Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4507BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner") Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. Pope, hereby voluntarily offer this Bill of Assurance and enter into this binding =_ a agreement and contract with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. _ cc s L The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the .. N _,az o right to enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in = Z -- , the Chancery/ Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if = o o °= as 'L Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of - OUO N — ow�a: this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying - n>vo, C� o d injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, �OUCOOU+ _ 10OWo0 Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning = .. a g � Q > Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will reasonable rely upon -p -DEC() all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in — o Y Cc LL 3 Y considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request. Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioners and Petitioners' property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioners' co rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. r4 O 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to professional CO office (Use Unit 25) or a single family dwelling (Use Unit 8). 2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures t-4 O upon the property are limited to no additional building shall be N d constructed or placed on the property. LL 3. Ground vegetation in the yard on the property along both sides of the driveway and along Zion Road shall be cleared, or trimmed and maintained, so as not to obscure traffic visibility from Zion Road or the driveway. 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, Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. Pope, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign names below. Date Signa re and Printed Name 3Uu/ oxcE Y Address e J7-t=y, L /V/P- 71 703 t.• �E �/}2f�✓ j�of�r Signature and Printed Name NOTARY OATH STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON } n And now on this the 3h -t- day of , 2003, appeared before me, Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. F ope d after being placed upon his/her oath swore or affirmed that he/she agreed with the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his ame above. N{S,�Xz, TARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: G -3-// Official Seal LEE A. SILER Notary Public -Arkansas WASHINGTnN COUNTY My Cornmissior spires 10-3-2011 j Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 06/24/2019 03:19:30 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2019-00018261 Kyle Sylvester - i uit Clerk by ORDINANCE NO. 4507 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 03-22.00 AS SUBMITTED BY RONNY AND KAREN POPE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 E. ZION ROAD FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL . TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE SUBJECT TO A BILL OF ASSURANCE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE APART HEREOF, HEREBY REFERENCED AS EXHIBIT "B" 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 RA, Residential 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 I above. Section 3 . That this rezoning is made subject to the Bill of Assurance attached as Exhibit "B". PASSED and APPROVED this 19`h day of August, 2003 . ; YE APPROVED: A 1 By: DAN GOODY, Mayor BL SOND SMITH, City Clerk Doc ID : 006635840002 T\109 : REL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Recorded : 10/24/2003 at 09 . 15 . 23 AM Fee Amt : 511 . 00 Paoe 1 of 2 Mashinaton County . AR Bette stamps circuit clerk Fi1e2003-00055995 EXHIBIT "A" R7.N 03-22. 00 PART OF THE NE '/4 OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 24, T17N, R30W OF THE 511I PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO-WIT: COMMENCING AT THE NROTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NE '/4, SW '/4 THENCE SO" 11 '39"F, 239.29 FEET THENCE EAST 243 .08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE EAST 148.92 FEET, THENCE S001 1 ' 39"E 585 .00 FEET, THENCE WEST 148 .92 FEET THENCE N001 1139"W 585.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on . 1012412003 09:15.23 AM and recorded in Real Estate File Number2003,00055995 Bette Stam Circuit Clerk 0 0 NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4507 CROSS REFERENCE : Item # Date Document 1 08/19/03 Staff Review Form w/attachments memo: Mayor & City Council draft ordinance Planning Commission minutes re: RZN 03-22.00 memo: Planning Commission engineering review copy of §161 .03 copy of §161 . 15 Itr to Dawn Warrick memo: Planning Division copy of call log copy of Sweetser Properties letter copy of memo to Planning Commission copy of letter to Planning Commission copy of Pope Rezoning trip generation copy of Planning Commission minutes copy of map copy of map copy of Planning Commission minutes copy of memo to Planning Commission copy of memo to Planning Commission copy of engineering review copy of legal description copy of Future Landuse copy of Close Up View copy of One Mile View copy of Property Store description copy of Property Store description copy of Property Store description copy of Property Store description copy of Property Store description copy of Property Store description copy of photographs copy of photographs copy of photographs NAME OF FILE : Ordinance No, 4507 CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Document 1 08/19/03 copy of photographs copy of photographs copy of Bill of Assurance copy of Bill of Assurance letter from Jon Toggle memo to Dawn Warrick 2 09/13/03 Affidavit of Publication STAFFIVIEW FORM - NON-FINANCIAL AGA'riON x AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: August 19, 2003 FROM : Dawn Warrick Planning CP&E Name Division Department ACTION RFQUIRFD: Ordinance Approval . SUMMARY EXPLANATION : R7.N 03-22.00 was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E. Lion Road. 'fhe property is zoned R-A. Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-O, Residential Office subject to a Rill of Assurance offered by the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 2003 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommended denial and on July 28, 2003 the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend the rezoning be approved by the City Council. I1i/2hi , 7 4e, Received in Mayor's Office D3 Di sion Hllead ate Date 704 torney Date A� Cross Reference: Department Director Date Previous Ord/Restf : X - - a3 Fina ce & Internal Services Dir. Date Orig. Contract Date: 0" 0 '07) Orig. Contract Number: Chic mini. tra ive Officer Dare � New Item: Yes No /,6 � Mayor Date c • • FAYETTEVILLE CC Meeting of August 19, 2003 F11E CITY OF FAYETFEVILLF„ ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 'Telephone: (479) 575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Dan Coody Fayetteville City Council �S FROM : Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrato ` r fHRIJ : Tim Conklin, AICP, Community, Planning & Engineering Services Director DA71 ?: August 1 , 2003 RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 F. Zion Road. The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R-O (Residential Office). BACKGROUND : Properly description: The subject property is located at 1750 E. Zion Road . There is a three bedroom single family home on the 2 acre tract currently. Surrounding property includes undeveloped property to the north, a topsoil excavation operation to the cast, single family home to the west and south, across Zion Road are multi-family dwellings. While there is a mixture of land uses located on the south side of Zion Road, the north side has remained primarily residential as it is proposed to be according to Fayetteville's Future Land Use Map. Proposal: The applicant proposes to use the existing structure on this property and to convert it to an accountant' s office. The outward appearance of the structure would remain the same with some possible improvements to the driveway and access point onto Zion Road. Request: The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to R-O, Residential Office. CURRENT STATUS: On .July 14, 2003 , the Planning Commission tabled this item at the request of the applicant. Staff was not recommending in favor of the rezoning. On July 28, 2003 , the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the rezoning with the offered Bill of Assurance which restricts the use of the property to a professional office or a single family home. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on Planning Commission action and the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant. K. IIL•purte4'02311Y" RFPOR7S'l1ugusl MeciingsV.nO3-22 pope m memo.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 03-22 .00 AS SUBMITTED BY RONNY & KAREN POPE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 E. ZION ROAD FROM R-A. RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE SUBJECT TO A BILL 01: ASSURANCE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART I IEREOF, HEREBY REFERENCED AS EXHIBIT "B". 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 RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, 4 Units Per Acre, 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 , 2003. APPROVED: By: DAN GOODY, Mayor ATTEST: By : Sondra Smith, City Clerk CXIIIBIT "A" RZN 03-22.00 PART OF THE NE '/ OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 24, 1- 17N, R30W OF TIIE 5 " ' PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN WASIIINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO-WIT: COMMENCING AT THE NROTIIWEST CORNER OF SAID NE '/4, SW '/4 THENCE S0011 ' 39"E 239.29 FEET THENCE EAST 243 .08 FF.F,T TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING TI IENCE EAST 148 .92 FEET, THENCE S0011 '39"E 585 .00 FEET, THENCE, WEST 148.92 FEET THENCE NO° I U39"W 585.00 FF.F.T TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. Planning Commissio* July 28, 2003 Page 2 RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E Zion Road. The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R-O (Residential Office). I loover: Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for July 28, 2003 . Renee, will you call the roll please'? Roll (:all: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioners Ostner and Anthes being absent . Hoover: 'Thank you. The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the July 14, 2003 meeting. Do I hear a motion? Allen: I will move for approval of the minutes. Bunch: Second. Hoover: Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2003 meeting was approved by a vote of 7-0-0- Hoover: Next is RZN 03-2200 for property located at 1750 E . 'Zion Road. Dawn, do you have the staff report on that'? Warrick : Yes. This item was tabled at your last Planning Commission meeting by the applicant and representatives of the seller. This is a rezoning request for two acres located at 1750 F. Zion Road. The subject property currently contains a single-family home containing three bedrooms. The surrounding properties include undeveloped property to the north, a top soil excavation operation to the cast, single-family housing to the west and to the south across Zion Road multi-family dwellings. While there is a mixture of land uses located south of Zion Road on the south side the north side has remained primarily residential with a few intermittent uses. The proposal is to utilize the existing structure on the property and convert it to a small professional office with the outward appearance of the structure to remain basically as it is with possible improvements to the driveway and access point onto Zion Road. In order to do that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to R-O, Residential Office. With regard to infrastructure, access to the site is from Zion Road. Zion is designated a collector on the Master Street Plan. 'rhe street in this location is not currently constructed to city standards for a collector. There is no curb, gutter or storm drain currently. The ditches on either side are fairly steep. 'To the north the Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 3 street is overgrown with vegetation. There is water and sewer available to the site in the form of a 12" water line and an 8" sewer line both along Zion Road. The Future Land Use Plan does designate this particular site as residential and the request for zoning to Residential Office is not consistent with that land use plan designating as residential. The zoning review team did inspect this site prior to the last Planning Commission meeting. Comments from members of the zoning review team are included in your packet. Access and traffic were concerns that were voiced by the majority of the members on the team. With regard to specific findings of staff, the finding with regard to the proposed zoning being consistent with the land use planning objectives, principles and policies the finding is: The requested rezoning is not consistent with the adopted General Plan. This area is designated to be residential on the Future Land Use Map. The Residential Office district has in the past been used as a transition zone and is an appropriate transition zone when areas are called out to be residential . However, the subject property is not located in a transitional area between properties that are single-family and either a higher density residential or a commercial type use. With regard to whether the zoning is justified and/or needed the findings are: The proposed zoning is not needed at this time. 