEBY ROAD AND FROM WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED ONE (1), BLOCK NUMBERED ONE (1 )
OF QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1 , TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS, BEARS SO1017' 0415W 24.69 FEET; THENCE S88°40'42"E ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW
%4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) 383 .71 FEET TO A POINT FROM
WHICH A SET REFERENCE IRON BEARS SO1017' 04"W 23 .82 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S %2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) SO1017504"W 316.46
FEET TO A SET IRON ON THE NORTH LINE OF NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE N88027'27"W 1 .47 FEET TO
AN EXISTING IRON AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS
ADDITION; THENCE SOI °34'03"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTH
HEIGHTS ADDITION 101 .33 FEET TO A SET IRON; THENCE LEAVING THE WEST
LINE OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION N8804054255W 173 .03FEET; THENCE
SO1017'04"W 1562.58 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID
POINT BEING IN DRAKE STREET AND FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON SET
ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STREET BEARS NO] ° 17'04"E 30.20
FEET; THENCE N88°34' 03"W 208.71 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
IRON AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED THIRTY SEVEN (37), OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSS, BEARS NOl 01 T04"E 30.00 FEET; THENCE NOl ° 17'04"E
1979.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 11 . 162 ACRES MORE
OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED 11 . 162 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAYS OF
APPLEBY ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY AND DRAKE STREET
ALONG THE ENTIRE SOUTH BOUNDARY.
ALSO,
A PART OF THE SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) ALL IN SECTION
THIRTY-FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30)
WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING
9 •
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QIUARTER (NW 1/4), SAID POINT BEING
IN APPLEBY ROAD AND FROM 3WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED ONE ( 1 ), BLOCK NUMBERED
ONE (1 ) OF QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE I, TO THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, BEARS SO1017904"W 24.69 FEET; THENCE
S88040'42"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW'/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) 383.71
FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH A SET REFERENCE IRON BEARS SOI ° 17'04"W
23.82 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S'/2) OF
SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4)
S01017'04" 316.46 FEET TO A SET IRON ON THE NORTH LINE OF NORHT
HEIGHTS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE
N88027'27"W 1 .47 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION, THENCE SO1034'03"W ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION 188.73 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION; THENCE
S88027'27"E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION 0.66
FEET TO AN EXISTING FENCE CORNER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
NUMBERED TWENTY ONE (21 ), BLOCK NUMBERED FIVE (5) OF THE BISHOP
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE SOI ° 12'06"W
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF BLOCKS NUMBERED FIVE (5) AND ONE (1 ), OF SAID
BISHOP ADDITION TO A PONT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW %4), SAID POINT BEING
IN DRAKE STREET AND FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON SET AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED TWELVE ( 12), BLOCK NUMBERED
ONE ( 1 ), OF SAID BISHOP ADDITION BEARS NO1012106"E 30.36 FEET; THENCE
N88034'03"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4)
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) 174.75 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH
A REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF DRAKE STREET
BEARS NO1 ° 17'04"E 30.20 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW %4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4)
NO1017'04"E 1562.58 FEET TO A SET IRON; THENCE S88°40'42"E 173 .03 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.229 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED
. 6.229 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAYS OF APPLEBY
ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY AND DRAKE STREET ALONG
THE ENTIRE SOUTH BOUNDARY.
Aug 26 02 02 : 58p Dixie Development ( 501 ) 872 - 0714 p . l
4700 S. Thompson, 6101
Springdale, AR 72764
Phone: (479) 872-0707 Dixie Development,
Fax: (479) 872-0714
max
To: Tim Conklin From:
Pam Jones
Fax: Pages: '3 including cover
Phone: Date:
Re:
Rezoning Rill of Assurance CC-
11 Urgent O For. Review 0 Please Comment 11 Please Reply 0 Please Racy.Cie
X X
e Comments:
Tim,
We have added an item to . our Bill of Assurance. Look on line 4 . If you have any
questions or comments please contact me.
Thank you, looking forward to good things .
Best Regards,
Pam Jones
Flus 26 02 02 : 58p Dixie Development ( 501 ) 872 - 0714 p . 2
I; IF FAYETTEVILLE IST 4.79575
P - 2
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETI-EVILVE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner')
Di x' P ne"el "t- a Tn`' hereby voluntarily offers this
Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement. and contract with the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that If Petitioner or Petitioner's
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of .
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitionets rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and
Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner Isrezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1. The use of Petitioners property shall be limited to
with the exception f the nor
' hon
North side , and 417 feet depth) , as long as the residential neighborhoods
adjoining the , _
property remain R-2 or less dense residential zoning .
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the
property are limited to
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property
include
4. (Any other terms or conditions) peri t i nnpr agree « i lking
path in the setbacks and will screen property with a combination of
vegetation as screening and fencing where needed . Petitioner will build
a two lane road connecting Appleby and Drake , and connect Bishop to said
road . Petitioner will agree to dedicate sufficiant right of way to build
a collector streetbetween Appleby and Drake_
• RugY26 02 02 : 58p Dixie Development „ ( 501 ) 872 - 0714 p . 3
r • �
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance
shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after
Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large
Scale Development which includes some or all-of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and
conditions stated above, I, RRn Temp, as the
owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and
sign my name below.
Date Printed Name
15D ) 54ar-r - bie .
Address
–F-a c*th lle A ,dL 101 • }�
Signature
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS }
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
And now on this the 144nday of 7f UQV-%+ . 2003 appearv%i
before me, _ sd4n 3 I $g o ) —J and
after being placed upon his/ her oath swore or affirmed that he/she agreed with
the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and XTARYPUR:LIC
is/her ame ab %p4e v
My Co sio:i Expires:
MARLA IC, WEBB
NOTARY PUBLIC - ARKANSAS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
My Commission Expires 1 .31-2010
Aug 14 02 04 : 04p Dixie Development ( 501 ) 872 - 0714
a _ P . 1
. . vv a1 cuvc • : '• arra w • rn • ci icy . � � c 1J , ' / J7 / J � r
ZAl02 - Z o�
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILtE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
Dixie Devel nt Inc . hereby voluntarily offers this
Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement. and contract with the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner s
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been dqne to the citizens
and City of Fayetttville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioners rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and
Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's-rezoringis
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1 . The use of Petitioners property shall be limited to single-story
offices , with the exception of the north side of the
property ( 383 ' width and 417 ' depth ) as long as
surrounding property remains R-1 and R-2 .
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the
property are limited to
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property
include
4. (Any other terms or conditions) petitioner agrees to build a
walking path in the setbacks and will screen property
with a combination of vegetation as screening and
fencing where needed.
Aug 14 02 04:05p
AUG 14 2002 1:41PM
Dixie Development
CITYWnYETTEVILLE 1ST
(501) 872-0714
479575 03
P.3
p.2
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance
shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after
Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall benoted on anyfinal Plat or Large
Scale Development which includes some or all of Petiltioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF andin agreement with all the berms and
conditions stated above, I, Q_ -AI L2 . as the
owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and
sign my name below.
.Seti se cL,
Date Printed Name
/S°!S1ng I2.Adr
t y� �ecs -Uio(
n��i l e lc1(L
Signature
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
And
before me, and
afterbeing placed upon his/her -oath s ore or affirmed.that.he/she agreed with
the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his/her name above.
/ 1 /a .
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
3 aR- c2 nu
K4r? LEAOARTSIDE
N RVPUBLIC
Wt'.r:Om gnOUfl loll
M► tense rt
Aug 27 02 0?:58p Dixie Development
(501) 82-0714 p.l
4700 S. Thompson, 8101
Springdale, AR 72764
Phone: (479) 872-0707
Fax: (479) 872-0714
Fax
Dixie Development, Inc.
To: Tim Conklin From:
Pam Jones
Fax: Pages: including cover
Phone: Date:
Re: Rezoning Bill of Assurance CC:
Urgent ❑ For. Review ❑ Please Comment O Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
X X
U Comments:
Tim,
We have added an item to. our Bill of Assurance. Look on line 4. If you have any
questions or comments please contact me.
Thank you, looking forward to good things.
Best Regards,
Aug 02 02:58p Dixie Development (501) 2-0714 p.2
•'�""` °�ar1l Ll�DF FRYETTEVILLE 151
4795758
p.2
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILkE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
Dixie Dp t nptent, Inc.hereby voluntarily offers this
Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement. and contract with the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville CityCouncil will
reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of .
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petition's rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and
Petitioners property shall be restricted as follDws IF Petitioner's -rezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to single 9fT-Aces
with the exception of the nor
North side, and 417 feet depth), as long as the residential neighborhoods
adjoining the property remain R-2 or less dense residential zoning.
2- Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the
property are limited to
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioners property
include
4. (Any other terms or conditions) aA}; }; , agr�nc } hnjlrl
lking
path in the setbacks and will screen property with a combination of
vegetation as screening and fencing where needed. Petitioner will build
a two lane road connecting Appleby and Drake, and connect Bishop to said
road. Petitioner will agree to dedicate sufficiant right of way to build
a collector street between Appleby and Drake,
Rug 02 02:58p Dixie evelopment " ,u, -0714 p.3
` „ ,_,
is.
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance
shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after
Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large
Scale Development which includes some or all•of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and iri agreement with all the terms and
conditions stated above, J fl Tctraar as the
owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and
sign my name below.
Date
150) rr be.
Address
RA_._ UTC4co14e,fit73101
Printed Name
Signature
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
And now on this the Z�day of .2002 appeared
before me, P,,4n B. 1 s o I
and
after being placed upon his/her oath swore or affirmed that he/she agreed with
the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and si d is/her ame abgv�
TARP PUBLIC'
My Cothrnission Expires:
'N wic
MARLA K. WEBS
• NOTARY PUBLIC - ARKANSAS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
My Commission Expires 1.31-2010
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., City Planner
DATE: July 22, 2002
RZN 02-21.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp 251) was submitted by Dixie Development
on behalf of Fern Younkin Revocable Trust for property located at 10 Bishop Drive and 35
Appleby Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 17.39 acres.
The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as
part of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES II
O Approved O Denied
July 22, 2002
ACTION:
Required YES
O Approved O Denied
August 20, 2002 (1st reading — if recommended)
Comments:
H: I USERSICOMMOMREPOR7SIPCREPOR7S 2002VUL}1DJX1E_RZN02-11 DOC
Li
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake St. between the Quail
Creek subdivision (to the west) and the North Heights and Bishop Addition subdivisions (both to
the east). This property has served the owner as a home site and a personal air strip for many
years. The entire tract under consideration contains approximately 17.4 acres and is currently
zoned A-1, Agricultural.
The applicant, Dixie Development, proposes to rezone the property to the R -O, Residential
Office district in order to develop an area for professional offices, expecting that many will
probably relate to the new hospital facility for Washington Regional Medical Center which is
•
projected to open late this summer. That facility is under construction immediately north of the
subject property.
The City's adopted General Plan 2020 identifies this area on the Future Land Use Map as
Residential. The current designation of the property for agricultural uses is not compatible and
could permit uses which would pose certain negative impacts to the existing residential and
professional office uses surrounding the site. The request for Residential Office zoning is
compatible with adjacent zoning as well as policies and principles within the City's adopted
General Plan.
Through policy as well as past action, the Planning Commission and City Council have utilized
the R -O, Residential Office zoning district as a compatible transition zone, generally surrounded
by residential uses. Some recent examples of this type of application include:
R -O
zoning
along the western
edge of the Stonewood Subdivision (north end of Hwy
265)
which
is entirely surrounded by residential land uses
R -O
zoning
along the east and
west sides of Meadowlands Drive north and south of
Wedington
Drive leading into
the Meadowlands and Willow Springs Subdivisions
R -O
zoning
at the entrances to
both David Lyle Village
and Deerfield Subdivisions
Two applications for R -O zoning along Appleby Drive immediately east of the subject property
have been recently approved. Further east on Appleby Drive, property is zoned R -O adjacent to
residential developments on the north and south sides of the street (Regency North Subdivision
and Fiesta Park Subdivision). In various locations throughout the City, the R -O district has been
applied within residential areas where the specific use of the district was determined to be
compatible with surrounding properties.
Much of the area north of the subject property is designated for office use by the General Plan
2020. While the plan does not specifically identify professional office space, it is addressed in
the text document which accompanies the Future Land Use Map. This section of the General
Plan states:
H.. -I USERSICOMMOMREPOR7SIPCREPOR7S2002VULYIDIXIE_RZN02-21 DOC
a rr
9.13 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AREAS
Fayetteville serves as the regional provider of professional services such as finance, insurance,
real estate, legal, government, and medical services. Since these services are regional in scope,
their locations should be as carefully planned just as the locations for regional shopping and
entertainment attractions are planned. The downtown square area is the established site for most
professional services and this pattern will continue. Medical services have traditionally been
provided at Washington Regional Medical Center and the Veteran's Administration Hospital,
with medical offices scattered throughout the City. Recently, the North Hills Medical.Park
opened near the Gregg Avenue/71 Bypass intersection" and._additional' offrce_developriient`is
expected in this areal Washington Regional Medical Center is expected to move to a location
near North Hills in the future.
Professional Office Areas: Guiding Policies
9.13.a Provide ample space for professional offices.
9.13.b Encourage existing office areas to remain and expand as demand increases,'
Professional Office Areas: Implementation Strategies
9.13.c The supply of office space is a function of demand. As the regional population
increases there will probably be a corresponding increase in the demand for office
space. Since most office uses are dependent on economies of agglomeration, they
will probably locate in close, proximity to,complementary, office uses; so
regulations to require them to concentrate would be superfluous. ; Existing office
The applicant has made efforts to contact neighbors to discuss this request and at least two
neighborhood meetings have resulted. Staff has heard from neighbors who have concerns about
a non-residential development possibly locating on the subject tract. Specific concerns have
centered around compatibility and how the proposal would impact neighbors with regard to
traffic, screening, lighting and noise issues. These are valid concerns and the applicant will, if
successful in this rezoning, be required to address each of those issues and others in the
development review process. The City does have many ordinances in place which should
provide some protection for adjoining property owners. The Planning Commission will be asked
to review any development proposal and to place appropriate conditions on the project to ensure
compatibility. Street construction required by the Planning Commission within a development
will be the responsibility of the developer, not the City of Fayetteville. It is also possible that off -
site improvements to adjacent infrastructure may be considered in the development review
process.
H:1 USERSICOMMONIREPORTSIPCREPOR7S2002UUL itD!XIE_RZN02-21 DOC
M 0
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North: Washington Regional Medical Center (under construction), R -O / A-1, C-2
South: Lakeside Village Apartments, R-2
East: Residential, R-2
West: Residential, R-1.5
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Access to this property is fairly good. The property has frontage on both Appleby Road and
Drake Street, both of which are classified as collectors on the Master Street Plan. Appleby is
being improved as a condition of the development approval for Washington Regional Medical
Center across from this property. South of this site, Drake Street is built to a four lane section
that exceeds the collector street section requirements which would typically call for a two or
three lane street. While Appleby continues west to intersect with Gregg Ave., Drake Street does
not. It is however shown on the Master Street Plan to connect to Gregg Ave. in the future.
Timing for this connection is undetermined. It will require prioritization on the Capitol
Improvements Program (CIP) as well as funding in order for the project to be undertaken by the
City. Such action would be at the discretion of the City Council.
Water and sewer facilities are both located in areas which would serve development on this
property. When a development proposal is processed for this property, extension of appropriate
infrastructure as well as detention (and other improvements) if necessary must be designed and
constructed per current regulations.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property
to R -O, Residential Office 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: The Residential Office zoning district serves as a transitional zone which has
been determined through previous actions of the City Council to be
compatible in many situations with adjacent and nearby residential uses.
The proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives,
principles and policies as set forth in the adopted General Plan 2020 and with
land use and zoning plans.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
H.9 USERSI COMMOMREPORTSI PCREPORTS 2002 V UL II DIXIE_RZN02-2! DOC
a •
Finding: The existing Agricultural zoning applied to the subject property is not
appropriate at this time. It is now surrounded by single and multi family
residential as well as professional office and medical facility uses. It is
necessary to change the designation of the property in order to better control
future development and uses which are to be established. The proposed
zoning is necessary to develop the property for the purpose desired by the
applicant.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning will increase the amount of traffic generated by the site
and through the site. The current zoning designation would only permit 8
single family homes at maximum density. A residential zoning designation
permitting only single family homes could generate a weekday average of
approximately 660 vehicle trips per day. An office park type use of the same
property may generate up to approximately 3395 vehicle trips per day on an
average weekday*.
According to traffic counts provided by the Arkansas Highway and
Transportation Dept. for 2001 (most current information available) there is
an average count of 4600 vehicles per day at the intersection of Appleby and
Gregg. This is the closest count reflected on the AHTD Traffic Count map in
the area of the subject property. The amount of traffic projected for
collector is between 4,000 and 7,000 vehicles per day. With Appleby serving
as a collector and generally meeting the design criteria for that type of street,
there is available capacity for additional development.
Documentation is not available for Drake Street, probably because it has not
been built to connect to the west. The portion of Drake currently existing
exceeds the design criteria for a collector street.
The likelihood of a local street being constructed with any development
proposal for the subject property is very high. A connection between
Appleby and Drake would provide a means of access which would alleviate
cut through traffic within the residential developments located north of
Drake Street.
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.
H: IUSERSICOMMOMREPOR7SIPCREPOR7S1002 JUL }IDJXJE RZN01-11DOC
4
El
Finding: The proposed zoning will not alter population density in a manner which
would undesirably increase the load on public services including schools,
water, and sewer facilities.
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
* See attached reports run with ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) T -Gen software
H:1 USERSICOMMONIREPOR7SIPCREPORTS2002UULYIDIXIE_RZN01-11 DOC
r �1
'.'z: a ,, �•
r t
y. f
1 f. Il
wil�
• I f•
' f •
• t •
.1
� Y ��i 4jI���4`• 4�y•����1 i R��•
�t 1• •yJ� Sti•6(�i A4 {! : • i
iL v v:• ,l. i°I ♦.��Y�i r''i3L1�Vt�Ri y"i;�•-�N
•. � r 1
i• ti
•
i
I I
_.,--..._.--.
_ .
1..z v4+�..1VA..�(.�.yy
' ���4
•' uFC1
LLYS V.. �
i r
Li::
`
t
ft S
View from Appleby Rd. north and east of subject property
H:I USERSICOMMONIREPOR7SIPCREPOR7S2002UULNDLYIE__RZN02-21DOC
a
§161.12 DISTRICT R -O RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE.
A . Purpose. The Residential -Office District
is designed primarily to provide area for offices
without limitation to the nature or size of the office,
together with community facilities, restaurants and
compatible residential uses.
B. Uses.
1. Uses Permitted.
Unit I
City -Wide Uses by Right
Unit 5
Government Facilities
Unit 8
Single -Family and Two -Family
Dwellings
Unit 12
Offices;Studios and=Related
4 Sew6-i . ✓ ..ices
Unit;25
Proles o al O� i"ffices
2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to
the Planning Commission.
Unit 2
City -Wide Uses by Conditional
Use Permit
Unit 3
Public Protection and Utility
Facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and Recreational
Facilities
Unit 9
Multi -Family Dwelling - Medium
Density
Unit 10
Multi -Family Dwelling - High
Density
Unit 13
Eating Places
C. Bulk and Area Regulations.
( Per Dwelling Unit for Residential Structures)
Lot
Mobile Home Park
100 ft.
Minimum
Width:
Lot Within a
50 ft.
Mobile Home Park
Lot
Mobile Home Park
100 ft.
Minimum
Width:
One Family
60 ft.
Two Family
60 ft.
Three or More
90 ft.
Lot Area
Mobile Home Park
3 acres
Minimum:
Lot Within a
4200 sq. ft.
Mobile Home Park
Row Houses:
Development
10,000 sq.
ft.
Individual Lot
2500
sq. ft
Single Family
6000 sq. ft
Two Family
6500 sq. ft
Three or More
8000 sq. ft
Fraternity or
I acres
Sorority
Land Area
Mobile Home
3000 sq. ft.
Per Dwelling
Unit:
Row Houses
&Apartments:
Two or More
1200 sq. ft.
Bedrooms
1000 sq. ft.
One Bedroom
1000
sq. ft
No Bedroom
Fraternity or
500 sq. ft.,
Sorority
per
resident
H: I USERSICOMMOMREPOR7SIPCREPOR7S20021JULYrDIX1E_RZN02-21 DOC
C
D. Bulk and Area Regulations/ Setbacks.
Setback lines shall meet the following minimum
requirements.
From Street ROW
30 ft.
From Street ROW if Parking is
50 ft.
Allowed Between the ROW and the
Building
From Side Property Line,
loft.
From Side Property Line When
15 ft.
Contiguous to a R-1, R-2 or R-3
District
From Back Property Line Without
25 ft.
Easement or Alley
From Center Line of Public Alley
10 ft.
E. Building Area. On any lot the area
occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the
total area of such lot.
F. Height Regulations. There shall be no
maximum height limits in R -O Districts, provided,
however, that any building which exceeds the height
of 20 feet shall be set back. from any boundary line of
any R-1, R-2, or R-3 District an additional distance of
one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
(Code 1991, §160.041; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(x);
Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-89; Ord. No. 2414,2-7-78; Ord.
No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord. No. 2621, 4-1-80)
H: I USERSI COMMONREPOR7SI PCREPOR7S 2002 UUL YDLVIE_RZN02-21 DOC
0
§161.03 DISTRICT A-1 AGRICULTURAL.
A. Purposes. The regulations of the
Agricultural District are designed to protect
agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban
development has been accomplished;
prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural
B. Uses.
1. Permitted Uses.
Unit I
City -Wide Uses by Right
Unit 3
Public Protection and Utility Facilities
Unit 6
Agriculture
Unit 7
Animal Husbandry
Unit 8
Single -Family and Two -Family
Dwellings
2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to
the Plannin Commission.
Unit 2
City -Wide Uses by Conditional Use
Permit
Unit 4
Cultural and Recreational Facilities
Unit 20
Commercial Recreation; Large Sites
C. Bulk and Area Regulations.
Lot Width Minimum
200 ft.
Lot Area Minimum:
Residential
2 acre
Nonresidential
2 acre
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit
2 acre
areas; obtain economy of public funds in the
providing of public improvements and services of
orderly growth; conserve the tax base; prevent
unsightly development, increase scenic
attractiveness; and conserve open space.
D. Yard Requirements (feet).
FRONT SIDE YARD REAR YARD
YARD
35 20 35
E. Height Requirements. There shall be no
maximum height limits in the A -I District, provided,
however, that any building which exceeds the height
of 15 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of
any residential district a distance of 1.0 foot for each
foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall
be measured from the required yard lines.
(Code 1991, §160.030; Code 1965, App. A, Art. 5(I);
Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-89)
H: I USERSI COMMOMREPOR7*SI PCREPOR7S 2002 UUL RDIXIE_RZN02-21 DOC
a •
Dixie Development
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
For 17.4 Acres of Office Park
July 18, 2002
24 Hour 7-9 AM
Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter
Exit Enter Exit
Average
Weekday 3395
411 36 74 418
24 hour
Peak Hour
Two -Way
Volume
Enter Exit
Saturday
510
32 9
Sunday
238
15 22
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute
of Transportation
Engineers
Trip
Generation, 6th Edition,
1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
so
0
Dixie Development
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
For 69 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing
July 18, 2002
24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 660 13 39 45 25
24 hour Peak Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit
Saturday 696 35 30
Sunday 606 32 28
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
as
f. n
•
ECF
July 13, 2002
Tim Conklin, City Planner
113 West Mountain
City of Fayetteville, AR. 72701-6083
JUL lb 2002
PLANNING DIV.
Subject: Proposed Re -zoning of Younkin Property by Dixie Development Co.
RZN 02-21 From Agricultural to R -O Residential /Office.
Reference: Your notice dated July 2, 2002 to adjacent property owners.
In response to Subject Proposed Re -zoning Changes, I am strongly opposed to any
re -zoning other than Single Family, One Story Homes with a minimum of 2000 sq.
ft. with an access street no wider than 50 feet. This would be in keeping with
previously approved Protective Covenants by Washington Co. for the Quail Creek
Subdivision dated Oct, 26,1993 under the MILLER FAMILY TRUST, Peggy
Bishop -Trustee.
As I presently own two homes located at 2823 and 2888 Quail Creek Dr., I am
strongly opposed to mixing Business with Residential property! We are already
receiving excessive drive -through traffic from Appleby to Drake St. during
commuting hours. With the impending opening of the NW Regional Hospital, this
will further add tremendous unwanted traffic in our Residential Area. We also
believe that Drake St. should be extended westward and connected to Gregg Street
(Hwy. 180) as it was originally intended, instead of having a multilane highway dead
ending at Quail Creek Dr.!
I will support any and all efforts by the homeowners and Property Owners
Association that oppose the proposed re -zoning.
Sincere)
Charles & Gladys Bigbee
2826 N. Quail Creek Dr.
Fayetteville AR. 72703
Phone 479 251-8991
cc to;
Chip Arledge 2928 John Wayne Drive
7
REAL ESTATE • COMMERCIAL PROPERTY• CORPORATE OFFICE SPACE
4700 S. Thompson, Suite &101
Springdale, AR 72764
Information regarding Dixie Development's Rezoning Application for,Robert Yotinkin property located
between Appleby and Drake. -',
The Following is our written description of our request with the required information: .
5. A. Ownership information: See attached information.
B. The property is currently zoned A-1, and has.beenused as.anairplane.. runway.. With -the.
New hospital near completion, and -obvious traffic irwill create, additional services -will
be needed near its location. We believe that a zone.change makes logical sense and would
serve as a convenient location for doctor'soffices and businesses,thatwill support the
hospital; it's patients and their families.