'There are other properties within the general area already zoned or identified on the Future Land Use Map to be developed with office uses. With regard to the finding on whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and connection: The proposed zoning would increase traffic danger in the area. The current condition of Zion Road is not desirable. Site distance, a poorly configured access drive, and the narrow width of Zion Road in this area all affect this site. Any increase in traffic would be detrimental without improvements to the street. With regard to whether or riot this proposal would increase population density: The finding is that it would not. Since the last Planning Commission meeting 1 have supplemented your staff report starting on page 1 . 18. You have a memo and then some additional materials. Included in those materials are a response from Mr. James McCord who is an attorney representing the applicants. That is found starting on page 1 . 19. Included in that is a proposed Bill of Assurance for this particular site and l will defer to Mr. McCord and his clients to present that to you. Also included in your packets starting on page 1 .22 there are some trip generation calculations for the two acre site. '1'lic first is reflecting development of two acres for offices, which would generate approximately 390 vehicle trips per day on an average weekday. The second is for a three employee single-tenant office building, which is the proposal by the applicant, which would generate approximately I I vehicle trips per day and the third calculation is for one single-family dwelling, which would generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. Following that information are Planning Commission minutes from July 14, 1986. 1'hesc minutes reflect a request Planning Commissiol July 28, 2003 Page 4 for rezoning the subject property from Agricultural to Residential Office, which is the same request that you are hearing at this time. The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to deny the rezoning request, which was in support of staffs recommendation for denial at that time. Following that information the last piece that was included are Planning Commission minutes and the staff report for an item that you heard on May 12, 2003 , which was a request to rezone property in this general arca. It is on the south side of 'Lion Road at the southwest comer of Zion and Vantage Drive for rezoning three acres from R-2, Residential Medium Density to R-O, Residential Office. Staff was not in favor of that recommendation and the Planning Commission did fail to make a motion on that item. That information was added for you for your consideration this evening. Staff has not changed our recommendation with regard to this particular request. We do feel that it is inappropriate and recommend denial of the Residential Office request at this time. I louver: ' thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward'? McCord: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jim McCord, I represent Ronny and Karen Pope, the applicants on this requested R-O zoning. We recognize the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed R-O zoning is reasonable. To make the determination of reasonableness requires consideration of all relevant factors and not just the General Land Use Plan or Future Land Use Plan, which are merely guides in making a rezoning decision. What I would like to do in demonstrating why this request is reasonable is to go through first the supplemental materials that have been presented to you and then the memorandum that I ' ve submitted, which I' m sure you've read and 1 won' t go through it in its entirety but I would like to summarize it because I think it makes several important points that demonstrate why this request is reasonable. The first on the traffic issue, staff has provided trip generation calculations from the Institute of "Transportation Engineers. I find it interesting to note that the projections from that institute are basically the same for the three person accountant' s office that is being requested in this rezoning and a single- family residence. If you compare those they are nearly identical . Obviously, if you had a big office it would be higher traffic and an irrelevant projection has been included. The traffic issue 1 think is a non- issue because the proposed use of the property would not increase traffic. The Fayetteville Police Department itself found that the proposed rezoning would not substantially increase traffic congestion . You have your own police department and the I .T.E. projections demonstrating no increase in traffic if the proposed use and R-O zoning is approved. As far as the earlier decisions by the Planning Commission on this property, that can be distinguished because the applicant proposed to construct a small office building behind the single- family residence that is on the property. In this Planning Commission • July 28, 2003 Page 5 case the applicant does not propose to construct another building. 'l'he applicant proposes to use the existing single-family residence as an accountant's office for himself, his staff attorney and his wife, who is the secretary/receptionist for the firm. The requested R -O rezoning at the southwest corner of Vantage and Zion. which was denied in May can also he distinguished because in that case the three acre parcel was zoned R-2. Professional offices are a conditional use in the R-2 district so R -O rezoning was not necessary in that case for the proposed use. The applicant could've requested a Conditional Use so the staff and this Commission determined by no action that the rezoning would not he reasonable. I think it is important to note that with the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant that the character of the neighborhood will not he changed. The outward appearance of the property will remain the same. It will merely be used as a small accounting office and the traffic will not be generated. The character of the neighborhood will not be changed by this rezoning. It is also important to note the surrounding land uses and whether R -O would be reasonable in considering those uses. To the east is a top soil excavation operation, gravel pit, whatever you want to call it. To the south is multi -family apartments. l'he property is not desirable as a single-family residence. It has remained on the market for sale as a single- family residence unsold for quite some time. It is significant to note, and we just found this out today. that the owner of the single-family residence to the west- John Tuddle has no objection to the proposed R -O zoning with the 13i11 of Assurance. Regarding the Bill of Assurance, to preserve the character of the neighborhood and to guard against any possible change in use after the applicant purchases the property and converts the house into an accounting operation, the Bill of Assurance will provide 1) Use of the property shall be restricted to a professional office or a single-family dwelling. 2) No additional building shall be constructed on the property. To address the vegetation and visibility obstruction concerns that were made by the Police Department and staff the third point of the Bill of Assurance is the ground vegetation in the yard would be cleared or trimmed to maintained so as not to steer traffic visibility. The Bill of Assurances would he covenants running with the land and would be binding upon future owners. Let me briefly go through the high points and the memorandum I submitted in response to the application. Staff finding one, R -O zoning is not consistent with the City's General Plan, the area is designated residential on the Future Land Use Map. That is true. again, the General Plan and Land Use Map are Planning guidelines. You must look at the facts. What is on the ground now'? What is adjacent to this property? It is multi -family apartments to the south, a gravel pit to the cast and some R -O further to the west and east. Again, the owner of the single-family residence immediately to the west does not object to the rezoning. Staff finding two. R -O zoning is not justified. For the reasons I've numerated we respectfully submit R -O is justified considering all of Planning Commissiol • July 28, 2003 Page 6 the relevant situations, the Bill of Assurance, the land use to the south, the land use to the east. The proposed zoning would increase traffic danger, we've addressed that. The Police Department found no increase in traffic. The LT.E. projections that demonstrate no increase in traffic from a three person accounting office. It is reasonable to expect that a single-family residence with teenagers would actually generate more traffic than the proposed use by a small accounting firm. All of these reasons we respectfully submit demonstrate the reasonableness of this request and for that reason we hope that the Planning Commission will grant the rezoning as requested with a Bill of Assurance. which is binding upon this proposed owner and future owners. We would he happy to answer any questions. Hoover: Thank you Mr. McCord. At this time we will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to address RZN 03-22.00, this rezoning on Zion Road? Yes Ma'am, please come to the podium. Please sign in on the sign in sheet. Gilbert: I am Courtney Gilbert, I am an attorney at Davis, Wright, Clark. Butt & Carithers and Jack Butt and I represent the current property owner. Mary Savin in this case and we are here today to request that you approve the rezoning at this point. As you know, the property is currently zoned R -A. I mover: Excuse me. you represent the owner? (filbert: We represent the current property owner, yes Ma'am. I mover: Who is asking for this request? Gilbert: We are not the applicant for the rezoning but the applicant for the rezoning is in contract with the owner to purchase this property. I loover: I guess I see you more as being part of the applicant and we really would like responses from the general public right now. We will bring it back to the applicant in a minute if you don't mind waiting until then. Gilbert: Ok, ok. sure. I'm sorry about that. hoover: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this rezoning? Yes Sir. Jones: I am Jamey Jones. I have lived on Zion Road since 1966 in the second piece of property to the west of the property in question. I have already told Ms. Pope my feelings about this. I would not favor any rezoning that might lead to business or commercial use in the future. I would not object Planning Commissio* • July 28, 2003 Page 7 to a Conditional Use for a small office provided it would revert to the previous zoning if someone else purchased the property. Thank you. I louver: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this rezoning? Seeing none, 1 will bring it hack to the applicant. Would you like to come back up now? Thank you. Gilbert: Again, I am Courtney Gilbert, I represent the current property owner, Mary Savin in this case and we are requesting that the Commission approve the rezoning from R -A to R -O in order for Ms. Savin to be afforded reasonable use of her property. As Mr. McCord stated, this land is currently zoned R -A but in actuality the area surrounding the property is actually mixed with several different types of property. There are obviously apartment complexes to the south directly across the street from this property. There is a top soil excavation operation directly adjacent to the property on the east and there is business development on both sides of the property from the east and the west within 3/10 of a mile and within a half mile radius. I think it is also important to note that this property is being requested to be rezoned for a single professional office use, a CPA office. There is a CPA office '/4 of a mile to the west of this property currently and there is within 4/10 of a mile to the east of this property a veterinary office. It is important to note that these characteristics along with especially the top soil excavation to this property currently make this property an undesirable location for residential use. These characteristics have forced this property to sit on the market for many months. In fact, the property has been on and off the market since 1998. The property has been reduced in value several times and Mr. John Sullivan can speak to you more about those issues in a few minutes. The denial