C. In regard to how the property -will -relate to surrounding properties: Zoning -the land -R -O
Will relate to the medical offices, -hospital, rehabilitation facilities, nursing -home and
numerous other services adjothing •our property::and across the street (Appleby)2from our
property. Traffic will naturally flow through' our' new- development, from Appleby to'
Drake, and adjoin Bishop (which is a natural connector street.) -We are confidentthis will
be a tremendous benefit to the homeowners in the subdivisions located in the area where
traffic cuts through their streets at an increasing volume, especially with the completion
of the hospital. Our new street will be a natural connector, one most traffic will use,
instead of cutting through neighborhoods already established. The appearance of our
development will be pleasing to the eye, and an asset to the area. The property has
several beautiful mature maple trees. We will work diligently on our site design to find
ways to preserve these trees, if there is any obvious way to do so. We think the trees are
an asset to the property, and will add to: the.: beauty. of ourdevelopment. We are
committed to building this project with the high standards Dixie Development has'
become known for.
All of our signage will be within city compliance, and will not detract from surrounding
areas.
D. Availability of water and sewer: Appleby Road has 8" water lines, which could be
Connected, and T into our property. Drake Road also has 8" water lines. Also Bishop
has a 6" line going to our property. Sewer lines, 10" and 8" run down Cydnee, and
through to the east side of our property. We also own two lots on Cydnee where we
could connect sewer if we need to. Sewer lines 8" run down Sunny street and T into
Bishop with a 6" line, and runs into our property on the east side.
6. A. Our request for R -O zoning is with the intention of using the land for compatible use. In
Phone 501.872.0707
Toll Free 877.872.0707
Fax 501.872.0714
a
Li
Page 2.
particular unit 12: offices, studios and related services, and unit 25 professional
offices.
B. With the area around our land growing in use and traffic, we believe the timing is right
for a new street connecting Appleby to Drake. We will also pick up the intersection with
Bishop to T into our new street as a connector.
C. The proposed zoning will appreciably decrease traffic going through existing neighbor-
hoods, and give safer alternate routes for existing and future traffic (no families living on
our street). Connecting Appleby directly to Drake, which has four lanes going east will
help existing neighborhoods not see as much cut through traffic. We even believe it may
help with emergency runs for ambulances to have another access to and from the new
hospital. We also realize the city has future plans to continue the existing four lane
(Drake) going west to intersect with Greg street. Even if that doesn't happen in the near
future, the four lanes going east are a tremendous benefit.
D. With regard to altering the population density: Unit 12 and unit 25 will not put undue
burden on schools. The water and sewer lines are 8" and 10" with the exception of the
Bishop intersection, which is 6" for water and sewer, all adequate for our intended use.
(Please see enclosed street layout for specifics on water and sewer.)
E. The land is currently zoned A -I and used as an airplane runway. We believe using it for
cattle, or farm use is not in consistency with the area surrounding it. It is surrounded by
R-0 and R-1 or R1.5. We do not think putting single-family dwellings or duplexes would
be a wise use of the land, as it will become a major thoroughfare for future traffic.
a 0
0 125 250 500 750 1.000
Feet
do 0
Planning Commission i •
July 22, 2002
Page 23
RZN 02-21.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp 251) was submitted by Dixie Development
on behalf of Fern Younkin Revocable Trust for property located at 10 Bishop Drive and 35
Appleby Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 17.39 acres.
The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office.
Estes: The next item on the agenda is RZN 02-21.00, this is a rezoning request by Dixie
Development and it is submitted by Dixie Development on behalf of Fern
Younkin Revocable Trust for property located at 10 Bishop Drive and 35 Appleby
Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 17.39
acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staff recommends
approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of your
report. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present and if so, would
you like to make a presentation? Please say your name and provide us with the
benefit of your presentation.
Jones: My name is Pam Jones and I am here on behalf of Dixie Development. I have got
some visual aids if you will permit me.
Estes: Sure, make your presentation in whatever manner you feel is appropriate.
Jones: We come tonight in the spirit of cooperation in community and compromise. We
have met with the home owners. We asked, we invited ourselves to do that with
them to help explain our project. Hopefully tonight I can explain and paint a
picture to you of what we intend to do pretty quickly. This is 17.39 acres and it
has been the home site of Fern and Robert Younkin. It served as a private airstrip
for them and also on the site were numerous buildings that were hangars where he
actually worked on engines: You could hear them roaring and he worked on them
for hours, and hours, and hours. It is zoned A-1. To tell you where the property
is, this is Appleby Road right here and it does go out to College and to Gregg.
That is on the north side. On the south side is Drake, which goes out to College
and it is a four lane which dead ends right here. It is our understanding that
capital improvements, that in the future, hopefully not too distant, that that is
going to be looked at. Sunbridge is right here. Most people go by this mobile
home park and come up. Residents have told us that most people come up Susan
Carol and then cut through North Heights, which are condominiums right there.
To the east of this property is R -O, which is property that Dixie Development
owns. This, I understand from Dawn Warrick that this is A-1 but actually it is a
nursing home and I am not sure why that is still A-1 but it is an existing nursing
home. On this property there is a very large two story barn that has been there. In
fact, my daughter took horseback riding lessons in this whole area years ago so
that barn still stands and it is right up against the property of North Heights. On
the west side is Quail Creek subdivision and from our meeting with the property
owners there, they said that traffic also cuts through their neighborhood. I know
from what I heard from the property owners that traffic is cutting through their
neighborhoods on both sides to get to this medical area. This right here, to
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 24
familiarize you, is the driveway for the actual hospital and it is paved now. This
is called Green Road, I talked with the site manager on that today and that is
designed specifically for emergency vehicles to enter the hospital. The main
entrance comes off of North Heights right here and comes in on the north side of
the hospital. There is a secondary entrance right here but this is the main
entrance. On this property that we are talking about here there are very few trees.
There are some beautiful maple trees that are about 153' from the east boundary
and we want to keep those trees. Because there are so few trees on the property
we feel like it is an asset and we feel like we can design our site plan around those
trees and preserve them and want to, as I said, we feel like it is an asset. I do
know that Mr. Younkin used to go out there with barrels of water in the Summer
and water those trees. Right along the border of the property there is foliage and
we would like to keep that as a screen. We would also like to build an additional
buffer for the home owners. We have talked with them about that and we have
offered for a couple of people from Quail Creek and from North Heights to sit in
with us as we are planning, hopefully if this passes, to give us feedback on what
they like for that. We are willing to cooperate and listen to them and have- full
intentions of doing that. Also, right here this area would be the proposed street.
The newspaper said something about a four lane. We have no intentions to do.
that because the property is only 383' wide. That was a misquote. We have never
entertained that thought. Our intentions is a two lane and stubbing onto Bishop.
If city staff feels that we should do a turning lane, to do a third lane we would be
happy to do that. We would go by their recommendation. I feel like they have
better knowledge as to what would be the proper way, not to overbuild in that area
but we would do whatever they recommend. The lots, the reason we feel it is not
practical for residential because what we want to do through most of the corridor,
where this line is, excluding this, we want to do one story office buildings. That
is professional buildings. I think in our submission we put unit 12 and unit 25
which is primarily like medical supply or dentist or optometrists, accountants,
engineers, attorneys, professional offices, one story professional offices. Also,
when we looked at the property, if you put a street down it the lot depth is 165'
and most residential and all around in this area, the lot depths are like 120' or
125. It is too deep. It is not cost effective for anyone to come in and put
residential. I don't think that anyone could afford to do that. The cost of the lot
to the potential buyer would be so absorbent because of the cost to the developer
to put in the streets. It would be so high with the additional cost of the land
because the land is very expensive. This one area here, we told the property
owners in the meeting that we have explored the idea of more than one story
simply for a couple of reasons. There is an incredible view there and we build to
suit. We wouldn't just come in and build a whole bunch of offices. We build to
suit and if we had someone who was interested in doing more than one level
there, which this is already R -O, we would want to listen to see if that is
something that we could do. We wanted to leave that option open for right there.
Along the rest of it, we are really not interested in doing anything but one story.
We are committed to high quality offices that are aesthetically pleasing. We have
Planning Commission
July 22, 2002
Page 25
voluntarily asked for representatives of the neighborhood to sit in and give us
feedback on the design and of course we have to go through all the steps if this
does get passed with the city to make sure that we are doing what is required. Dr.
Israel, who is the President of Dixie Development, has also traditionally done
some things that helped the home owners because there is going to be dust.
Whoever develops there, there is going to be dust and things like that but we put
down the SB2 gravel and try to blacktop as soon as we can to cut back on all of
the dirt and mud that could possibly get on the road. We really try to be sensitive
to that and have done a really good job I think if you are familiar with what we
have done on Joyce Blvd. It has been very clean and many people have
mentioned that to me that they have appreciated that, just as a side note. Dr.
Israel has voluntarily suggested that we would like to put in a jogging trail in the
setbacks and noone asked us about that but we feel that that would really be
helpful. Not only to the neighbors who live on the sides over here, these are
triplexes through here and duplexes and these are a lot, some people own these
homes and a lot of people rent. Anyway, we thought that it might be really nice
to do a jogging trail. Even for people who have loved ones in the hospital, just a
way for them to get away and maybe walk a little in a safe area away from traffic.
I don't know if any of you have had family members in the hospital, but I have
recently and sometimes you just need to get away but you want to be close by if
you are needed. The area around, this is all R -O and the hospital actually sits
here. It says it is A-1 on the map, the hospital is sitting on A -I right now and this
is C-2. All above it is Milsap Road and that is all C-2. This is R-2, this is all R-2
on the east side with the exclusion of the R -O that is already there and this is R-
1.5 and R-1 and R-2. These are apartments right here. I do have aerial photos if
any of you need them to look at the property. I think it really paints a picture of
what is there. I would be happy to pass those out to you. There is also industrial
property not too far from it. You can see on this map that there is a real
conglomeration of different zonings. I am trying to think if there, is anything else.
As I said, the type of offices that we want to build are service related and with
Washington Regional being a Regional hospital and being such a large facility,
we have already had doctors like radiologists and anesthesiologists calling us who
don't traditionally see patients outside of the hospital but they need an office
nearby the hospital in case of emergency. We feel that this would be ideal and
they have already been contacting us and asking us about that. I believe that there
was also to be a building near the hospital that was for offices and now they are
no longer going to do that. It has something to do with the parking deck. There
are doctors looking for space.
Estes: Thank you Pam. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide
public comment on this requested rezoning? If so, would you please come
forward, state your name, and provide us with the benefit of your comments.
Arledge:
My
name is
Chip Arledge and
I am
kind of new
at this
too so
please bear with
me.
Let
me first
say how thankful
that I
am that we
live in
a city
like Fayetteville
and
Planning Commission . •
July 22, 2002
Page 26
a country where these issues are debated in an open forum before governing
bodies like yourselves who I trust are responsible individuals, who listen with
open minds, and to all sides of the arguments presented and make enlightened and
intelligent decisions. As I said, my name is Chip, I have lived in Fayetteville ten
years. The last five in my home on John Wayne Drive adjacent to the property
that is being considered for rezoning. I am here to adamantly oppose the
proposed rezoning and to offer a workable alternative that in theory could meet
the city's growing needs. My concerns should be fairly obvious. A. Increased
traffic including sirens and emergency vehicles traveling to the new medical
center literally in my backyard where no traffic has passed before. B. Increased
noise• and safety issues inherent with additional traffic, buildings, and the
businesses contained therein. C. The dangerous precedent of routing traffic
through the middle of two pre-existing, established neighborhoods. D. The
danger of an inappropriate precedent being set by the city regarding the status of
undeveloped properties bordered by those established neighborhoods. E.
Decreased property values for adjacent property owners and those in our
neighborhoods. F. The City's unwise use of existing infrastructure and the
precedent that would be set by allowing this rezoning to go forward. I have asked
Dawn Warrick from the City's Planning Division to provide me with examples of
where this type of rezoning has taken place in the past and her report for you
regarding this issue sites four examples of similar rezoning decisions. To the best
of my knowledge, which I admit is somewhat limited as I am new at this, I can
find no examples of where businesses have been allowed to be wedged between
two pre-existing, established neighborhoods like the one in question. The
difference being that this land is undeveloped with no road adjacent to our
residential properties. In all other cases it appears a street or thoroughfare of
some sort previously existed between the homes and the neighborhood. Here it
clearly does not. I also ask you to take into consideration that the city's adopted
General Plan 2020 identifies this area on the future land use map as residential,
not residential office. A logical assumption, given that the property is adjacent to
two pre-existing, established neighborhoods. If one were to argue that the
General Plan 2020 states the area north of the property is designated for office use
then one must also admit that the same plan does not specifically identify the area
for office use. Indeed, office use is not even mentioned for this particular piece of
property in that plan. Residential clearly is. I believe the word construed has
been mentioned when interpreting the technicalities involved. Construed to my
ears has always meant finding a way to interpret the facts at hand to represent
your beliefs when common sense would indicate otherwise. Additionally, and I
am not prize winning economist, but I have noticed a lot of office space in the
area surrounding the new hospital. Some entire buildings continue to be vacant.
Granted, some of those will fill when the hospital opens but can anyone really
predict who will fill the proposed development? A lot of office space will drag
down the value of the subject property and drag my property down with it. A
compelling argument certainly does exist with construction of a road through the
subject property. There is no question we need better access to the new hospital.