of the rezoning in this case would affectively deny Ms. Savin any reasonable use of her property which as you know, is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law and Ms. Savin should not he denied any reasonable use of her property. As I said, you will hear from Mr. John Sullivan in more detail. He is a real estate broker with the Property Store who currently has this property listed that this property has been listed on and off for many years without any success to several different real estate agencies and several different agents and repeatedly the only seriously interested buyers have been businesses that cannot use this property as it currently is zoned. All of those things considered make it abundantly clear that this property is not desirable any longer for residential location and I think it is also important to note that there is no Conditional Use available for an office of this nature in the R -A zoning district. What is being requested is a small CPA office. The owners of the property are not going to he living in the property and it is going to contain one employee at least that is not a family member. While it is recognized that the rezoning of this property from R -A to R -O is not consistent with the General Plan as it stands now, I Planning Commissio• • July 28, 2003 Page 8 think it would be beneficial to the city for the Commission to consider whether obviously the General Plan should be used as a guideline, but whether it is beneficial to continue with that General Plan at this point and whether it would in fact be doing more harm than good in letting this property just sit there vacant in an undesirable situation. I think it is important for the Commission to consider whether this property if it is not rezoned, whether ten years down the road it will be more beneficial for the city to have this property as vacant and not tax supporting rather than having a small professional office in it that would be supporting the tax base. For these reasons we are requesting that the rezoning be approved. I would like to turn it over at this point to Mr. John Sullivan to discuss with you the way that this property has been marketed and the length of time this property has been on the market. If you would like I have some documents that might help you with an explanation. Sullivan: First of all I would like to just say thank you to the Commission for tabling this two weeks ago when I came up to you. Again, I am pretty nervous and don't do this regularly. I asked you guys for a couple more weeks when we found out that staff was considering disapproval of this. Just a couple of things let me say as a real estate broker. What you have basically you have heard from both attorneys is true. I have got the listing reports and that is what you've been given. We have had a real difficult time selling Mrs. Savin's property for that reason. Again, it doesn't conform to a single-family residence in any way shape or manner. The home itself inside the home you heard three bedrooms. Actually, when you go in the door it is an open area that you could call a living room. It has three separate hall ways with three separate rooms with three separate baths going down them. It actually is in pretty nice shape for use as an office facility as well and was built and designed that way. The biggest thing that I see is again our biggest setback is that gravel pit or whatever we want to call it to the east. I keep hearing that the north side of this road has been residential yet there is 20 plus acres when you are looking out the front door of this home and look to the cast of it you look down on this gravel pit. That is the best word for it. When we were out there last Tuesday on the property, this isn't just being excavated, it is being placed there. There is new gravel on the property adjacent to the east side. There were folks in red outfits if you know what I mean. Literally, half a dozen of them on the property working with the gravel. I don't know where it is going or coming or that sort of thing but this is definitely, it has been there and it is not going away. It is not going to be used unless it is for something other than single-family residential property. We tried leasing the property out over the years for the owner. The owner, by the way. is retired to California. She is in her late 70's. She can't come back. She is not in good health and she won't be back here. In our applications for rentals, the last person that was in there was a person who didn't put a sign Planning Commissio• 41 July 28, 2003 Page 9 up and was using it for their offices for a mortgage company. They didn't have folks go there and meet but that is what they used it for. They wanted to buy the property for that use but when they couldn't they moved. Our rental applicants since were for Arkansas Dance Academy, Christy's Daycare, Sunbelt Business Brokers. This property and its use is just not conforming to single-family residential. A lot of folks could say well she could make apartments out of this two acres of something. Every argument that I see that talks about the problem with traffic on the road would only be worse. I see buyers here that truly want the property, are willing to use it in a use that conforms really to the neighbors. The neighbors are saying gee. if they are going to use it for that we have no problem and I also see that any other use of this property if it was torn down and turned into apartments would create a worse situation for that area and I think that is about the only other option on this property other than a single-family home. We just ask again that you consider the request. Again, the owner of the property would ask you to do that as well as the buyers. l'hank you. Are there any questions I can answer for you? I loover: Commissioners? Questions? Hunch: Is one of the reasons that the property is not selling possibly that it is over priced? How is the price of that property in relation to the surrounding property? It looks like it started right at $300,000 and dropped to $275,000 for a two acre lot with a house on it. Sullivan: It is down to $250,000. Yes Sir, the home was built in 1994. two plus acres in Fayetteville at that area close to Lake Fayetteville, it is in the high two thousands in square foot, it is not an old home. No Sir, I think again if I were to take homes in a residential R-1 neighborhood around Lake Fayetteville of the same size and thing I don't think we would have a problem at all getting that price. I think the problem exists because of the road and the gravel pit next door. We can't find folks that want to live there and raise a family there. Bunch: Thank vou. Estes: Dawn. I have a question. Under R -A a Conditional Use, Use Unit 2 is a city wide use by Conditional Use Permit and then under R -O. which this applicant seeks to obtain this evening, a Conditional Use, Use Unit 2 is city wide uses by Conditional Use Permit. What is the reasoning that this applicant could not request a Conditional Use under the R -A zoning designation'? Warrick: Use Unit 2. city wide uses by Conditional Use Permit are those uses that require Conditional Use approval in any zoning district. For instance. a Planning Commission • July 28, 2003 Page 10 bed and breakfast or an antique shop. There are other specific uses that can be requested under various zoning districts depending on how they are listed, if they are included in that section, which allows for approval or use based on approval by appeal to the Planning Commission. Under the Residential Agricultural district there are uses that can be requested by Conditional Use arc cultural and recreational facilities, commercial recreation large site, home occupations or wireless communication facilities. Under the Residential Office district of course this use would not require a Conditional Use. It would be a use by right as a small professional office. I?stcs: Is there any way to get the applicant what they are requesting by a Conditional Use in an R -A? Warrick: I have thought about that and there is not a Conditional Use route in order to achieve this end. I think that the only mechanism, well there are two, would be the vehicle that the applicant has proposed this evening which is the Bill of Assurance on the Residential Office zoning or a Planned Zoning District. We did previously have a Conditional Use application that probably would've been appropriate for this type of application. It was referred to as limited commercial uses within a residential district. For instance, there is mentioned in the information that you probably have in front of you about a veterinarian office or a veterinarian clinic within this general area on the south side of Zion Road. That use was established through the limited neighborhood commercial Conditional Use. When the Planning Commission forwarded and the City Council adopted the Planned Zoning District ordinance in December of last year that did repeal the Conditional Use for limited neighborhood commercial uses within a residential district. It replaced that with the Planned Zoning District process. Estes: Thank you. I think. Bunch: Following the same line of reasoning that Commissioner Estes opened, did the applicant work with city staff with a PZD to he able to give a better description of how the property would be used rather than a limited Bill of Assurances with the rezoning? Warrick: We did not pursue a Planned Zoning District on this. I did meet prior to the applicant submitting their request with them and discussed the various methods that they have about making a request in this particular instance. At that time I had not done research on the site and reviewed the site specific information and other conditions. The mechanism of a Planned Zoning District basically predicts that there will be development and it is processing, in this instance it would he a Large Scale Development Planning Commissio• • July 28, 2003 Page 11 combined with a zoning request. Because development is really not being proposed, they are not proposing to add any structures or extend the existing structure, I didn't recommend a Planned Zoning District. That is not to say that one could not be applied in this particular instance but that wasn't the route that the applicant chose to take because there was not a development per say going on. They were not proposing to build anything new or make alterations to the existing structure. Bunch: Thank you. Estes: Dawn, a Conditional Use does not run with the land but attaches to the fee simple owner, is that correct? Warrick: It can be made a condition that it would attach to the fee simple owner but typically a Conditional Use would run with the land. For instance, if this applicant were to have a Conditional Use on a particular property and those conditions applied by the Planning Commission allowed for a professional office with three professionals, x number of parking spaces, if this applicant were no longer using it then a new applicant could as long as those conditions were being met. f?stcs: The applicant's proposed Bill of Assurance provides that the use of the property be restricted to professional office and then provides that the Bill of Assurance would run with the land and be binding on all future owners so we are accomplishing by the Bill of Assurance what we would be accomplishing by a Conditional Use are we not? Warrick: Yes Sir we are. Estes: 0k. Hoover: Are there other comments or motions? MOTION: Estes: I am going to move for approval of RZN 03-22.00 and the reasons arc three. The I.T.G. traffic generation that has been provided to us shows traffic generation like or similar to a Residential Agricultural. Number two is of course this property is directly to the west of a dirt pit which pragmatically makes its use as a residence difficult. Three, the Bill of Assurance seeks to accomplish what we would otherwise accomplish with a Conditional Use request which under the present configuration of our IJ.D.0. is just not possible. I mover: I have a motion for approval, is there a second'? Planning Commissiot, • July 28, 2003 Page 12 Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there more discussion? Vaught: Under the new code the lower district that allows a professional office is RMF-6 is that correct? Warrick: Yes. Vaught: What is an RMF-6? What situations would it be used in? Warrick: Residential Multi -family six units per acre. It is a zoning district that allows for multi -family dwellings including apartment buildings and by Conditional Use it does provide fitr professional offices and a few other types of uses. It is basically a lower density apartment or multi -family unit. It does not restrict the type of residential configuration so as I mentioned, they could have apartments. However, what we've seen in the new applications of RMP-6 is typically a duplex or triplex type setup. 