Planning Commission . •
July 22, 2002
Page 27
Indeed, Councilman Bob Davis may remember my attending an outdoor meeting
where I begged him to do what he can to put construction in this part of town on
the fast track with the opening of a new hospital. The new Target store, the new
development around the mall and such, the area will become a quagmire of traffic
without additional access but most of that access already exists. Drake Street, and
I will refer to that as the four lane that goes nowhere, is exactly that. It stops
where Quail Creek Drive intersects with it, inexplicably going literally nowhere.
Drake is on the master plan to eventually be extended to Gregg Avenue. Part of
Gregg Avenue is Arkansas State 180, also on the Master Plan to be widened to
four lanes. My proposal is to extend the four lane road to nowhere, make it go
somewhere to a pre-existing state route that is planned to be widened to four
lanes. With improvements to the western part of Drake Street, the traveling
public would have a major east/west corridor from College Avenue to State Route
112 and Leverett Avenue. 95% of the pavement is already in place. Such a
common sense decision would alleviate the noise and traffic that already exists on
Quail Creek Drive as folks cut through now and all parts of the city would have
better access to the hospital on roads that already exist. You would be hailed as
common sense heroes, the stuff of legend. But I fear my efforts may be futile. I
have a map copyrighted in 2001 that shows a road already exists between Drake
and Appleby. You can understand certainly my skepticism when I saw I was
• fighting a battle to prevent a road from being built that is already indicated on
some map. I visited with Mayor Coody. I would like to thank him publicly for
• seeing me when he was on vacation and several members of the staff this past
Friday and they assured me there was no vast conspiracy to build a road behind
my house where no road has ever existed, that this was not a forgone conclusion,
that I was not merely going through the motions in a battle I have no chance to
win. It is just a bad map I was told. I don't think it is a bad map. I think it might
be some sort of magical map, a clairvoyant map with a window to the future.
Nonsense maybe, we'll see. Extend the road to nowhere so that it goes
somewhere, take the greenspace of Gordon Long Park on Appleby that would be
lost as a result, build a park in a new single-family residential neighborhood that
would be bordered by two pre-existing, established, single-family neighborhoods,
name it Younkin Park. Rezone the property in question to R-1.5 if you must
rezone it to anything with covenants similar to the pre-existing, established
neighborhoods and everyone is a winner. My son is five years old. Four months
after his birth I conducted a search of Fayetteville looking for a safe place to raise
him and others if we are so blessed. I discovered a home on John Wayne Drive
on a cul-de-sac next to property zoned agricultural. Those were the pre-existing
conditions with which I bought my home. If I didn't want to hear the noise from
a pre-existing, established raceway I wouldn't buy property on a hill that
overlooks that raceway and then complain about the noise. That would be silly!
If I didn't want to hear the noise from the bands on Dickson Street, the inherent
noise that is generated by a pre-existing, established area, I wouldn't buy, build,
or move into my grandparents' home in the entertainment district and then
complain about the noise. That would be goofy! No, I did my homework and I
Planning Commission •
July 22, 2002
Page 28
made what I thought was a good choice. My point is this, the City of Fayetteville
is currently rumbling, fumbling, tumbling, and stumbling all over itself to pass
unneeded legislation to protect property owners who have made dubious decisions
about where they live. I am asking the city to stand up for those who have made
good decisions about where we live and about that map if you approve this
rezoning and build a road in my back yard then I do indeed have a magic map. If
not, the mayor and his staff are right, I just have a bad map. I thank you for your
attention and your time.
Estes: Chip, some of the correspondence that we have been provided you are copied on,
do you speak for the neighborhood association?
Arledge: I do not speak on behalf of the neighborhood association, I speak on my behalf.
There are others in the house tonight who may or may not speak.
Estes: Thank you Chip. Is there any other member of the audience who wishes to
provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Yes Sir, if you would please
come forward, state your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments.
Hunt: My name is Dr. Jim Hunt. I apologize in that I don't have this organized. This is
a spur of the moment type thing based on what I just heard. I live on the corner of
Appleby and Cydnee Street, which is in North Heights. I am looking for some
relief from what already is on Appleby. I have some problems with the
statements that were just made and the negative aspect of this. I want to say that I
am for this development. I haven't had any answers so far to explain away what
really is, not necessarily what is going to be. Already on Appleby you can't get
out on College Avenue. Do any of you utilize that road or do you live over there?
Estes: I use it quite regularly Dr. Hunt.
Hunt: Ok, so you know. I have a car that does 0 to 60 in 8.3 seconds they tell me and I
can't get out. I can't get out on College Avenue. I am retired twice but I work at
the St. Francis Community Clinic in Springdale so I use Millsap and Futrall to get
to work and come and go. I have Friday afternoon off and I am amazed after I get
out of workout with my trainer on Friday afternoon I can hardly get home because
of that mess that is around where Appleby dumps into Fiesta Square. There is so
much traffic there that if you are trying to get out to go south or east you can't get
out on College Avenue. That is already there. The light is about to be turned on
on Gregg Street, I understand that. But look how short that is. Already traffic
backs up to the top of the hill. I talked with Dr. Israel when he met with our
neighborhood group last night, and by the way, I speak for myself, not my
neighborhood association. My views are strictly my own. I told him that the
traffic backs up already to where his street is going to come into and that will
continue when that stoplight is there. All it is going to do is group the traffic into
longer lines and then let longer lines through so you are going to be able to get
Planning Commission • .
July 22, 2002
Page 29
through. What we do in that area, you either cut through Quail Creek already, the
noise is already going to be there. Or you go up to Appleby and they are lined up
at Bishop and Appleby. What you are going to do is you are going to cut through
Cydnee Street and go over to Susan Carol and hit Drake. The idea is to get to
Drake because you can get out on College Avenue once you get to Drake. You
are nodding your head, that is the way most of us have learned to go if it is not on
Sunday morning. Already there is traffic, already there is the noise, it is already
going through Quail. We were coming down here tonight and I made a comment.
I looked back through my rearview minor and noticed on Quail that there were
four cars that ran all the way to Drake and turned and went down to Quail to get
out, that is through there. The hospital people, I operate with those folks. I
operate down at North Hills and I operate with a lot of those folks that are going
to be using this. The hospital has, if I am not mistaken, a 7:30 to 3:30 shift, you
are going to dump about 300 plus people into that area at 3:30. Then you are
going to dump another 300 or so at 11:30. Where are they going to go? They
can't really get out too well, they are not going to be able to get out at College if
they go up Appleby and try to go that way. They are going to go to Drake. This
is going to happen in August. This isn't going to happen a year and a half or two
years from now when this road will be through. You are going to dump all of
those people in there and these folks are on their way home and they have been
working hard all day in stress so what they are going to do is they are going to
take Susan Carol, they are going to take Cydnee cutoff because they can't get
through and they are already going to go through Quail. It is already there. You
can talk about that you don't want the noise going through this new subdivision,
this new development that Dr. Israel is putting in. Last night he did talk about
what they mentioned tonight about going ahead and putting three lanes through
there and that will give us a link with Drake that will let us be able to funnel
traffic out. The problem to run Drake on down to Gregg, I am all for that sort of
thing but I don't think that is going to be anywhere in the near future because of
the topography of that and the expense that is involved with it. There is a park
already there and I could see the lady getting. back in the tree and I don't think
that is going to happen. That is not going to solve anything for the hospital and
Appleby traffic that runs in front of the hospital because you are still trying to get
a southern access. Right now you only have southern access through Appleby,
well actually College and Gregg is it. You have got to get to College and you
have got to get to Gregg. That is where the problem is. What is going to happen
in August is Quail and Appleby and that area through Susan Carol is going to
look like a bunch of rats running through a maze. I hate to be unprofessional
about that but that is what it is already going to be. I am for this. The problem is
that it is going to take Dr. Israel a year to a year and a half to have that street
through there. I wish it could be opened up in August to funnel that traffic over
on Drake and funnel some of it off of Quail, which is already a residential
neighborhood. I can't quite see, the idea is to put a neighborhood in there has
been the request since there is a neighborhood and neighborhood, lets go ahead
and put residential in that same area. If you open up a street through there you are
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 30
going to have children playing on that street, why in the world would you want to
run a street right straight up from the hospital to Drake and have kids out there
running around? To me, this type of development, as much as I would rather the
entire area be strictly residential, it isn't. It isn't ever going to be again since the
hospital was put in there, it is gone. It is a matter of what is rather than what
could have been. Once again, I want to say that I am for this. I think it makes
sense to put it through. I think it is a traffic wise thing to do and I think we all
realize, those of us who were raised here, we've seen some mistakes made in the
past and we have seen those blind areas where we dump a lot of traffic into
something that doesn't have any way to get out and I am thinking that if you put
this road through there, let him develop this in this manner, this is a way for the
traffic to go through. Particularly the 11:30 shift at night. Number one, he is
going to have businesses in there that are probably going to be low traffic. There
aren't going to be any children out playing in the street in front of a cardiologist
office or the anesthesiologist office. Those people are also not going to be there
at 11:30 at night when that last shift lets out so that is going to be a safe place for
people to be able to get access over to Drake to get out of that place. Thank you
all.
Estes: Thank you Dr. Hunt. Is there any other member of the audience who would like
to provide public comment? If so, would you come forward please, say your
name and provide us with the benefit of your comments?
Hunter: My name is Mark Hunter and I live on the corner of Quail Creek and Appleby
directly behind the Steel barn where Mr. Younkin kept his planes. Some things
that I proposed was actually two or three things. One was in the subdivision of
Quail Creek, I have spoken with my neighbors about speed bumps and all of that
and I have been informed that it would impede with the emergency vehicles. I
moved here from Alexandria, Virginia, outside of D.C. and I battled with the City
Council to put speed bumps on my street. What happened was they told me the
same thing but once I had the chief of police come out and just look at how fast
people drive through the neighborhood and observe the children playing it was
much safer to have it out there because I would rather see an emergency vehicle
slowing down than to see a five year old being hit by a car. Secondly, on the
street that is going straight, at least put a small bend in the street so that cars can't
go that fast through the street because we all know that when young people are
driving they are going to test their car. If it is on a straight away where they know
that there is nothing going on late at night they are going to test their vehicles., I
also propose on that street to put speed bumps. Therefore, the hospital is just that
close so I am presuming that when you put an emergency vehicle coming from
the end of Drake Street through Quail Creek, I don't think any speed bumps
would impede the emergency vehicles.. The next thing is when I moved here I
moved here and I purchased that home because of the hospital. Because it is a
safe environment. I moved here also because when my mother retires she wants
to move into that home because it is across from the hospital. I am adamantly
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 31
concerned about the four lane street that goes nowhere. My first month here I
observed that and I said there is something totally wrong with it, it just ends. I
have never seen a four lane road end anywhere and I have lived in L.A.,
Manhattan, and D.C. and I have never seen a four lane road just end. Once I
found out who owns it I was totally disgusted. If that development was made
residential, picture this, if you put two cul-de-sacs, one on each end, one coming
from Appleby and the other coming from Drake Street, there is no outlook so
therefore, traffic will not go into those neighborhoods. It will boost the
homeowners who own those homes, it will boost their properties. I am 28 and
this is my fourth home that I have purchased. In all of the homes something that I
have proposed were speed bumps, cul-de-sacs, they have boosted the price of the
homes. Therefore, if it is developed the only thing that I am proposing is at least
put a break in it. I understand that there are stop signs there but still, at 11:00 at
night when yyoung people know that no one is coming down those streets, they are
going to test their cars and they are going to ignore those stop signs for a straight
of way. Also, if that street is built then I am sure that the neighborhood will push
for that four lane road to go somewhere. That is all that I have to say.
Estes: Thank you Mark.
Is there
any other
member of the audience who would like to
comment on this
requested
rezoning?
Yes Sir.
Oxford: Mr. Chairman, I am Charles Oxford, I live east of the property that is under
consideration on Cydnee Street. We have been there for eight years and if I could
add one word to what has already been said, Drake needs to be completed. I am
also in favor of the proposal as stated by the rezoning group and I urge you to
approve that rezoning.
Estes: Thank you Charles.
Brown: My name is Donald Brown. I live at 188 Cydnee. You have had the traffic
problems described to you very well so I won't repeat that. All I want to say is
that I am in favor of this project because I think it will alleviate some of the real
traffic problems that we have in that area. Thank you.
Estes: Thank you Mr. Brown. Is there any other member of the audience who would
like to come forward and provide public comment on this requested rezoning?
Harmon: My name is Tim Harmon. I have been a resident of Quail Creek for 13 years. My
wife teases me, she says it is our starter home and retirement home. I think there
is some benefit there by not putting that street through. I do not feel that it is
going to alleviate any traffic problems. I feel that the traffic problems are only
going to intensify only because Drake going east to College, there is a stop sign
and a yield sign. It is almost impossible during these times of heavy traffic to
make any kind of left turn off of Drake to go north on College. You can possibly
go south on College off of Drake but again, it is a yield sign and you have red
Planning Commission • .
July 22, 2002
Page 32
lights and those red lights will back all the way back to the yield sign. I do not
feel like it would alleviate any traffic flow there. Again, the four lane road to
nowhere, Drake Street going west, I do see some benefit if you are looking at
some type of corridor to alleviate some traffic. Again, living at Quail Creek for
the past 13 years, I believe the name of the road is Sunbridge, it did alleviate some
traffic flow from College to Gregg but again, I still feel that Drake to Quail Creek
to Appleby to Gregg is still a short cut for many people trying to bypass a lot of
traffic. The argument stated earlier, where is this hospital traffic going to go.
Again, I have seen a lot of development going in there during the years. I see
easy access onto Millsap, I see easy access onto the bypass going north and east
towards the mall. I do not feel like really anything that is done is going to
alleviate a lot of the traffic problems we have. Yes, I have seen some red lights
go up but again, the red light on Gregg and Appleby is only going to back up that
traffic all the way back up to the hospital if not further. As far as the noise level, I
can tell you this from being a resident on Quail Creek for numerous years, it is a
speedway today and you see how the street is somewhat shaped. There have been
numerous accidents, there have been numerous people's vehicles being driven
through people's yards. There are concrete mail boxes, brick and mortar concrete
mailboxes that have completely been destroyed because of people driving through
that neighborhood so fast. _ My wife has talked to the City Planner about coming
in and putting in a stop sign where John Wayne and Quail Creek intersect.
Apparently that didn't happen. They talked about putting speed breaks through
Quail Creek, that hasn't happened. I don't know if that is going to alleviate any
traffic through there. I guess I have to say that if you do vote for this road to go
from Drake to Appleby it is going to open up a speedway. It is a runway by my
house right now, it is going to be another runway but this runway is going to be
for four car vehicles. If there is not some planning with speed breaks on it or stop
signs on it again, it is just going to be someone's opportunity to see how fast their
car can go. Personally I would like to see it zoned for families, whether it be
single-family homes, that would be wonderful. Again, I just think that it is not
really going to solve any of our problems by building a road through there if we
are talking about building the road to alleviate traffic. As far as the noise level
goes, I would rather see kids and dogs barking in my backyard verses traffic
coming in and out on that property behind my backyard. As you are well aware,
there are a lot of zones that surround this piece of property right here. Again, I
am like Chip. When I first moved here Appleby was a gravel road and I know
you can't help for things to develop around your neighborhood but at least
hopefully you will take into consideration as home owners in that property what I
see could happen. This is this, my sister, and this is taking it to maybe a different
level. I was raised in North Little Rock, Arkansas. I saw the quality of life go
down over probably about the past twenty years in central Arkansas. I have been
a resident of Fayetteville since 1981. Over the past ten years I have seen what
used to be a fantastic place to live where you heard it on the radio whenever they
rated Fayetteville as a wonderful place to live like in the top ten, I don't even
think it is in the top 100 any longer. I guess my point is this. She worked at the
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 33
Children's Hospital. The neighborhood that was maybe once around the
Children's Hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas was probably once upon a time a
decent place to live. With the gangs and the infiltration of drugs and everything
else into that area, as drug dealers were shot in the neighborhood and brought to
the hospital, that was the closest hospital. There were actually gangs that would
follow the ambulance to the emergency room to finish the job. What we are
talking about here is something that may be fine and jim-dandy for the first five
years or so but what we have to look at as a community and as a city we have to
have the responsibility not only to look five years down the road but look twenty
years down the road and what kind of city we are leaving for our kids. Again, I
see that straight road as a place for people to speed, a place for people to maybe
take that last pop shot at that ambulance going to the hospital. I know it sounds
crazy but it happens everyday in Little Rock. I think as a community we need to
be forward thinking along those lines. That is all.
Estes: Thank you Tim. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to
provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Let me say this if I may.
This is a request for a rezoning. Please keep your comments germane to the issue
and provide us with information that will edify us and help us in making our
decision and please limit your remarks to the requested rezoning.
Hunt: Mr. Chairman, I am Margaret Hunt. My husband has spoken at length about the
traffic. I choose to say that the land will be rezoned at some point. Our
neighborhood met last night and it was a consensus of the majority of those who
were there that we support this rezoning. We choose to believe Dr. Israel will
honor his word, that it will be an aesthetically approving rezoning, that it will
benefit us as a neighborhood, and that he will seek our input on this. We don't
always agree with him but we trust him.
Estes: Thank you Mrs. Hunt. Is there anyone else?
Street: My name is Dan Street and I live in the Quail Creek neighborhood. I just have
some of the concerns I think that some of the neighbors have with this. We
understand that it is going to be developed and of course we would probably
prefer it to be residential. This may not be a bad step but what we are concerned
with is the road going all through. We are not sure why it was considered that a
road has to be put through this entire property. I don't think it is a good thing to
relieve traffic from College Avenue and Gregg through the middle of a residential
area. Even if it is not residential, if it becomes office. It is still a place to relieve
this traffic off to the two main arteries and I don't know that that is going to help
anybody in the neighborhoods. The red flag went off when the doctor said that
the hospital is going to get out at 11:30. That means people are going to be
coming down this new thoroughfare just after I have gotten my five year old to
bed at 9:30 or 10:00 so that concerns me too. I think there are a lot of people in
the neighborhood that have that same concern.
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 34
Estes: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide
comment on this rezoning request? Yes Sir. Again, let me say this. This is a
request for rezoning. The matter of the street, the matter of some of the issues we
have been discussing will be dealt with at what is called the Large Scale
Development stage. This is simply a rezoning request.
Harden: My name is Gregg Harden. Like a few other people have mentioned, I am here
speaking only on behalf of myself. I am a resident of North Quail Creek Drive. I
wanted to come before you to commend Dr. Israel for having met with the
neighbors. I was out of town last week and didn't have the opportunity to be
there but I do commend him for coming in and taking that cooperative approach
for the rezoning. Speaking of the rezoning, I would like to ask if it is permissible
some questions of your Planning staff about the zoning itself, about the types of
uses specifically that are allowed within the R -O zoning.
Estes: Greg, if you will direct your questions to me, if I can not answer them then I will
direct them to the appropriate staff member.
Harden: That is my question. About the philosophy, as I understand zoning it is there
pretty much for the protection of surrounding areas, making sure that they are
compatible uses. Could you explain to me a little bit about what the uses that are
allowed in an R -O zoning are.
Estes: I think your question is really two parts. Regarding the permitted uses, I will let
Mr. Conklin answer that and regarding the public purpose doctrine of zoning
ordinances, I will let Mr. Williams answer that. Mr. Conklin?
Conklin: With regard to what is allowed in the R -O, Residential Office district, uses
allowed, Use Unit 5, Government facilities; Use Unit 8, Single -Family and Two -
Family dwellings; Use Unit 12 Office Studios, related services; and Use Unit 25
Professional Offices. Within those use units it elaborates more on the type of
uses. That is a very good question because this evening you have heard from the
applicant about an idea to develop this with single -story office buildings. I want
to make sure that the public, the Commission, and the applicant is aware that R -O
doesn't limit the number of stories within the actual R -O development. I bring
that up because there is no way for staff to enforce that and the applicant has been
made aware of what other applicant's have used in the past with regard to Bills of
Assurance to limit what they are talking about. This evening, yes it is talking
about the Residential Office zoning.
Estes: Mr. Williams, why do we have zoning laws?
Williams: Mr.
Chairman, this
Planning Commission was created
by state statute and the
state
statute listed
several reasons or purposes that a city could establish a
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 35
Planning Commission and creates land use regulations. These goals and these
plans were supposed to promote 1) the efficiency and the economy and the
process of development 2) The appropriate and best use of land 3) Convenience
of traffic and circulation of people and goods 4) Safety from fire and other
dangers 5) Adequate life, air, and the use and occupancy of buildings 6)
Healthful and convenient distribution of the population 7) Good civic design and
arrangement 8) Adequate public utilities and facilities 9) Wise and efficient
expenditure of funds. As you said, primarily zoning regulations are to protect the
property rights and the livability rights of the neighbors that surround each piece
of property.
Estes: Do you have any other questions?
Harden: Yes I do. I appreciate with your patience going through each of the speakers. Is
it appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider as part of its decision a
Bill of Assurance offered by the developer?
Estes: Your
Planning Commission
may not
require, may not
request,
and may not solicit
a Bill
of Assurance. That is
strictly a
voluntary act on
the part
of the applicant.
Harden: Ok. I am interested in the professional planner's perspective about the theory
about this through street and whether it would actually take traffic away from the
residential streets that exist now and their experience with traffic planning and
actual traffic operations throughout the city. Do they believe that this would
relieve some of the traffic on Quail Creek and the other residential streets?
Estes: Let me respond to that in two ways. Number one, I am not a professional
Planner, I am a citizen volunteer. I do have an opinion regarding the connectivity
of Appleby to Drake and once this matter is brought back to the Commission I
will probably express that opinion. The second part of the answer would be that
Mr. Conklin is a professional planner and perhaps he has an opinion regarding
connectivity of Drake to Appleby.
Conklin: Thank you Mr. Chairman. With regard to the policy of connecting streets, the
City of Fayetteville does have a policy of connectivity. You will notice in almost
every development we review we connect streets together and require developers
to make stub outs. If this development did come through we would be looking at
that policy of connectivity and in my opinion, yes there would be a street
connection between there because we don't like to create dead end streets. We
like to create a street network that allows people to move around town without
everybody going on the same street. Would it alleviate traffic? Typically, what
we have seen is that when you have more connectivity you have more options for
people to travel through town. Yes, it is not funneling traffic all on one street.
With regard to this individual piece of property and this one street, there are also
traffic engineers that know a lot more than I know with regard to where people
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 36
are working, where they are living, where they are traveling. Without having a
complete understanding of what traffic will be using this area I can't make a
prediction of how much will be using it. The policy has been since 1995 is to
have a policy of connectivity connecting neighborhoods together, neighborhoods
to office areas, commercial areas, schools, parks in order for people to move
around without everybody getting in their car or using the same street so that has
been the policy of Fayetteville.
Estes: Do you have any other questions Greg?
Harden: Just a few. As I understand it, the rezoning is tonight. In what form will the
proposal come forward for the actual development of the offices and the street?
There will be public participation in that process as well, correct?
Estes: What is before your Commission this evening is a rezoning request. Our decision
will be advisory only to the Fayetteville City Council. Presuming that this
Planning Commission recommends rezoning to the City Council and presuming
that the City Council approves the rezoning, the next request from the applicant
will be the Large Scale Development process. That is a multi -tiered, multi -facet
process.
Harden: That does involve public participation and this meeting?
Estes: It involves public participation at this level.
Harden: Just to sum up, I believe that that property has been the way that it has been for a
long time and I think we probably have been blessed by having it in that state for
a long time. But development happens and development is going to happen there
with the hospital. I think that no development there is not an option so we have to
look at what the best options are. It seems to me that probably Dr. Israel may
have said this in the newspaper, that this is probably if it was developed as
residential, it would probably be some kind of multi -family type of approach. I
think that is probably correct and I think that would be more detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhoods than having these professional office buildings. At
this state, I think that his proposal is preferable to other potential uses and that the
through street would actually help to alleviate some of the traffic on those
residential streets and I would stand in favor of it.
Estes: Thank you Greg. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to
provide public comment on this rezoning request? Seeing none, I will bring it
back to the applicant or the applicant's representative for comments.
Israel: My name is
Ben Israel and I am president
of Dixie
Development.
We did
consider what
all the possible uses of the property could
be and felt like
that we
had arrived at
the most economically sound
thing that
it could be, as
well
as
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 37
environmental and traffic. Our street actually would be 165' plus whatever their
backyard is from the residents on either side compared to their front street, which
is going to be 40' or 50' away and the lights at night. I am thinking that I am
sitting in bed at night and the hospital shift lets off at 11:30 and they start out and
if that street is not there and they want to go south, do they go down Quail Creek
or one of these other streets, and if so, at 11:30 at night you have 300 people
leaving the hospital choosing one of those already residential streets. I think the
distance that we are from those and buffered also by the vegetation that is there, it
will be 165' from the street to our property line and then from our property line to
their backyard, or their bedroom door is another 25' or 30' or so. The noise is
going to be there. There is nothing we can do about that. We have met with both
property groups. Even though they are not official groups, we have met with
individuals at a grouping and we have asked them to appoint two or three
representatives from each group and to sit with us as we sit with our architects
and engineers to determine how best to develop the property to least affect them.
We have offered to do things like the walking path or jogging path. We have
offered to do beyond what the city requires for landscaping and so forth. We
would give a Bill of Assurance beyond where the hangar is right now, south of
that space. We do feel like that, because this area next to Appleby Road's beauty
and view, it could best be served by a two story building or possibly three story.
It would be up on the front end away from most of the residential and probably on
the R -O section next to the nursing home. We have no problem with a Bill of
Assurance with single level. I think it would be better though to let us get to our
engineers and our architects and come back to you and say "Ok, is this acceptable
to you?" After we had already gotten acceptance from the neighbors on one side
and the neighbors on the other side. We are willing to do that. It is not something
that is going to happen immediately. The only other thing I will say is Millsap
right now is a hard road to travel. You don't have Staffmark, this old Staffmark
building is not now occupied but soon will be. I understand that it has been sold
and will totally be occupied. Mr. Lindsey has two buildings there that are about
full and when they are full and when the Stevens building is completely full.