1-loover: Thank you. Is there any more discussion Commissioners? Bunch: Yes. Stall, could you help us interpret the Bill of Assurances under Residential Office permitted uses? Would that limit the use to only Use Unit 8 and Use Unit 25 or would it also include Use Unit 12? Warrick: I did not draft the Bill of Assurance and I think that that clarification would need to come from the applicant's representative. McCord: I would be glad to add Use Unit 25, we have no problem if you want to limit it to Use Unit 25. Bunch: You are saying in your Bill of Assurance that you are limiting it to two Use Units, Use Unit 8 and Use Unit 25? McCord: We would limit it to use Unit 25, which is Professional Offices. Bunch: I think it said single family dwellings in Use Unit 8. McCord: That is fine. I see your point now, I apologize. We would limit it to Professional Offices or single-family residential. Bunch: What would be the mechanism for having the Bill of Assurance reflect what was just stated? Planning Commissiot� , ,July 28, 2003 Page 13 McCord: We are offering to modify it right now. Williams: As you are aware, I don't know if Mr. McCord is, we have drafted a form Bill of Assurance that we would prefer that you use and when you suggest that I think the Planning Department has a copy and can provide that to you. That would have to be presented to the City Council also because the rezoning has to go up there. I think if you just make yourself known here then I wouldn't worry too much about the formality of it at this point. I loover: Should we amend the motion to reflect? Estes: When I made the motion I attempted to articulate the three reasons for the motion. One of those was the Rill of Assurance. That was not formally part of the motion. I will make that a formal part of the motion at this time that the motion is dependent upon the applicant providing the Bill of Assurance as offered by the applicant's representative Mr. McCord. Hoover: Is that reference Use Unit 25 and 8? Estes: Yes, as stated by the applicant's representative Mr. McCord. I loover: Does the second agree? Shackelford: Yes. I will concur with that. 1 [oover: Are we all clear on what were voting on? Are there any questions? Renee. would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-22.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. FAYETTEV ILLE PC Meeting of July 14, 2003 TIIE C1'1'Y OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville. AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator THRU: Tim Conklin, AICP, Community, Planning & Engineering Services Director DATE': July 8, 2003 RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E Zion Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R -O (Residential Office). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: July 14, 2003 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: August 2003 (1" reading if recommended) BACKGROUND: Property description: The subject property is located at 1750 E. Zion Road. There is a three bedroom single family home on the 2 acre tract currently. Surrounding property includes undeveloped property to the north, a topsoil excavation operation to the east, single family home to the west and south. across Zion Road are multi -family dwellings. While there is a mixture of land uses located on the south side of Zion Road, the north side has remained primarily residential as it is proposed to he according to Fayetteville's Future Land Use Map. Proposal: The applicant proposes to use the existing structure on this property and to convert it to an accountant's office. The outward appearance of the structure would remain the same with some possible improvements to the driveway and access point onto Zion Road. K:'Repancs2003PC REPVRTIU2-ljbznO3-22 pnpe.doe Request, The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to R -O, Residential Office. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Direction _ ______—Land Use Zoning North Vacant R -A. Residential Agricultural South Multi -family residential RMF-24 East Excavation I Top soil operation R -A, Residential Agricultural West Single family residential R -A, Residential Agricultural INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Access to the subject property is from Zion Road along the south property line. Zion Road is designated a collector on the Master Street Plan. The street in this location is not constructed to City standards for a collector street. There is no curb, gutter or storm drain. The ditches on either side of the street are fairly steep and the north side of the street is overgrown with vegetation. Water: Water is currently available to the site and connected fin the existing structure. A I2" water line is located on the south side of Zion Road. Sewer: Sewer is available and connected Ibr the existing structure. An 8" sewer line runs along Zion Road. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to R -O, Residential Office, is not consistent with the land use plan and is not compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. ZONING REVIEW TEAM Comments from the members of the Zoning Review Team toured this site on Tuesday, July 1, 2003. Access and traffic concerns were voiced by all. The nature of a change of use in this location as relates to the surrounding properties and the city's adopted Future Land Use map was also discussed. Comments from team members are attached to this staff report. These comments were a basis for the required analysis and recommendation for this rezoning request. FINDINGS OF TIIE 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 requested zoning is not consistent with the adopted General Plan. This area is designated Residential on the Future Land Use map which guides decisions regarding changes in land use and zoning. The R -O district has been used as a transition in areas called out to be Residential, however the A 'Jtepo, n, 20/n W(' REP()R73107- I4'r_n03-22 pnpedoc subject property is not located in a transitional area between single family residential and higher density or commercial areas. A change in the zoning designation of the subject property to a district other than single family residential (which would reflect the current land use) would present a spot zoning unless it was a larger development proposal that could be reviewed through a planned zoning district process allowing for consideration of surrounding uses and infrastructure needs. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is not needed in that there arc other properties within this general area that are already zoned or identified by the Future Land Use map to be developed with office uses. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning would increase traffic danger in this area. The current condition of Zion Road is not desirable. Sight distance, a poorly configured access drive and the narrow width of Zion Road in this area all affect this site. Any increase in traffic would be detrimental without improvements to the 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. Finding: The proposed zoning will not alter population density unless a conditional use is requested in the future for multi -family dwellings in the R -O district. This would require Planning Commission approval and staff review. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; h. 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 A, RepnrrsIJf MV'(R£POR'1}107-141r n03- 22 pnpedoc 0 Response to Adequacy of Public Facilities for Rezoning Proposals (Engineering Review) The Planning Commission bylaws identify five findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to determine the appropriateness of proposed zoning. Two of those findings pertain to other departments. The Fayetteville Planning Division is requesting your assistance in making those findings. We have received an application for the following rezoning request(s). We ask that you make findings on these proposals with regard to the services you provide. Please address the findings provided in italics. 1. RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E Zion Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R -O (Residential Office). a. 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.(Public Works Director, Fire, Police) The property currently has access to a 12" water line along Zion Road. This line should he sufficient to provide water service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. Sewer service is located directly across Zion Road from this site. The 8" main should be sufficient to provide sewer service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. If development occurs on this site, Zion Rd. would need to be improved to a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and sidewalk. Sight distance on Zion Rd. appears to be a problem for the current location of the driveway and the dense growth along Zion Road. The property currently has access to a 12" water line along Zion Road. This line should he sufficient to provide water service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. Sewer service is located directly across Zion Road from this site. The 8" main should be sufficient to provide sewer service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. K.'.Repnrsi2003V'(' RRTORr}l0'-IJhn113-'2 pnpedor r If development occurs on this site, Zion Rd. would need to be improved to a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and sidewalk. Sight distance on Zion Rd. appears to be a problem for the current location of the driveway and the dense growth along Zion Road. A' Rrpnrw N)03 W( Rt.'1'OR7Sl07-l41cn03-22 pu,'e doe • 161.03 District R -A, Residential - Agricultural (A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural district are designed to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural areas; obtain economy of public funds in Lhc providing of public improvements and services of orderly growth; conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for affordable housing, increase scenic attractiveness; and conserve open space. (l3) Uses. (I) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 6 Agriculture Unit 7 Animal husbandry Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 37 Manufactured homes (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. Units per acre I One-half ID) Bulk and area regulations. Lot width minimum 200 ft. Lot Area Minimum: Residential: 2 acres Nonresidential: 2 acres Lot area per dwelling unit 2 acres (I:) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 35 ft. 20 ft. 35 ft. (F) 1/eight 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 L.O foot for each foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall he measured from the required setback lines. (G) Building area. None. (Code 1965. App. A.. Art. 5(I): (Id. No. 1747, 6-29-70: Code 1991. §160030: Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. .4), 6-16-98: Ord. No. 417R, R-31-99) 0 161.15 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. (13) Uses. (I) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 11 Manufactured home park Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 25 Professional offices (2) Conditional use's. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 13 Eating laces Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Bulk and area regulations. (Per dwelling unit for residential structures) el) Lot width minimum. Manufactured home park 100 ft. Lot within a manufactured home park 50 ft. Single-family 60 ft. Two-family 60 ft. Three or more 90 ft. 12) Lot area minimum. Manufactured home park 3 acres Lot within a manufactured home park 4,200 sq. ft. Townhouses: Development Individual lot 10,000 sq. 2.500 sq. ft. ft. Single-family 6,000 sq. ft. Two-family 6,500 sq. ft. Three or more 8,000 sq. ft. Fraternity or Sorority 1 acre 13) Land area per dweliing unit. Manufactured home 3,000 sq. ft. Townhouses & apartments: 1,000 sq. ft. No bedroom 1,000 sq. ft. One bedroom 1,200 sq. ft. Two or more bedrooms Fraternity or Sorority 500 sq. ft. per resident (D) Density. 1 Units per acre 4 to 24 II (F) Setback regulations. Front 30 ft Front, if parking is allowed between the right-of-wa and the buildin 50 ft. Side 10 ft. Side. when contiguous to a residential distnct 15 ft. Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public alley loft. (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 with any boundary line of any RSF or RMF District an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. (G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. (Code No. 1965, App. A.. Art, 5(x); Ord. No. 2414. 2-7-78; Ord. No. 2603. 2-19-80: Ord. No. 2621, 4-1-8f1; Ord. No. 1747. 