Those will fill up when the hospital goes out there. Millsap is going to be almost
impassible at certain times of the day and you throw 300 more cars there from the
hospital and I don't know where they are going to go. If people want to go south
to me they are going to go down the Quail Creek subdivision and hit Drake and
go on south. I think that is what they will do. That is what I would do if I worked
at the hospital. That is at 11:30 at night and at 3:00 in the afternoon when the kids
are coming home from school. I would encourage you to pass it. We will do the
right job with it. We have got to come back before you as you know and get it
approved. We have got to go through this process many, many times to get to the
point where you want us to be. We will put a three lane road in if that is what you
want us to do. We would rather you pay for 1/3 of it because we only have to put
in a two lane road but if it came down to it we would pay for the three lane road
and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 38
Estes: Dr. Israel, I have a question I just have to ask you.
Israel: Ok.
Estes: The last time we heard from you you were boycotting the City of Fayetteville and
were encouraging suppliers, builders, and other developers to boycott the City of
Fayetteville.
Israel: Yes Sir.
Estes: What has changed?
Israel: What has changed is that they have already cut down all the trees on the library
lot. I never boycotted the right, the tree issue. What I boycotted was the
illegitimate way in which it was administered. They would allow the cutting
down of all the trees on one lot, zero trees on another lot. That is unfair, it will
always be unfair, and that is what I boycotted. In fact, if you will remember, I
will say this one thing and shut up. I proposed that they required everyone to
plant 20% trees on even vacant lots.
Estes: I remember that
and this is
a vacant
lot. I will now
bring the matter back to the
Commission for
discussion,
motions,
or comments.
Church: I know we are not supposed to look at the traffic issue with the rezoning but I
think they really go hand in hand. I don't think you can ignore it. I guess I would
just like to say that I believe in this rezoning, I think it is appropriate for this area.
I think hearing all these people talk and I drive through that area too, I know there
is a traffic problem. I don't know the process, all of us have admitted that we are
not experts on traffic. I just want reassurance that somebody is going to take a
look at that with the city. I don't know if that has already been done. I guess I
would like Tim to comment on what is going on with that right now.
Conklin: Sure. The City of Fayetteville has hired a traffic consultant to do a traffic study
for the City of Fayetteville. That is currently underway. With tonight's
discussion I will go back and talk to the Public Works Director and see what is
actually in the scope of work that is currently being worked on by staff and to
make sure that this issue of traffic in these areas around Washington Regional
Medical Center and Drake Street is something that is considered in that scope of
work. That is currently being developed, it is in our office along with the City
Engineer's office and other divisions. We definitely can have the traffic
consultant take a look at these areas and these issues that the neighborhood has
concerns with.
Estes: Commissioner Church,
that is a very saline
question.
One of the findings
of fact
that we must make is a determination as to
whether
the proposed zoning
would
Planning Commission . •
July 22, 2002
Page 39
create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. That is a very
appropriate question. Are there any other comments?
Conklin: Just one question that I would like to ask Dr. Israel to get it correct in the record.
I am not sure if a Bill of Assurance has been offered. If a Bill of Assurance has
been offered, what type of Bill of Assurance are we looking at? Just to clarify
that for the minutes.
Israel: Again, I would like to have time with our engineers but the back part of the
facility, we would definitely sign a Bill of Assurance to one level buildings. I am
assuming that I am talking about if you extended the R -O across that front end up
there as it exists on the map. If you go across, I think that is what we would be
talking about. If you just excluded that front area there. We already have a right
to do it in the R -O next door so we wouldn't have to go into the new area if we
didn't want to. It is just so pretty up there that it would be a shame almost not to
use that. Fayetteville is a horizontal town and it needs to be more vertical in some
areas because otherwise urban sprawl becomes a real problem. I am learning
these words. We do need to become more vertical. We would give a Bill of
Assurance, we have one here with us tonight if you want us to sign it then we will
do it right now.
Conklin: The reason why I asked Dr. Israel that question is because I am always worried
that the citizens are unaware or not aware of what is being offered and if that has
been offered that as staff we know that has been offered and we can forward that
to the City Council and the City Council will have that in their hand when they
review the agenda item if this does pass this evening. I just wanted to clarify that
because after the meeting, tomorrow we will get phone calls and they will want to
know exactly what happened with regard to this item. It is critical that for the
record if you are offering a Bill of Assurance that we understand that and that we
would expect to see that as we prepare the City Council package if this passes.
Israel: What is the depth that is already R -O?
Clark: I think it is 330', it may not be that big. I think what you want to do is at least
have one building lot off of Appleby that would be allowed to be a two or three
story building.
Williams: I would encourage the petitioner to take his time and work on this Bill of
Assurance. As our City Planner said, it would need to be offered. If you wish to
offer it to the City Council before their agenda session, but don't try to rush it and
don't do something tonight when you are not prepared. You may want to talk to
your neighbors again incase there are things there that you may want to cover
within that Bill of Assurance.
Estes: Are there any other comments?
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 40
Bunch: A question for staff. Since we only have six Commissioners here and it takes five
positive votes, should this be not recommended at this level, what process does it
take at that point?
Conklin: They have the right to appeal. They have to appeal within ten working days after
the decision of the Planning Commission. That appeal must be filed with the City
Clerk's office.
Bunch: It would be appealed to the City Council?
Conklin: Yes, that is correct.
Bunch: Another
question.
Does anyone
on the staff
or possibly Dr. Israel know the
projected
opening
date for the new
Washington
Regional facility?
Conklin: August 27`h
Estes: Are there any other comments? Well, let me say a few things. I am very familiar
with this property. Pam, I think our children together took horseback riding
lessons on the property that you now live on Mr. Brown. I have often thought
about what the highest and best use for Mr. Younkin's airstrip would be. Landing
and take off of small, private craft is probably not it but that is what we have all
seen over the years. The issue of connectivity between Appleby and Drake, I
think that is important. Without it, Quail Creek is going to be one of the three
ingresses and egresses to the new hospital. The other alternative is going to be
Appleby to Gregg or Appleby to College. I don't know what the route of choice
will be but without connectivity between Appleby and Drake through Quail Creek
is going to be one of the options. Whether this should be R -O or whether this
should be R-2, to me I would think the preference would be R -O. I would think
the preference would certainly be R -O with this particular developer. Dr. Israel
does do nice projects. I struggle with it but I tell you if a motion is made to
approve this rezoning request I will vote for it for the reasons that I have tried to
articulate. The options are just not that great. The options are R-2 and I just don't
see that that is a viable option. Let me also speak for just a moment. Mark, you
in particular spoke about traffic control devices, there are certain warrants and
certain criteria for traffic control devices. Simply having what appears to be a
present need for a speed bump or a stop sign is not sufficient. Perhaps Mr.
Conklin can comment on that•in a little more detail but there are some pretty strict
warrants for traffic control devices, stop signs, speed bumps. Just because there
seems to be a present or immediate need for them the City can't just simply go out
there and install speed bumps or a stop sign. What is required for a traffic control
device Mr. Conklin?
Conklin: That is my understanding. On state highways they have their own warrants that
Planning Commission • •
July 22, 2002
Page 41
have to be made with regard to traffic and speed, the number of signals on a
roadway and access. With regard to the City of Fayetteville's policy, that is
something that our traffic consultant also will be looking at and will have in that
new study some recommendations for the City of Fayetteville. With regard to the
current policy, our Traffic Division does look at that those and utilizes warrants.
Typically, they do not allow a stop sign to be mid block. Typically you are going
to have to have two major streets intersect each other to get a stop sign in a
neighborhood. It is not common to see too many stop.signs put up in Fayetteville.
Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Are there any other comments or motions?
Bunch: I would like to make a comment. I concur with your comments Mr. Estes about
the quality of the developments that Dr. Israel does. I do have some concerns
since this is listed on the General Plan 2020 as residential and it is differentiated
between residential and office. Also, knowing that this will go to the City
Council regardless of what our recommendation is and would have a minimum of
three readings at the City Council. Also, in about a month if the dates given are
correct, we may see a very vivid explanation of what the traffic is like. For that
reason, I will not support it. Even though I know that probably eventually we will
have something there and eventually there will need to be some traffic relief in the
area but at this point in time with the General Plan 2020 showing this as
residential as opposed to office I will not be supporting this project at this time.
Estes: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Are there any other comments or any motions?
The Chair is going to call three times for a motion. Is there a motion?
Motion:
Allen: I will surprisingly move for approval of RZN 02-21.00 from A -I to R -O.
Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to approve RZN 02-21.00, do we have
a second?
Ward: I will second.
Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Ward. Is there any further discussion?
Ward: Looking at this property, I think R -O is the only way to go with this particular
piece of property the way it is configured. No matter what else was put in there
we would demand that connectivity between Appleby and Gregg, whether it was
residential homes, which I think would be a great place to get kids killed with the
traffic that is going to go through there. There is going to be a lot of traffic going
through there. The office complex makes so much more sense. Usually in the
evenings there is nobody around, weekends there is nobody there at office
buildings. Sure, we could probably put four plexes or duplexes there but you
f
Planning Commission •
July 22, 2002
Page 42
have got the same problem with residential and kids. This road really is going to
be a place that needs to be some type of commercial that will take traffic. I like a
lot of the things that Dr. Israel has proposed about putting in the extra turn lane.
The walking trails, extra green space, and I think the residences on each side will
have quite a bit of noise proofing because of the buildings and the landscaping
from off this road so I will definitely support it. Also, I believe that once this
development is put in I think it becomes almost a definite cause to get Drake
extended to Gregg Street. I don't think it is going to happen until this particular
development is put in. It is kind of like which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
That is kind of what is going to happen here. With that, that is the reason I will
second this. I really don't see this particular air strip being used for anything else
but the highest and best use for this piece to be a residential office complex.
Estes: Thank you Commissioner Ward. We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and
a second by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 02-21.00 is there any further
discussion?
Bunch: I would make one other comment at this time. The Planning Commission and the
Planning staff are working on a Planned Zoning District ordinance that would
allow a rezoning request to come through simultaneously at the developer's
option with a Large Scale Development plan and this seems to be one of those
projects that if .we had this already in place would be tailor made for it.
Hopefully, in the very near future this proposed Planned Zoning District
ordinance will come through but this is just for the benefit of the people who are
not aware of it, there is this type of plan in affect and it would give the developers
the option of proceeding as we currently do or bringing through a rezoning
request and a Large Scale Development simultaneously so all the cards will be on
the table and we can better understand and better define what the project and
rezoning would be.
Estes: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would
you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-21.00 was
approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Commissioner Bunch voting no.
Estes: The motion passes by a vote of five to one. Dr. Israel, welcome back to
Fayetteville.
S
STAFF REVIEW FORM
X Agenda Request
Contract Review
Grant Review
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of August 20, 2002.
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning Urban Development
Division
Department
ACTION REQUESTED: To approve an ordinance for RZN 02-21.00 as
submitted by Dixie Development for property located at 10 Bishop
Drive and 35 Appleby Road. The property is zoned A-i, Agricultural
and contains approximately 17.39 acres. The request is to rezone
to R-0, Residential Office.
COST TO CITY:
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget
Account Number
Number
Funds used to date
Remaining balance
Category/Project Name
Program Name
Fund
BUDGET
REVIEW:
Budgeted Item
Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget
Coordinator
Administrative
Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Ac in aoer Date ADA Coordinator Date
dL az
City Attorn y ate Internal Auditor Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on July 22, 2002
the Planning Commission voted 5-1-0 to recommend the rezoning be
approved by the City Council.
Cross Reference
Date
4,7-071
t New Item: Yes No
s D e Prev Ord/Res#:
Date Orig Contract Date:
FAYETTEVI tLE
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. 4413 Rezoning Petition RZN 02-21.00 for a parcel
containing approximately 17.39 acres located at 10 Bishop Drive and 35 Appleby Road,
Fayetteville, Arkansas, as submitted by Dixie Development on behalf of Fern Younkin
Revocable Trust. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit
010 03 City of Fayetteville
Update `dex Maintenance
Document Item Action
Reference Date Ref. Taken Brief D
ORD 9032002 4413 _ RZM 02 -
Enter Keywords........:
File Reference #......:
Security Class........:
Expiration Date.......:
Date for Cont/Referred:
Name Referred to......:
FERN YOUNKIN REVOCABLE TRUST
MICROFILM
9/10/2002
7:59:04
escription
21.00/BIDHOP DR - APPLEBY RD
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.
-d zAl13
A -
-Ooa.
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
Mayor Lioneld Jordan
City Clerk -Treasurer Sondra Smith
Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director
Andrew Garner, Planning Director
FROM: Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorne
THRU: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: April 5, 2019
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Jodi Balker
Paralegal
RE: Unrecorded Bill of Assurance for Appleby Landing
Subdivision Not Enforceable
Rezoning and Bill of Assurance Background
On September 3, 2002, the City Council passed Ordinance 4413 (Exhibit A)
rezoning the property that is now known as Appleby Landing Subdivision
on either side of Bob Younkin Drive. It is my understanding that in 2002, and
until the fall of 2015, the Planning Division was drafting its own ordinances.
In this case, the rezoning ordinance did not mention a bill of assurance, nor
was any bill of assurance attached as an exhibit to the rezoning ordinance
when it was recorded with the Circuit Clerk.
At least two different versions of the bill of assurance were submitted by the
developer prior to passage of the rezoning. Both were signed and notarized
but no original has been located. On page 12 of the agenda packet is a bill of
assurance that was faxed by Dixie Development to the City on August 14,
2002. (Exhibit B). On page 10 of the agenda packet is what appears to be the
final version of the bill of assurance (Exhibit C). It was faxed to Tim Conklin
on August 26, 2002 with a note explaining that an item was added to
Appleby Landing Bill of Assurance
paragraph 4 of the bill of assurance. The addition was the developer's offer
to build a two-lane road and also dedicate sufficient right of way to build a
collector street between West Appleby Road and West Drake Street.
Everything else was the same as the August 14th version.
The -revised August 26th bill of assurance aligns with the discussions
appearing in the minutes from the August 20, 2002 City Council meeting
(Exhibit D) and the September 3, 2002 City Council meeting (Exhibit E) in
which the City Council expressed an interest in getting sufficient right of
way to build a collector street through the development.
The standard language that has been used for many years at the end of
rezoning ordinance titles is "subject to a bill of assurance." Unfortunately,
this language is not in the title of Ordinance 4413 and the body of the
ordinance contains no reference to a bill of assurance. Although the City
Clerk obviously attended the City Council meetings and prepared the
minutes, her office may not have realized that a bill of assurance was even a
part of the rezoning.
Property History
At the time Ordinance 4413 was passed, the property was owned by Fern
W. Younkin. On October 7, 2002, she sold the land to Investor's Realty,
LLC. On January 6, 2005, Investor's Realty, LLC sold undivided 1/3
interests to the Phil and Judy Phillips Family Limited Partnership,
Financial Realty, LLC, and Next Chapter Resources, LLC. On the same day,
all three entities sold their 1/3 interests to Appleby Landing, LLC.
The two northwestern -most lots were sold to Dixie Management &
Investment, LP on March 30, 2007, then to Surgery Clinic North Hills
Investment, LLC on August 28, 2007. On May 22, 2015, after dissolution of
Appleby Landing, LLC, the remaining lots were sold to Billingsley Family
Limited Partnership which was the sole member of Appleby Landing, LLC.
The final transaction in the subdivision was the sale of the three
northeastern -most lots to Washington Regional Medical Services on May
29, 2015. Seven undeveloped lots in the Appleby Landing Subdivision are
still owned by Billingsley Family Limited Partnership.
2
Appleby Landing Bill of Assurance
Applicable Law
We could find no reference to a bill of assurance in Arkansas Code
Annotated Chapter 56 Municipal Building and Zoning Regulations -
Planning of Title 14 Local Government which is our authority for virtually
all planning and zoning regulations. A "bill of assurance" is mentioned in
Title 18 Property, Chapter 18 Conveyances, § 18-12-103 Restrictive
Covenants - Definition (a): "As used in this section, 'restrictive covenant'
means a restriction on the use or development of real property regardless of
whether the restriction is created by a covenant in a deed or bill of assurance,
or by any other instrument."
Although Title 18 Property Chapter 18 Conveyances never mentions zoning
and no appellate case annotated for Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-103 concerns a
bill of assurance provided to a city for rezoning purposes, we believe it is
prudent to record in the Circuit Clerk's office bills of assurance given to the
City to encourage passage of rezoning ordinances.
In 2002, at the time the bill of assurance was offered, the statute governing
land use restrictions, Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-103, provided, in part, that
"[n]o restrictive or protective covenants affecting the use of real property nor
any instrument purporting to restrict the use of real property shall be valid
or effective against a subsequent purchaser or owner of real property unless
the restrictive or protective covenants or instrument purporting to restrict
the use of the real property is executed by the owners of the real property
and recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the
property is located."
In response to a ruling in a 2009 Arkansas Court of Appeals case, the
Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 185 of 2011, which amended the
previously cited language to provide that "[a]n instrument creating a
restrictive covenant is not effective to restrict the use or development of real
property unless the instrument purporting to restrict the use or development
of the real property is executed by the owners of the real property and
recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the property
is located."
91
Appleby Landing Bill of Assurance
Discussion
A potential purchaser of real property is expected to exercise due diligence
before closing on the purchase. This includes a title search which should
uncover any restrictions on the use or development and any liens which may
appear in the real estate records. Due diligence would also call for an owner
to examine the zoning of the property to determine what restrictions may
have been placed on its use or development. Although two signed and
notarized bills of assurance were faxed to the Planning Division and
mentioned at the City Council meetings in 2002, no original bill of assurance
was -in the agenda packet nor can one now be located.
At all relevant times the City Clerk's office was recording rezoning
ordinances so those would have appeared in a title search. However, the
pages of Ordinance 4413 that were filed for record in the Office of the Circuit
Clerk, just three pages in total, contain no reference to a bill of assurance and
the bill of assurance was not attached as an exhibit or recorded separately.
Even though there has been some common ownership and management of
various entities involved with this development, the current owners of the
lots in Appleby Landing Subdivision are, legally, four removed from the
owner at the time of the rezoning. Whether considering the implications
under the previous version of the statute or the current version, a bill of
assurance is not effective against any subsequent owner if the bill of
assurance has never been filed.
Conclusion
In my opinion, based on an application of the above -referenced statutes, the
unrecorded bill of assurance was never effective beyond the original owner
and furthermore certainly became ineffective and unenforceable as to the
individual lots in the subdivision upon the first sale of those lots to a
subsequent purchaser. There is no reason to send an item to the City Council
because an unrecorded and unenforceable bill of assurance cannot be
discharged or removed.
4
0
ORDINANCE NO. 4413
0
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 02-21.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 17.39 ACRES LOCATED AT 10 BISHOP DRIVE
AND 35 APPLEBY ROAD, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS
SUBMITTED BY DIXIE DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF FERN
YOUNKIN REVOCABLE TRUST
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 -O, Residential Office, as shown in Exhibit A attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
.Section 2. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this 3`d day of September, 2002.
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayo r r' F
/ x c)
� ,� j .� •L � � � xs �0
• w '9 cat oodruff, City 1er
CJ C
EXHIBIT
A -
20,)201J21 71 395
•
Ord. 4413
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 02-21.00
A PART OF THE SOUTH HALF (S Yz) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW "/4) OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), ALL IN SECTION
THIRTY FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30)
WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF (S ''A) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID POINT BEING
IN APPLEBY ROAD AND FROM WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED ONE (1), BLOCK NUMBERED ONE (1)
OF QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1, TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS, BEARS S01°17'04"W 24.69 FEET; THENCE S88°40'42"E ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S 'A) OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW
'/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) 383.71 FEET TO A POINT FROM
WHICH A SET REFERENCE IRON BEARS S01°17'04"W 23.82 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S "/z) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) S0I°I7'04"W 316.46
FEET TO A SET IRON ON THE NORTH LINE OF NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE N88°27'27"W 1.47 FEET TO
AN EXISTING IRON AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS
ADDITION; THENCE S0I °34'03"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTH
HEIGHTS ADDITION 101.33 FEET TO A SET IRON; THENCE LEAVING THE WEST
LINE OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION N88°40'42"W I73.03FEET; THENCE
S0I°17'04"W 1562.58 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4), SAID
POINT BEING IN DRAKE STREET AND FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON SET
ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STREET BEARS N01 ° 17'04"E 30.20
FEET; THENCE N88°34'03"W 208.71 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
IRON AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED THIRTY SEVEN (37), OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSS, BEARS N01° 17'04"E 30.00 FEET; THENCE NO I °17'04"E
1979.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 11.162 ACRES MORE
OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED 11.162 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAYS OF
APPLEBY ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY AND DRAKE STREET
ALONG THE ENTIRE SOUTH BOUNDARY.
ALSO,
A PART OF THE SOUTH HALF (S ¼) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW `/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) ALL IN SECTION
THIRTY-FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30)
WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING
20Ci2171396
•
Ord. 4413
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF (S %) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW 'A) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID POINT BEING
IN APPLEBY ROAD AND FROM 3WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED ONE (1), BLOCK NUMBERED ONE (I)
OF QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE I, TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS, BEARS S01 °17'04"W 24.69 FEET; THENCE S88°40'42"E ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S 'h) OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER
(NW'/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 2/4) 383.71 FEET TO A POINT FROM
WHICH A SET REFERENCE IRON BEARS S0I°17'04"W 23.82 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF (S'/2) OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) S0I°17'04" 316.46
FEET TO A SET IRON ON THE NORTH LINE OF NORHT HEIGHTS ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE N88°27'27"W 1.47 FEET TO
AN EXISTING IRON AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS
ADDITION, THENCE S0I °34'03"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTH
HEIGHTS ADDITION 188.73 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION; THENCE S88°27'27"E ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION 0.66 FEET; TO AN EXISTING
FENCE CORNER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NUMBERED TWENTY
ONE (21), BLOCK NUMBERED FIVE (5) OF THE BISHOP ADDITION TO THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THENCE SOI°12'06"W ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF BLOCKS NUMBERED FIVE (5) AND ONE (1), OF SAID BISHOP ADDITION TO A
PONT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 'l4) OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4), SAID POINT BEING IN DRAKE STREET AND
FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON SET AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
NUMBERED TWELVE (12), BLOCK NUMBERED ONE (1), OF SAID BISHOP
ADDITION BEARS NO1°12'06"E 30.36 FEET; THENCE N88°34'03"W ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW '/4) 174.75 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH A REFERENCE IRON
SET ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF DRAKE STREET BEARS NO1°I7'04"E
30.20 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) NO] -17'04"E 1562,58
FEET TO A SET IRON; THENCE S88°40'42"E 173.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.229 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 6.229 ACRE
TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAYS OF APPLEBY ROAD ALONG
THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY AND DRAKE STREET ALONG THE ENTIRE
SOUTH BOUNDARY.
2Q'C 171397
I, Bette Stamps, Circuit Clerk and Ex•ofgcto Recorder
for Washington County, Arkansas, do hereby
cer
that. this Instrument was pled for record in my as
Indicated hereon and the same Is now duly recorded
with the acknrnviedgemerrt and certcatethereon
in Record Book and Page as inditaled thereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set rity
hand and affixed the seal of said Court on the date irtdi•
sated hereon
Belt S mps
Or, ark EK-Mcio Recorder
y
• Rug 14 02 04:04p Dixie Development (501) 872-0714
• h c -,fir-'' w,,r rMtC..CS' LLC 15t 4faaio"
.rvex ,G,AVG �
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEV1LIt.E, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
„ „je rv,v l ors, r~r, r rhr hereby voluntarily offers this
Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
.irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner aad
Petitioner's property shall be restricted as'follows IF Petitioner's-rezorting is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to single -story
offices, with the exception of the north side of the
property (383' width and 417' depth), as long as
surrounding property remains R-1 and R-2.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the
property are limited to
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property
include
(Any other terms or conditions) Petitioner agrees to build a
walking path in the setbacks and will screen pro arty
with a combination of vegetation as screening and
fencing where needed.
EXHIBIT
p. 1
r•�
1eZ,t/OZ -z/. d�
4
RUC 14 02 O4:O5p
AUG 14 2002 1:41PM
Dixie Development: (5O1) 872-O714
CITY�PRYETTEVII.LE -1ST 47957583
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and teams shall
run withthe 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
flat or Large
Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement wish all the terms and
conditions stated above, I, as the.
owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such •assurances and
sign my name below.
Date
?( C71�►-�P a R..
Alidress ? 7 J
fir£t ' r
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
.,den/ ..L
Printed Name
NOTARY OATH
And no n this the day of ' 200�2, appeare
and
before me,
afterbeing•placed upon his/her•oath s e.or affirmed.that.he/�she agreed with
the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his/her name above.
NOTARY PUBLIC
-My Commission Expires:
A tt N�'r: �.aRY PUBITICBE
yy: ; •,•OTON COUNTY
Y1 qa�;o• . rpittf Nash 21. 1012
P.3
p.2
Aug 26 02 02:58p Dixie Development
4700 S. Thompson, 8101
Springdale, AR 72764
Phone: (479)872-0707
Fax: (479) 872.0714
(501) 872-0714 p.1
Dixie Development, Inc.
To: Tim Conklin From:
Pam Jones
Fax: Pages: including cover
Phone: Date:
Re: Rezoning Bill of Assurance CC:
0 Urgent O For.Review O Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle
X x
• Comments:
Tim,
We have added an item to. our Bill of Assurance. Look on line 4. If you have any
questions or coarnents please contact me.
Thank you, looking forward to good things.
Best Regard,
Pam Jones
EX BIT
Rug 26 02 02:58p Dixie Development (501) 872-0714
4ISOF FRY£TTEVILLE )ST 4.7sS75so
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVII.kE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
°"" p nevpl�nt. Tng hereby voluntarily offers this
Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of,FayettevilIe 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 CityCouncil will
reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of .