6-29-70; Code 1991. §160.041; Ord. No. 4100. §2 (Ex. A), h-16-98: Ord. No 4178.8-31-99) EkYE t TEVIIAT THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS July 7, 2003 Dawn Warrick Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Warrick, POLICE DEPARTMENT This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed zoning RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 F Zion Road would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially increase traffic congestion in the area. The driveway to this location, however, is in a very dangerous location. The vegetation on both sides of this driveway obscures visibility in both directions for drivers on Zion Road as well as drivers exiting the driveway. With the curve immediately to the west and the hillcrest to the east, drivers on Zion Road will have very little reaction time when a vehicle pulls out from this property. I would recommend the Zion Road right-of-way be cleared of all vegetation to eliminate this hazard. Sincerely, /ficutenant William Brown Fayetteville Police Department FAVETTEVILLE POI ICE DEPARTMENT (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 P.O. BOX 1988 .JAIL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS '2702-1988 PHONE: 501-567-3555 FAX: 501-587-3522 Jul 02 03 ❑1:42p 1$ u Farrar (*] 444-3447 p.2 FAYETTEVILLE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS From: Fire Prevention Bureau '1o: Planning Division Date REZONING ANNEXATION REZONING I/03.- Z2 . oo OWNER ANNEXATON# OWNER LOCATION OF , > PROPERTY 2 7o r) /co - 7/crags pew /+e[ ,',rs. NEAREST FIRE STATION AND - LOCATION _ dire SrA-i io7- t/ - ?IOZ n f/ieA) SY - RESPONSE TIME FROM FIRE STATION # 9 TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY 3 MINUTES 25 SECONDS. TRAVEL MILES FROM FIRE STATION # (4 TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY I. 4 Mlle:5 . COMMENTS ON FIRE DEPT. ACCESS/ROADWAYS ZmaiAGcaae ( ) WATER SUPPLY WITH HYDRANTS NEEDED? __ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAIN OFFICE SUBSTATION 115 SOUTH CHURCH ST N.W.A. MALL (501) 444-3448 / (501) 444-3449 (501) 575-8271 FAX (501) 575-8272 FAX (501) 575-8272 RONNY & KAREN POPE Sa. Owned by Mary K Savin Revocable Trust listed by The Property Store, we have a written offer on this property contingent on favorable rezoning. 5b. Currently zoned A-1 & we would like to move a CPA practice in the house. We are a 3 person office (owner, staff accountant and secretary). We currently rent & see this time as opportune to own an office. We live in this area of town & on this side of 71. and would like to stay in this area. Sc. The surrounding properties are as follows: North: field is open (estate of John & Helen Tyson) South: Lake Park apartment complex Fast: dirt and gravel mine, topsoil storage West: home with contract pending The lot currently has a 3 bedroom home on it & this would not change. The house would be used as a professional office. The use would be during the day and not at night or weekends. The land use would remain as is. The traffic that would be generated by this office would be nominal as we are a small accounting firm not looking to expand. Our traffic flow is 1 client at a time as only the owner has contact with the clients. We have on the average less than 3 daily visits by clients. This of course, is skewed as our heavy time would be tax season (mid -Feb to mid -Apr). During the off season, there are days when nobody shows up. 40% of time is spent out of our office working at the clients' office. The appearance of the property would not change. For better observation when leaving the property, we intend to clean up the high grass, weeds and bushes and prune limbs. We are thinking the drive needs to be widened at the entrance also. There will be no sign at street side. There might be a plaque on the door and maybe a small plaque at street side with the house numbers. 5d. According to Jeff Staggs, there is both city water and sewer available with the water line being 12" and sewer lines being air. RECEI' "CD JUN 19 ?flf3 s PLANNING DN. I RONNY & KAREN POPE 6a. The land is currently zoned A-1, but nobody appears to be farming this area. The intent on the Land Use Map is for this area to be residential, so a small professional office would not be out of line. This is already true to some extent since the area around the land has a vet office, 2 medical clinics and a cpa/lawyer office already established. Also, previous property owners (Heckathorn) on the west side owned & operated a construction company out of the home in the past. Our understanding is that this was a conditional use. 6h. We think a rezoning is needed since there are no single office buildings for sale in this area of town we want to be in. By observation, we think this street is lending itself more to a professional office type situation and less to home dwellings. We really are not interested in the office condo type buildings on Joyce & can't meet the price they want. This 2 acres has a bonus of having a wooded appearance with trees on the lot which we like. It is nothing like looking at concrete and a parking lot. ac. There will be a minimal if situation. Since this home is 3 person office, we don't feel more traffic than a husband, friends would create. We have than 3 walk in clients a day as any impact on the traffic a 3 bedroom home and we are a like we would generate much wife, 2 children and their estimated an average of less referenced in Sc. 6d. We feel we would actually have less impact on city services than a residence, since there are no kids being sent to area schools. Also, we would use less water and sewer as there would be no showers or laundry done in this house. 6e. _t would not be economically feasible to farm a 2 acre lot here (or anywhere) and we don't feel it would be desirable to use this as a residence next to the gravel pit and across from the apartment complex. Also, there is already a lot of traffic on the street which detracts from home use. RFCEIV ED JUN 1 9 2003 6 PLf.JNING DIV. CALL LOG 6-13 Jerry Sweetser 443-4601 no objection to RO-written letter in favor believes Barbara Tyson is in Florida 6-17 Billie Carnes 267-1224 no objection to RO 6-17 Leonard Ostendorf 443-5749 no objection to RO 6-17 Jaimie Jones 442-6239 out of state this week 6-18 Deal -vacant house to west of property telephone disconnected, moved to OK, property to close 6-28 Patsy Chance 466-6064 buyer agent, doesn't think her buyer will object but won't give me name of buyer p� RECE��� I JUN 19 'n'"i PLANNINN DIV. Sweetser PROPERTIES 730 N. I everett• Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 443-4601 • FAX (479) 443 2044 Website: www.sweetserproperties.com E-mail: sweetser@sweetserproporties.com .June 17. 2003 '1 o whom it may concern; Re: Rezoning request Ronnie and Karen Pope has ollered to purchase property on Zion Road contingent upon rezoning approval. They are requesting this property he rezoned from A-1 to R -O. It is our understanding this property would be used for a Certified Public Accounting business office for three Certified Public Accountants. Sweetser Properties owns adjoining property directly to the east of the property requesting the rezonim_. We feel the proposed use would not create any adverse effect in the traffic flow on this road and we feel that the proposed use would be very compatible for this area. We respectfully request that you approve the proposed rezoning request. Sincerely. I operties RFC'IiIED Jo'.. .:; 2003 L' II h1. t: •i. e'.a D' FAYETTEVILLE TIIE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479-575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator DATE: July 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Additional information — RZN 03-22 (Pope) The following supplemental information has been compiled for the above mentioned rezoning request. [his item was tabled by the Planning Commission at the July 14, 2003 meeting at the request of a representative of the seller (current property owner). Hie following materials are included: 1. Response from James McCord, Attorney representing the applicant. This statement includes a proposal for a bill of assurance to limit the use of the subject property under an R -O designation to a professional office with no additional building to he constructed and removal of vegetation at the entrance to the site to increase sight distance. Trip generation calculations for 2 acres of office development, a single tenant office with 3 employees and one single family dwelling. 3. Planning Commission minutes from July 14, 1986 regarding a request for rezoning the subject property from Agricultural to R -O. Planning Commission, in agreement with the staff recommendation for denial, voted 8-0-0 to deny the rezoning request. 4. Planning Commission minutes and staff report from May 12, 2003 regarding a request for property located at Zion Rd. and Vantage Drive (SW comer) to be rezoned from R-2 (RMF-24) to R -O. Planning Commission failed to make a motion on this request for which staff recommended denial. The action was denied due to lack of action. S JAMES N. McCORD • f1 ttorney at Law 11 N. WEST AVE. SUITE #202 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 TELEPHONE (479) 695-1134 FACSIMLE (479) 695-1135 jirnmccordlaw@ailtel.net To: Fayetteville Planning From: James N. McCord Attorney for Ronm Date: July 18, 2003 Re: RZN 83-22.00 for prc To rezone from R -A, ommission lf/N' and Karen Pope )perty at 1750 E. Zion Road (2.0 acres) Residential Agricultural, to R -O, Residential Office I represent Ronny and Karen Pope ("Applicant") in connection with the above referenced rezoning application. In support of the application, Applicant hereby agrees to execute a Bill of Assurance with covenants providing: (1) Use of the property shall be restricted to a professional office or a single family dwelling; (2) No additional building shall be constructed or placed on the property; (3) Ground vegetation in the yard on the property along both sides of the driveway and along Zion Road shall be cleared, or trimmed and maintained, so as not to obscure traffic visibility from Zion Road or the driveway; (4) The covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all future owners of the property. The City of Fayetteville shall have the right to enforce the covenants. Because the subject property is adjoins a topsoil excavation operation and is directly across Zion Road from multi -family dwellings, it would be unreasonable to restrict future use of the property to a single family dwelling. R -O rezoning is justified. Applicants respectfully disagree with the City staff recommendation for the following reasons and those stated above. RECEIVED JUL. 1 3 2003 PLANNING DIV. STAFF FINDING 1: R-0 zoning is not consistent with the City's General Plan. The area is designated Residential on the Future Land Use Map. The property is not located in a transitional area between single-family residential and higher density. R -O zoning would present "spot zoning" without allowing for consideration of surrounding uses and infrastructure needs. RESPONSE: The General Plan and Future Land Use Map are not controlling; they are planning guides. Consideration must be given the use of adjoining properties (a topsoil excavation operation to the east and apartments to the south). Residential use of the property is not reasonable considering its location. R -O zoning with the Bill of Assurance offered by Applicants would present a reasonable us of the property, would not increase infrastructure needs and would not change the character of the neighborhood which is mixed use. The property is located between properties with different densities. The property to the north is undeveloped and recommended for residential use, and property to the south is higher density (multi -family dwellings). R -O zoning would present a "buffer", rather than unreasonable "spot zoning". STAFF FINDING 2: R -O zoning is not justified and/or needed at the time in that there are other properties within this general area zoned or identified by the Future Land Use Map to be developed with office uses. RESPONSE: The "general area" referred to is quite large and the "other properties" referred to are not near the subject property. R -O zoning with the Bill of Assurance offered by Applicants is requested to provide a reasonable use of the property — not to provide the most profitable use. To deny a property owner any reasonable use of his property is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. STAFF FINDING 3: The proposed zoning would increase traffic danger in this area. RESPONSE: The Fayetteville Police Department found that R -O zoning "will not substantially increase traffic congestion in this area. "Applicant estimates that the traffic flow at Applicant's CPA office would average less than 3 clients per day. If the 3 -bedroom house on the property were occupied by a family with teenage children, a much higher traffic count would be likely. The Police Department noted that vegetation on both sides of the driveway obscures visibility, and the Department recommends that the Zion Road right-of-way be cleared of all vegetation to eliminate this hazard. The Bill of Assurance offered by Applicant covenants that "Ground vegetation in the yard on the property along both sides of the driveway and along Zion Road shall be RECEIVED JUL !82003 DI ANIMIMIf ill/ cleared, or trimmed and maintained, so as not to obscure traffic visibility from Zion Road or the driveway." CONCLUSION The property should be rezoned to R -O for the reasons stated above and in the rezoning application. RECEIVED JUL 18 ?003 PLANNING DIV. Pope Rezoning Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation For 2 Acres of Office Park July 14, 2003 24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Average Weekday 390 47 4 8 48 24 hour Peak Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Saturday 59 4 1 Sunday 27 2 3 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS • Pope Rezoning Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation For 3 Employees of Single Tenant Office Building July 14, 2003 24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Average Weekday 11 1 0 0 1 24 hour Peak Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Saturday 0 0 0 Sunday 0 0 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Pope Rezoning Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation For 1 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing July 14, 2003 24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Average Weekday 10 0 1 1 0 24 hour Peak Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Saturday 10 1 0 Sunday 9 0 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 6 • Planning Commission • July 14, 1986 Page 3 Sandra Carlisle stated they e requesting a waiver on the fencing and s ing requirement wh ch will allow Sequoyah United Methodist Church to p vegetation high to a coverage of 10%. This request is for a portion the S th boundary line which is adjacent to the proposed new construe n MOTION Nash moved approval/f this LDS as peT"bte Subdivision Committee report, seconded by Dow. a notion to approve passed 8-0-O. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-9 LEO AND CARMA HECKATHORN - NORTH SIDE OF ZION RD. ACROSS FROM PARK LAKE APARTMENTS The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-9 submitted by Leo and Carma Heckathorn for 2.0 acres located on the North side of Zion Road across from Park Lake Apartments. • Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-0, Residential Office. Wood recommended not re -zoning to R-0 for the following reasons. 1. R-0 District is contrary to the recommendation of the General Plan; 2. R-0 District at the location requested would be an intrusion into a developing residential area; and 3. R-0 District at that location would tend to commit the interior of a residential area to other than residential uses. Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this rezoning. Carma Heckathorn Rt.2 Box 157, Springdale, stated they had made an offer to purchase a 5.25 acre tract of land, with an existing house. The attraction to this particular piece of property was the central location and the possibility of having enough additional land on which to build a small office on the back side. Mrs. Heckathorn stated they had checked the zoning for this area and found on the South side of Zion there is R-0 zoning and on the North side of Zion there is R-0 zoning. She felt that the rezoning would not endanger the value of the property in and around this area. Jacks asked Mrs. Heckathorn how many employees they would have and she stated three including one family member. • .Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this rezoning. Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 4 Jamie Jones, 1654 E. Zion Road, stated he adjoins this property on the West and said Mrs. Heckathorn had visited with them about the rezoning petition. Jones stated to Mrs. Heckathorn they would be opposed to rezoning the North side of Zion Road for several reasons; primarily the rezoning would be for the convenience of the Heckathorns and also for the three reasons Mr. Wood gave. Jones then stated these were very strong reasons to deny the rezoning petition and he also stated they had been given assurances in the past that unless there is a real need to change the General Plan that Commercial and R-0 Districts would not be extended East of the Dr. Offices on Zion Road. Jones stated there are no offices to the best of his knowledge on the North side of Zion Road between U.S. 71 and HWY 265. Leonard Ostendorf stated he lives two houses East of the property in question and Jones was a little bit off on there not being any R-0 zoning on the North side of Zion Road. Morris Henry rezoned a piece of property on the East end, away from the central part of Zion Road where the residential area is. Ostendorf stated it was wrong for one family to move into the neighborhood and dictate to the people who have been living there for many years. Allen Robbins stated he lives on the South side of the property in question and would like to voice his opposition to this rezoning petition. Billy Carnes stated they own the property Northeast of the Heckathorns and are opposed to the rezoning petition. Les Childers stated they adjoin the Heckathorns on the West and they are opposed to any further zoning changes. Madison asked George Faucette if there is currently any R-0 property on the market and Faucette stated without any specifics he felt there is some R-0 available. Nash asked if this use could not be accomplished under a Conditional Use Permit and Carlisle stated there are no Conditional Uses available for an office in A-1 District and for a Home Occupation they could not hire anyone outside the family. MOTION Madison moved to deny the request for rezoning from A-1, to R-0, seconded by Dow. The motion to deny passed 8-0-0. • CONSIDERATION OF A PRQOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY DEW! ti The fifth item on thvagen was a request to consider a proposed • amendment to the Zoning Ordina ce submitted by Dewitt Smith to allow a a 3 4 N. II j460 I I II I i �'Ifl ,{r il' SE -SW S-24 'r- I 7N R- 30W I 24 Leo Ifeckathorn P.C. ti/'/ -86 Rt. 9 .'ion Road S.?5 acres R86-9 ... It .� • ..� i� �,]y"Y.. N_..• = i ii-- r -I.' , l F AY[TTLV I IrLC • C 2' I • yY ' .. _ i p pp�•i+,l. •}j1.,, ..'L4, `k- - ''T • •+1111 r . '• Jt -: A'y '1'1y •�Z'� ' : �. s.1. n :. �,- \• R-0 1 q_I F _ ;; 'r{ C_2 { C-2 c•z jj C-2 • • ' ^ R R 2 A-i trf C-2 •y s;; ; . R-1. a.. ;.c C-2 0 'N 1 •1 \ C-2 C-2 ) A -I C-2 c•l. c w A S-24 '11-17N R - 30W Leo lieckathorn P.C. 7-8-86 Rt. 9 ion Road 5.25 acres R86-9 Planning Commissior1 May 12, 2003 Page 20 RZN 03-16.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp 136) was submitted by Jerry Kelso, P.E. of Crafton. Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at SW corner of Zion Road and Vantage Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.0 acres. The request is to rezone to R- 0, Residential Office. Hoover: Moving on to item number two. RZN 03-16.00 for the property at the southwest corner of Zion Road and Vantage Drive. Dawn? Warrick: The subject property is located at the southwest comer of Vantage Drive and Zion Road and contains approximately three acres. There are currently three single-family homes located on this property. It is divided into three lots. Currently each tract contains five acres and the southern portion of the property, the southern 12 acres of the site is proposed to be adjusted onto property which is further south and is proposed to become part of the future multi -family residential development. The current request is for rezoning the property. There are no development proposals for this project right now. As I said, the request is to rezone the tract from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R -O, Residential Office. With regard to findings of fact that are required on a rezoning, the future land use plan. the General Plan 2020 designates this area as residential. Therefore, the rezoning request to Residential Office is not specifically consistent with that plan. We have seen properties in the past that have made similar requests to have a Residential Office designation in an area that is classified on the future land use plan as residential. I feel that those types of requests have been in different circumstances at areas that are more visible to thoroughfares or at intersections or nodes of higher traveled streets. This particular property is planked by residential as well as agricultural properties. Staff is not in favor of this rezoning request. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward? Kelso: Good evening, I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I am representing the owners out there. This property is directly off of Zion Road and directly to the west of this property is R -O so we do feel like it is consistent with existing land uses out there because there is a lot of Residential Office and Commercial on through there. If you recall, a couple of Planning Commission meetings ago we got a Conditional Use on about ten acres that is directly southwest of this piece of property. With that of course we were limited to 18 units per acre on that, R-2 is 24 units per acre. With rezoning that we feel like we have decreased the traffic quite a bit and helped that situation there as far as that. By doing that, we are thinking that this may be kind of a tradeoff or flip flop because this is just three acres we are talking about going from R-2 to R- Planning CommissioS • May 12, 2003 Page 21 O. With that, we respectfully ask you to consider rezoning this from R-2 to R -O. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Jerry. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this RZN 03-16.00, Zion Road and Vantage Drive? Jones: My name is Jamie Jones. I live on the north side of Zion Road just to the cast of this tract of land. My main concern about this request is I don't want to see anything that will open up the possibility fir there to be more commercial activity along Zion Road. I have been living where I live now since 1966 and my neighbor to the west has been living there longer than I have. I am just afraid that if we have a request like this granted that it would just open the door to more commercial types of enterprises. Thank you. I louver: Thank you Mr. Jones. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission for comments or discussion. 1?sees: I guess I would like to have a dialogue with staff. I am a little confused. Vantage Road on the cast is proposed to connect with Zion and then to the west of Zion we have commercial but yet staffs findings are that the proposed zoning is not specifically consistent with land use planning objectives and I see the word specifically which causes me to stop and think about that. The second finding is that the proposed rezoning is not justified or needed. The third finding is development of this property with office uses would create an increase in traffic activity and then the police finding is that it is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that we must determine a determination affirming this proposal would increase an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. What is going to happen when Vantage Road is completed and connects with Zion? We are only going to have three north/south connectors, 71, Vantage. well I guess we are going to have four, Mission, Old Wire, and then 265. Can you speak to any of that? Warrick: Sure. With regard to the comment about development of the property for office uses, that was based on the applicant's written description of the request. Basically speculating that an office development on the site would be the future development potential with the rezoning. The current zoning of the property under the R-2 designation allows the applicant to come to the Planning Commission with a request for a Conditional Use for a residential or professional type office. Under Use Unit 25 that is a Conditional Use allowance in the R-2 zoning district. Another option for this three acres at the time of development would he to process a Planned Zoning District. Both of those two options would allow the Planning Planning Commissioj • May 12, 2003 Page 22 Commission, and in the case of the Planned Zoning District, the City Council some understanding and ability to control the type of development that is proposed for the site. A straight rezoning to the R -O designation would not. That would be a use by right and it would come before you only as a Large Scale Development if it was not broken out into smaller lots. There is some flexibility with regard to the Planning Commission's authority with the zoning being retained in the R-2 designation. You mentioned the comments from the Police Department, there is concern with regard to increased traffic and development potential of the site with the current conditions on Zion Road. Those concerns were voiced by the Police Department and I believe I attached that letter with your packet of information on page 2.7. Obviously, when, and if, the development proposal came forward we would he looking at improvements and access issues so some of that would be able to be addressed at that point in time. Without understanding more about what the project would entail that is purely speculative. Those types of things were considerations when staff formulated this recommendation. Also, just with regard to the comment earlier, a portion of the property south of this was designated Residential Office and did come before you recently for a Conditional Use approval for multi -family. This is the exact opposite type request but it does demonstrate that there are existing vacant Residential Office developments that are being proposed to be developed under multi -family type densities. This is a site that could, by right, right now be developed with multi- family densities. Estes: If I hear what you are saying staff's real issue is that you would like to see this as a PZD instead of a straight rezoning, is that right? Warrick: I think that would be appropriate, yes. Estes: Let me ask this. When Vantage Road is completed and connects Joyce with Zion arc there any plans to improve Zion'? Zion just cannot handle the traffic. You are going to have a traffic flow from Joyce to Vantage to Zion, from Zion back to College. Where are we on improvements to Zion'? Warrick: I don't believe that is designated as a CIP project right now. It would be dependent upon a development proposal and what kind of impact that particular development would have with regard to traffic generation on those streets that would be impacted. I believe that that is something significant that we will have to address. Estes: In conclusion, staff would like to see a PZD instead of a R7N. is that fair" Warrick: Yes, that is fair. Planning CommissioO • May 12, 2003 Page 23 Estes: Thank you. I loover: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Are there any other discussion items? Ostner: Historically, not just historically but as a tool of zoning, R -O has been a good buffer between straight commercial and residential. It is commercial but it is a lower impact. This seems to me to be growing the buffer. I don't think I am in favor of this rezoning. Especially since, as Dawn clarifies, there are other avenues to go about another development. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Ostner. Arc there any other comments'? Are there any motions? There must he more discussion then. I will call three times for a motion. I will call for a motion. I am calling for a motion the second time. Seeing none, I will call for a motion the third time. Seeing none, the rezoning fails because there is no motion. Whitaker: There is no motion. The agenda item is just dead for want of a motion. Shackelford: As somebody that is nowhere near an expert at parliamentary procedure, what does this do in regards to a right to appeal or a right to rehear when something dies for lack of a motion, can I get some clarification on that please? Whitaker: Normally it falls under, it gets rather speculative, but it falls under much the same category as what we refer to as tabling something to death. Basically when a body refuses to hear an item or refuses to give someone a person. That could be an argument to take to the next level as an appeal to say there is no point in me getting on this agenda. these folks won't do it. I think obviously beyond the purely legal answer there is certainly a right to ask this body for a rehearing certainly you can submit a changed item or submit an item that is materially different, which is the phrase we use for when we have rejection. At this point I think it is treated as if it was a denial. I think the strong argument is to either resubmit and request a rehearing or ask for an appeal. Hoover: Thank you for the clarification. Did you understand that Jerry? Kelso: I think so. That is why I came up here so I could understand it. Thank you. FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of May 12, 2003 TI IF. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dawn Warrick. AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator, TI IRU: Tim Conklin, AICP, Community, Planning & Engineering Services Director DA IT": May 12, 2003 Project: RZN 03-16.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp136) was submitted by Jerry Kelso, Y.E. of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at SW comer of Zion Road and Vantage Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.00 acres. The request is to rezone to R-0, Residential Office. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: May 12, 2003 ITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved ()Denied ate: June 3,2003(1" reading if recommended) Comments: BACKGROIJND: Property description: The subject property is located at the southwest comer of Vantage Drive and Zion Road. There are currently three single family homes located on this property which is divided into three lots. The property is currently part of three five acre tracts. I'he southern portion of the subject property (12 acres) is being adjusted onto the property to the south and is proposed to become a part of a future multi -family development. 1. Vivpoi nl2003VY' REPORT}105-12VRLN 03-16.001Li,dcevd.dnc Proposal: There are no proposals for development of the subject property at this time. Request: The request is to rezone the 3 acre tract from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R -O, Residential Office. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Direction North South East Land Use Single family homes (large lots) Vacant Zion Valley PUD / Multi -family Professional offices INFRASTRUCTURE: The proposed rezoning is located at the southwest comer of Zion Road and Vantage Drive. Zion Road and Vantage Drive are classified as Collector Streets. Only the eastern half of Vantage Drive is constructed at this time. Zion Road is not currently improved to meet the City standard for a collector street. Zoning R-1, Low Density Residential / A -I, R-2, Medium Density Residential R-2, Medium Density Residential R -O, Residential Office The site has access to existing 6" and 12" water mains along Zion Road. Sewer is not available at these lots. A public main will need to be extended in order to serve this site. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to R -O. Residential Office is not specifically consistent with the land use plan. This zoning designation will permit residential uses, however, most properties in the R -O zoning district will develop with professional office uses. Professional office and residential uses could both be considered compatible with surrounding land uses in the area depending upon the development plan. 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 proposed zoning is not specifically consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies which have identified this area as Residential. The current use of the property and the current zoning designation applied to the property are consistent with adopted City policy. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed rezoning is not justified or needed at this time. No development proposals are eminent. There are processes available to the K ;Rrporrsi..'l)03V'(' RF,POR7SI05-1?VRZN 03-16.00 (Lndsev) doe property owner to request approval of a development for professional office uses (conditional use permit, planned zoning district) which do not require a rezoning action. Either of these processes would allow the City to look more closely at a development for the purpose of compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing infrastructure. This is a transition area between commercial and residential uses which needs to be carefully considered when redevelopment is proposed. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Development of this property with office uses would create an increase in traffic activity according to ITE Trip Generation software. The existing development on the property (3 single family homes) generates a very small amount of traffic. The maximum density under current zoning would provide an estimated 477 vehicle trips per day and an office development on the subject property is expected to generate approximately 585 vehicle trips per day. Traffic Generation Average Trips / Use Variable Weekday Volume Existing Condition 3 SFR 29 Max. Density (R-2) 72 Units / Apts. 477 Office Dev. (R -O) 3 Acres 585 Engineering - The proposed rezoning to R -O may or may not result in additional traffic danger and congestion for this area. Access to the developed site and the circulation network within the development shall be reviewed in detail as part of the subdivision or large scale development process. The layout, connectivity, circulation plan, ingress and egress provisions will be reviewed in detail as information becomes available. Police - It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that we must return a determination affirming this rezoning proposal would create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. The traffic way on Zion Road is very narrow and does not allow much room on the shoulder. In addition to the narrowness of this road, there is a blind curve to the east of Vantage Drive and a small hill to the west. The hill and the curve present a problem for motorists that may need to enter Zion Road from Vantage Drive. There is very little response time to react if a vehicle is approaching from either direction. There are several tree and shrubs very close to the roadway reducing visibility even further. The speed limit is set at 25 mile per hour in this area. This is a similar speed for a school zone. This speed limit reflects K:Repnrtsi_'N)3P(' REPORTSI05-12VRZN03-16.00 pAidsev) doe the traffic dangers in this area without the increased traffic flow created by this rezoning request. (see attached written statement) 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: The proposed zoning would not increase the population density above that which could be developed on the subject property under the current R-2 designation. Engineering — The site has access to existing 6" and 12" water mains along Zion Road. Sewer is not available at these lots. A public main will need to be extended in order to serve this site. The proposed rezoning and ultimate development may increase the loading on the existing infrastructure systems. During the development's review and approval process, the adequacy of the existing infrastructure to accommodate the service requirements will he assessed by the developer's consultant and reviewed by city staff. Any inadequacies, lack of availability, need for improvements and determination of responsibility for the infrastructure improvements shall be resolved during the development's review/approval process. Fire - Mileage from fire station #4 on Plainview Street to the subject property is 2 miles, travel time (normal driving time including traffic stops) is 3 minutes 54 seconds. Police - There is a definite likelihood that increased traffic flow and traffic congestion in this area could increase traffic danger and could affect response times for emergency vehicles. (see attached written statement) 5. If there arc reasons why the proposed zoning should not he 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 arc 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 X. •Rep,n rs,2009V'(' REPOHLS05- 2WN 03-/6.00 iLnvsn7.duc rj • FAYETTEVILLE 'I'IIF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE PC Meeting of July 14, 2003 113 W. Mountain Si. Fayetteville. AR 72701 'telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dawn Warrick. AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator Tl IR1 is Tim Conklin, AICP, Community, Planning & Engineering Services Director DATF,: July 8. 2003 RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E Zion Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R -O (Residential Office). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. NING COMMISSION ACTION: July 14, 2003 Required YES C0 Approved O Denied CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved ()Denied Date: August 2003 (1" reading if recommended) BACKGROUND: Property description: The subject property is located at 1750 E. Zion Road. There is a three bedroom single family home on the 2 acre tract currently. Surrounding property includes undeveloped property to the north, a topsoil excavation operation to the cast, single family home to the west and south, across Zion Road are multi -family dwellings. While there is a mixture of land uses located on the south side of Zion Road, the north side has remained primarily residential as it is proposed to be according to Fayetteville's Future Land Use Map. Proposal: The applicant proposes to use the existing structure on this property and to convert it to an accountant's office. The outward appearance of the structure would remain the same with sonic possible improvements to the driveway and access point onto Zion Road. A': 1Reporis'JOO3V'(' REPOR7:1'107-1 Jlrzn03-22 pope doe Request: The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to R -O. Residential Office. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Direction North West Land Use Excavation / Top soil operation Sine family residential INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Access to the subject property is from Zion Road along the south property line. Zion Road is designated a collector on the Master Street Plan. The street in this location is not constructed to City standards for a collector street. There is no curb, gutter or storm drain. The ditches on either side of the street are fairly steep and the north side of the street is overgrown with vegetation. Water: Water is currently available to the site and connected for the existing structure. A 12" water line is located on the south side of Zion Road. ..