Assurance In•considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and
Petitioners, property shall be restricted as follows IF Pctitioner's-rezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to
with the exception pfh
h on
North side, and 417 feet depth!, as long as the residential neighborhoods
f9Ltberrhoods
adjoining the property remain R-2 or less dense residential zoning.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the
property are limited to
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property
include
4. (Any other terms or conditions) riot { t5nnr aR, m , ,,, , a !king
path in the setbacks and will screen property with a combination of
vegetation as screening and fencing where needed. Petitioner will, build
a two lane road connecting Appleby and Drake, and connect Bishop to said
road. Petitioner will agree to dedicate sufficiant right of way to build
a collector street between Appleby and Drake.
P.2
P.2
Rug 26 02 02:58p
Dixie Development (501) 872-0714
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance
shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after
Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any final Plat or Large
Stale Development which includes some or all•of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and iri agreement with'all the terms and
conditions stated above, I, n •rs,.Ao, as the
owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and
sign my name below.
Date • Printed Name
15D l 5' Gt rr Die .
Address
t11� .7101•
Si tu
f'rlare
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
And no-, on this the 2day of 206_,x. appeared
before rne, ' lbw-, B. L2) i and
after being placed upon his/ her•oath swore or affirmed that he/she agreed with
the terms of the'aho''e Bill of Assurance and•si d is/her ame ab tire.
TARY PUBLIC
My Co - sioli Expires:
3J,
•
MARIA K WEBB
NOTARY PUBLIC - ARKANSAS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
My Commission Expires 1.31.2010
p.3
r
ty t ouneil M1flUt11
,August_20,.2002
Page 6 of 15
what the school was going to do about their parking policies.
ORDINANCE WAS LEFT ON THE FIRST READING.
OUTDOOR LIGHTING: An ordinance that minimizes the i t of outdoor lighting
on adjacent properties and improves nighttime visibility.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Mr. Conklin stated they had regulations that about shielding and directing lighting
downward and away from residences. They not talk about the amount of light could
spread across the property line and into a idential yard. This ordinance attempted to
clarify that and to provide for lighting t was cut off based on certain lumens. The
ordinance would apply to all zoning ' cts with the exception of single family and two
family units. Any fixtures that replaced must comply with the ordinance. The
exemptions that are provided the ordinance include temporary outdoor lighting,
construction or emergency g, fossil fuel fixtures, landscape lighting, airport
lighting, security lighting, ch lights, and egress lighting. Blinking, flashing, and
animated lights as well ghts on tower are prohibited unless required by the FAA.
Lighting standards to light trespass are based on JESA Standard. Upward lighting
was allowed as long 5% of the lighting was reflected back down. Horizontal lighting
was allowed as 1 90% of the light falls on the facade, monument, or architectural
feature. Non if fixtures were allowed for bulbs of 260 or less lumens. Semi cutoff
fixtures we uired between 261 and 8500 lumens. All fixtures must me fully shielded
and reduc are. Basically most developments were complying with this ordinance.
The pro they were having was when people were installing flood lights to. illuminate
an o r storage area or parking area and they were not designing it in a manner that
uld use cut off lighting.
RZ.N'02=21:40An ordinance approvu�grezonueg requat:RZN;02=21y04 as.stmitted+ly
Aixie Devel p t for'pmperiyP located;at_lf Bishop Drive,and 35 ApplebyRaad e
p petty is zoned A-IAgricultural and contains approximately 1?.39 acres. The request
is to rezone to R -O Residential Office.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Bechard stated he would be abstaining from this item.
Ms. Pam Jones, Dixie Development, stated they were requesting a rezoning. She
presented an overview of their firm and their proposed project. She stated they had tried
to go above and beyond in their commitment. They had sigdedaliill-of assurance: Dr.
EXHIBIT
D
Cty'Co c' i itt
st 2U,,, -44 .
Page7of15'
Israel had volunteered to do a' couple of'things that were above and beyond what was
required,'like the walking path and additional screening.
Alderman Thiel stated it was apparent that .there would be a need for a street that was not
residential, to lead the hospital. She questioned the width of the proposed street.
Ms.. Tories stated they had planned on a. two lane, but they would decide that, during the
large scale development. They did not want to overbuild, but they would also be willing
to do a three lane.
Alderman Thiel stated she thought a three lane would be needed- if it was going to be
used as access to the hospital.
Alderman Marr questioned the intent of the "two-story offices with the exception of the
north, side of the property". Was that a percentage change or one lot change? How,
would they monitor it?
Mr, Conklin stated he did not draft the ibifjtijjjr but he would interpret it to mean
one lot adjacent to it.
Alderman Reynolds asked Dr: Israel if he would build a three lane 'road.
Dr. Israel stated they would determine it during the large scale development. He was not
against it, they had offered it. They have offered the right-of-way, sixty feet. If the city
'wanted,athree-lane road, hethought-they should chip in and pay for •part of it. They only
had'to put in two -lanes. They would give them the right-of-way. They would build the
two-lane road,•it seemed reasonable that if they wanted more traffic, down the street that
they would pay for it.
tin • ..
Mr. Williams stated a bill oftassuranc, was'a 'o1uxtary offer made by a developer•, It was
not something that they could -request or suggest what the„ terms should ..be. The
developer could offer what ever they;wanted to.He did question for.clarification, "the
property would remain single story as long as the surrounding property remained R-1 and.
R-2." Was it his intent that as long as the surrounding property remained residential,
Dr. Israel stated, what he meant was that if twenty years from now Washington.Regional
was to the point where they had to build a second or third skyscraper and they buy up all
the property surrounding them, that they would have the right at that' point 'to tear the
existing building down and replace them with larger buildings. Their intent was' not .to
change if one lot changed:. If they -allowed an entire subdivision to change and that if the
area became a C-2, thoroughfare commercial 'or R -O, or multi -story residential they •
would like to be relieved. of that provision. He stated that it made •sense that the area - {`
would not always remain residential.,
.Mr. Williams state he would work with Dr. 'Israel on the wording.
CityiCa►ugiclMnutea
(AugustZO,2OO2J
Page 8 of 15
Alderman Young stated he agreed with Dr. Israel that the development would only
require a two lane road. If the city thought it needed a three lane road, then they should
pay for it.
Ms. Debra Bunchold, An area resident, stated she was in support of the development.
Mr. Chip Arledge, an area resident, stated there seemed to be a disagreement on this
development. There was no cohesiveness. He suggested that the city follow their
General Plan 2020 and their policy on connectivity. In the short term what this developer
was proposing, the through street through the property, would be helpful to those people
who live on Quail Creek. The Planning Commission had chosen to ignore the 2020 Plan
and the wishes of the past councils. They could not insist on connectivity in the future
without practicing it in the past. He suggested they extend Drake Street so that it went to
Gregg Street, thus forming an east west corridor from College Avenue to Hwy 112,
Garland Avenue. Widen Gregg from the bypass and make it four lanes. In the long term
it would lessen the amount of traffic on Quail Creek Drive.
Mr. Greg Harton, an area resident, stated he thought that this proposal would offer a good
opportunity for a through street that would relieve some pressure from the residential
area. It would move it to an area more appropriate for that type of traffic. He did not
believe the rezoning would eliminate the possibility of the city extending Drake Street.
He encouraged them to take a comprehensive approach to some street improvements in
Fayetteville. He had been impressed with Mr. Israel's other developments. He thought
multi -family housing was more likely to be developed there if it was not residential
office. He preferred the residential office. He encouraged them to approve the rezoning.
Ms. Sharon Davison, an area resident, expressed concern over traffic and the sewer
capacity.
Mr. Jim Hunt, an area resident, stated his concern was the north south corridor. He knew
they were going to do what was best for the community. He supported this rezoning.
Alderman' Davis moved to suspend the rules and move to the second reading.
Alderman Thiel seconded. Upon roll call the motion carried 7-0-1, Bechard
abstaining.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
ORDINANCE WAS LEFT ON TTIE.SECOND_REA11 1
i y C� ►ouncil Mu►utes
L epto,,,,_ m,� ber_3, 2002
Page 4
Alderman Davis seconded. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Mr. Davis stated he would like to make a change the school still needed done space
per 3.2 students.
Mr. Conklin stated they had contacted the school district. For high school their
current ratio was I space per 3.2 students. He recommend at they amend the
ordinance Attachment A.c.l. Page 20, to state one per e ee, plus one per three
students.
Alderman Thiel stated she felt with the new
parking needed for students.
Mr. Davis moved to amend the
per three students. Alderman
7-1, Thiel voting nay.
would reduce the amount of
allow one space per employee and one
�ded. The motion carried by a vote of
Alderman Davis moved to s nd the rules and move to the third and final
reading. Upon roll call the on carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the or nce.
Mayor Coody aske all the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion carried
unanimously.
ORDINANCE 402 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
OUTDOO IGHTING: An ordinance that minimizes the impact of outdoor lighting
on adj ace roperties and improves nighttime visibility. Ordinance was left on the first
reading a August 20, 2002 meeting.
Davis moved to send the ordinance back to Ordinance Review
Alderman Jordan seconded. UDon roll call the motion carried
property — zoned A-1 Agricultural
is and contains approxinYately 1?.39 acres. The request
is to rezone to R -O Residential Office. The ordinance was left on the second reading at
the August 20, 2002 meeting.
EXHIBIT
•Page 5
Alderman Davis moved to . suspend the rules and. move to the third and final
reading. . Alderman Santos seconded. Upon' roll call the motion carried 7-1,
Bechard abstaining. .
Mr. Williams read the ordinance. .
Ms. Pam Jones stated they would be willing to give the additional right of way if the city
wanted to build a'collector:' 3 { : ...,.„•
Mr. John Hansen, an area resident, stated they were concerned that they were wanting to
• cut Bishop into this addition. They thought that it would increase the traffic through the.
neighborhood. - r •
Mr. Chip .an area resident, stated he thought portions of the Master Street Plan were being
ignored. An extension of Drake to Gregg would elevate some of the congestion.
• Mr. Conklin stated - the last time Drake Street had been expanded was when Lakeside
Village Apartments came through. At the same time the park had been dedicated. Park
parking lot was right-of-way. There was right of way all of the way to Gregg Street. It
• had been planned that away. • . .•'
• Mr. Boettcher stated the traffic plan.would look at it. 'The design of Gregg will include
consideration of the Drake intersection. They did 'not have any cost currently, 'but they
were in the process of long range planning. . •
Alderman Thiel stated the Parks Board had taken into 'consideration the' extension of
Drake Street. - It had not been abandoned. •
Ms. Fran Quinton, an area resident, asked them to read theassurance
e
Alderman Marr asked if the. office buildings would remain single story as long as there
was not a majority change 'in the surrounding zoning.' He asked if there was a way to
make it clearer.
Mr. Williams stated he did not believe that was there intent. The, b1!lYof :ass u""an asked '
about the adjoining neighborhoods. It was not talking about a piece of property. It was
talking about the neighborhood themselves.
Alderman Marr stated he wanted to be clear that they meant the majority of the property. .
Ms. Jones' stated around the old Washington Regional they kept buying up property
around. Who ' knows how things will develop in the future. It was the entire •
neighborhood, especially the property to the east. If the hospital bought it up, then they
might want to look at how that related to their property. . They were considering
neighborhood rather than individual lots. '
ty Counci1;miriuta
ScptembeL3, 2002*
ORDINANCE 441'3 AS RECORDED I1YyTHE,'OFFICE, tFTHE CTlY�CLERK7
Shackelford for property located at 2975 Old Farmington Road. The propertyisz
A -1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.32 acres. The request is to rezone to
Low Density Residential. The ordinance was left on the second reading at the Au
2002 meeting.
Alderman Davis moved to suspend the rule and move to the third and reading.
Alderman Santos seconded. Upon roll call the motion carried unan sly.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll ca e ordinance passed
unanimously.
ORDINANCE 4414 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE O E CITY CLERK
AUTOMATED CARTS: An ordinance establis ' 'the rate structure and program
parameters for an automated cart based on r tial trash collection and disposal
program. The ordinance was left on the first rea g at the August 20, 2002 meeting.
Alderman Santos moved to suspend
Alderman Jordan seconded. Upon rol
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
rules and move to the second reading.
the motion carried unanimously.
Alderman Thiel moved to a d b.2, to add, "and shall be removed within twelve
hours thereafter." Unde mmunity clean ups, remove "registered association"
and replace with "nel rhood association." Alderman Young seconded. Upon
roll call the amendme assed unanimously.
Alderman Santo ted he liked the idea of the commercial side supporting the
residential side e same residents who pay the residential also help the commercial
accounts pay it bills. It would be a very rude awaking for the citizens to put that cost
on the restial side. If they had to take away the commercial subsidy, he would be in
favor of g it gradually.
nn Thiel stated they had just taken steps to expand their commercial side. They
they could increase revenue in the solid waste division. They agreed on several
to keep rate lower for people who actively recycle and would use the smallest
They are now
purchasing additional bags. They also wantea