---_ Zoning -- --. R -A. Residential Agricultural J RMF-24 R -A, Residential Agricultural R -A, Residential Agricultural Sewer: Sewer is available and connected Im the existing structure. An R" sewer line runs along Zion Road. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to R -O. Residential Office, is not consistent with the land use plan and is not compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. ZONING REVIEW TEAM Comments from the members of the Zoning Review Team toured this site on Tuesday, July 1. 2003. Access and traffic concerns were voiced by all. The nature of a change ol'use in this location as relates to the surrounding properties and the city's adopted Future Land Use map was also discussed. Comments from team members are attached to this staff report. These comments were a basis li)r the required analysis and recommendation for this rezoning request. 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 requested zoning is not consistent with the adopted General Plan. This area is designated Residential on the Future Land Use map which guides decisions regarding changes in land use and zoning. The R -O district has been used as a transition in areas called out to he Residential, however the A: •Reports COOS '(REI'ORJTI(h-!4b_n03-22 popedaa subject property is not located in a transitional area between single family residential and higher density or commercial areas. A change in the zoning designation of the subject property to a district other than single family residential (which would reflect the current land use) would present a spot zoning unless it was a larger development proposal that could be reviewed through a planned zoning district process allowing for consideration of surrounding uses and infrastructure needs. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is not needed in that there are other properties within this general area that are already zoned or identified by the Future Land Use map to be developed with office uses. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning would increase traffic danger in this area. The current condition of Zion Road is not desirable. Sight distance, a poorly configured access drive and the narrow width of Zion Road in this area all affect this site. Any increase in traffic would be detrimental without improvements to the 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. Finding: The proposed zoning will not alter population density unless a conditional use is requested in the future for multi -family dwellings in the R -O district. This would require Planning Commission approval and staff review. 5. II -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 he impractical to use the land lhr any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; 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 A IReprrrrr!'003V'( RLPORis07-N1cn03-'2 pnpedoc I Response to Adequacy of Public Facilities for Rezoning Proposals (Engineering Review) The Planning Commission bylaws identify five findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to determine the appropriateness of proposed zoning. Two of those findings pertain to other departments. The Fayetteville Planning Division is requesting your assistance in making those findings. We have received an application for the following rezoning request(s). We ask that you make findings on these proposals with regard to the services you provide. Please address the findings provided in italics. RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E Zion Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R -O (Residential Office). a. 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.(Public Works Director, Fire. Police) The property currently has access to a 12" water line along Zion Road. This line should be sufficient to provide water service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. Sewer service is located directly across Zion Road from this site. The 8" main should be sufficient to provide sewer service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. If development occurs on this site, Zion Rd. would need to be improved to a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and sidewalk. Sight distance on Zion Rd. appears to be a problem for the current location of the driveway and the dense growth along Zion Road. The property currently has access to a 12" water line along Zion Road. This line should be sufficient to provide water service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. Sewer service is located directly across Zion Road from this site. The 8" main should be sufficient to provide sewer service to the existing facility as well as redevelopment of the site. K IRrporivt2OU3 '( RFPOR1S\07-l4rzn03-2.' pope'doe If development occurs on this site, Zion Rd. would need to he improved to a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and sidewalk. Sight distance on Zion Rd. appears to be a problem for the current location of the driveway and the dense growth along Zion Road. K.lHepnrted003N(' RF.POR73107-IMrzn03-22 pope dot FROM :PROPERTY -STORE FfX NO. :479-750-4244 ..Jun. ©6/05/•'IdIi1? 12:44 M .'ES ETC L uru:we '- VU ea' NE's, SWk 24-17-30 0'11'39"E 239.29' EAST 243.08' 3. 26 Ac. I. Tp 1471504244 POINT OF BEGINNING EAST 148,92 05 2003 04:05PM NI.). &';U LEGEND a -Iron Pins Found o • Iron Pitta Set U - Stone Found 2.00 Ac. P CD y m _ _ _ _ i 1, 8• �, -- - P2 LOW1 EXHIBIT "A" PROPERTY TO BEREZO SUBMITTED BY THE APP Ap icant's Signature LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NEB of the swk of Section 24, 11Th, RJQW of e 5t1 Trincipal Meridian in Washington County. Arkansas being more particularly described as follows to -wit; Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said NEk, 5WIl thence 5 O°11'39"E 239.29 Feat thence EAST 243.08 Feet to the POLNT OF BEGINNING thence EAST 348.92 Fe011 39"Wthence , 5 .00 Fast, th.nce WEST 585,00Feet tothe POINT 148.92 t OF ECINNING;Containing2,00e N Acre more or less subject to Right -of -Way and Easements of record. This IS To CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISIONAND ALL CORNZR3 WERE SET AS SHOWN ON THZ ABOVE PLAT AND To THE BEST OF MY RNOWLED(iE ARE CORRECT. Neal B. Albright ARLS 273 DATE ars 4 Jimpam" I T14A PLANiliivu DIV. n RZN03-22.00 Future Landuse In Ir I., POPE w U . •1I , Overview Legend Subject Property Streets Boundary ® RZN03-22 00 xiseng Planning Area Overlay Dist Plannedract L — City limits Future Landuse Parks Pmate Ooen Space .'.. _� Residential Mixed Ilse Office Historic Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial ` `.'•; Industrial University RZN03-22.00 Close Up View POPE SUBJECT PROPERTY I I I , I i —_• Fl .. I 1 I All • i , n I ° I Overview Legend Boundary Subject Property ° - Planning Area Master Street Plan RZN00-22.00 Overlay District !�O Freeway/Expressway Streets L - _ I City Limits Principal Arterial ^� Minor Arterial Ixlsang Outside City ' Collector Planner • �•. Historic Collector 0 75 150 300 450 1300 Feet RZN03-22.00 I POPE One Mile View ill if ; af• AKE AO y , AKF f avFTilVla � ep p '1 a I_I--. .al u; o. v . . 2 a - I I. a. •j ,y VK ni C-2 R-° R -A SUBJECT PROPERTY -, „ -u C-2 ;' t..� -'PANDA! Iq u R ° C-1 RA C-2 1 RMF-24 C 1 (. 2 R •� I. 1 C-1 I C-2 �_I:+i�i R A C-2 ^ / R -A RMF-24 / RMF-24 ny WAIL Da * / RSF-4 C-2 1 C-2 A I � ...iUl ' •RMF-24 L� 1 �r-1 rle;t ; R -A C 2 L -2 1 ' . C_2 O-2 : /♦" RSF-4 RSF-4 / 1 C-2 R -A 1 R -A 1 L ry 1' R -O R -O ' R -O . R-¢ �� Lvo R-° R-° -1 LII A'1 C-2 G f R -O 1 R -24 C 1 1 C2 iT! •R -O R -O R -OR A r RMF-24 1 ♦ 1 R -A C-2 -1 ♦.RMF-24 , RMF-24 / I.1 r - IR-A C-2 'j C-2 / RMF-24 RMF-24 e m e —a RSF-4 I RSF-4RT-12 %e2 C 2 C-2 1 RSF-4 i. 1 RMF-24 Overview Legend Boundary Master Street Plan Subject Property Frtewa RZN03-22.00 Planning Area \,i n I>ess'Kar Overlay District ems Frmayl stars! �I Minx Arterial Streets I City t imtts t:A19011e ` ,, • cOeIXtM Outside Cry N*0 Nislonr CAilw.inr Manned 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. ex 1750 ZION RD E FayatteVllb AR 72701 FNTE.RNA.L:. It ORM:ATION.. ELkup April: Pat Sumo 443- $217 Llsttlg Office: Caldwell Banker Foucette Feyelbv$.476.21-0220 County: Washington County AR OwnOwner Finance Tenns: Appnker Name: Internal Remarks: CIS i LM b: Peed Wdrwn Da Fxp b: 07/04/88 Commisslonsip"s showing Instuctions: Buyer Atom Fee: 2.7 Apmtony.Lodc Box ,Apmtonly Lodc Box sang Agent Fee: $ I IMSgFt: $1 Acre: 48580.00 Sold $11MsgFt: $ Contngenoy: Saber Censseslon: REMARKS 30X10 ENTRYILIDRARY; 16X16 STUDIO,WORKSHOP; LOTS OF WINDOWS; HARDWOOD FLOORS. CROWN MOLDING. GOURMET KIT WI ISL. $ LOTS OF CABINETS. COVERED BACK DECK LEADS TO PRIVATE BACK YARD. PARK-UKE WALL OAK TREES. CIRC. DRIVE. MORE! N COLIEOE. EZroft ONNORTH PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot Dim: Coven: Zonkig: Acres: 2.000 Road Front: Lot: Surveyed: Disclosure: Sub: Washmglon Cowl Block: Fid Zone: Lot De$ctlpdon: Legal: Pt Na Sw 24 - FEATURES TublShower: Foundation: Crawt$paoe,Crewlspsce,Crs Heat Ges.Gas.Gss,WdStove,EIec Exterior: Hnck,Vlrryl Air: Efectw,Gas,Elecbic,Gas,Window,Gas,G Roof: Wtr►If: Floor Cvr: Wood,Vmyl Fencing: Patio: Windows: Roads: Equlpmatd: Amendtas; Fireplace: Exclusions: APHt Sq Ft +/• : 0 ApTt sq Ft +I- : Stories: Rooms: Bedroom*: 3 FUN Baths: 3 112 Baths: 1 314 Bettis: Total Baths: 4 Workshop; Driveway: Garage Capacity: 3 Condition: Year Suit 1994 Age: Disabled Access: Rowe Information Living Room; 18x18 Dtnktg Room; 18x15 Kitchen: 18x16 Family Room: Other Room: Master Bdr: 15x13 Bedroom 2: 15x13 Bedroom 3: 13x13 Bedroom 4: Bedroom 5: Basement Level: tat Level: 2nd Lavet: 3rd Level: MI. Rate: Taxes: $1,682 Assassmant•. $0 Assess Year: Parcel ID: Financing: FHA,VA,VA.VA Eiam: Jr; Sr: Schools: Manufactured Detail ParkNarne: Park Approval: Transfer Fee: $0 Monthly Fee: $0 The !Property. Store . lihonnle Gills 0124/03 3418 W. Sunset Suite E MLSt'r' 345, 5Withdrawn $ 97000.00 Spr111pda to : AA 72762 PhpW:::419-7n24 fear 479-74244 1750 ZION Fayetteville AR 72701 R ....1N:TS;RNA1, ,!N' 0RMAT LJsting Agent Nedka Vain 4794214811 Lbit" Onbe: llndaey & Assoeplbs 4794214011 S: Owner: Finance Tenns: E ApptalserHama: Intsltanl R N:' County: Washhgton County AR I lst Da : 07 Panel N emno": wdrwn : 08/19/98 Enp :10 8 T. DOM: I Commissions/Fees A" Showing In t uctions: Buyer Agent Fee: 2.70 Pets•Remerks,Vacant Sifting Agent Fee: L$ l HtSgFt 100.680 S 1 Aere: 48500.00 Sold S f HtSgFt: S Contingency: 8►I r Consseslon: GORGEOUS CUSTOM BUILT HOME W/TOO MANY AMENITIES TO MENTION. CALL AGENT FOR HIGHLIGHT SHEET. GOURMET KIT WAS- LAND. 30x10 ENTRY & LIBRARY, 1EX16 STUDIO. OVER 30 GROWN OAKTREES. GREAT FOR ENTERTAINING. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot Dim: Acres: 2.000 Road Frond: Lot Sub: None Block: Lot Description: Lam: Pt S24 T17 R30 Tub/Shower: Heat: Air: Wtr Htr: Fencing: Windows: Cenlral,Gas Central,FJectric None FEATURES Coven: Zoning: Surveyed: Disclosure: Y Fid Zone: Foundation: Exterior: Brick Root. Floor Cvr: Wood Patti: Roads: ApHt Sq Ft +l.: 2950 ApTt Sq Ft+I- : Stories: 1 Rooms: Bedrooms:3 Fit Baths: 3 112 Bathst 1 3/4 Baths; a Total Baths: 4 Workshop: Dttveway. Garage Capacity: 2 Condition: Year Butt 1994 Age: Disabled Access: N Room Information Llvkng Room: 19'x18' Db*ig Room:l8'x1So Khdnn: 18'x18' Family Room: 18X10' Other Room: 8'x7'5 Master Bdr: 15'x13'5 Bedroom 2: 15'x13'5 Bedroom 3: 13'5x133 Bedroom 4: 13'5x13'3 Bedroom 5: Basement Level: tat Leval: 2nd Level: 3rd Level: MO. Rate: Taxes: $1,882 Assessment; $0 Assess Year: Parcel ID: Financing: Personal Schools; Elem: B -field Jr: W-4and Sr Utilities: Sewer,Weter-Pub AppOances: Rang e,GarbageDisp,DWwtasher,Gas Manufactured Detail w��trm, _I u. • • Park Approval: ParkName; Fireplace: Transfer Fee: $0 Exclusions: Monthly Foe: $0 ....- ......-,....I.-, a,... ,... ...,t .......... «......._-.............._...............-......__........,..,........_..... . 0.. 1.'.--._-. The;Property Store. 341A_W, Sunset. 3ufteE Springdale AR 72762 Phone: 479-750.x224 Fax::....479-750.4214 r:. ... . 1760 VON RD Fayetteville AR 72703 RINTERNAL INFORMATION '. Listing Agent Pat SuW8 443- 5217 Listing Office: Coldweli Danker Psucette Fayettav®e 479-8214220 S. a Owner: CoMdentiel Fpwnce Terms: Appraiser Name: Internal Remarks: arroRnte tiflC 07124/03 MLS# :3552 `Expired 289200:00 County: Washbtgton County AR Class: ' I List Da : 05!01100 Pend Date: Wdrwn Data: Exu Da !30100 DON: 162 Contmisgion&Fttes Showing Instructions: Slayer Agent Pee; 2-7 Lock Box,LeaveCard,CatitOrr,VacanI Selling Agent Fee: $1 HtSgFt: 89.730 $1 Acm: 34600.00 gold $1 HISgFt: t Contingency; SRWr Consseslen: CO -LISTED W/SHERRI FRY 444980t 30X10 ENTRY LIBRARY; 16X16 STUDIOANORKCHOP; LOTS OF CROWN MOLDING. GOURMET KITCHEN S/ISLAND & LOTS OF CAINETS. PARK -LIKE YARD WA.AROE OAK TREES, CIRCLE FRIVE. HOME WARRANTY. MOREI HJW 71 MID -NJY 265 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot Die: 0 Acres; 2.000 Road Front; Lot: 0 Sub: None Block: 0 Lot Descdpdon: Cleared, Sloped, View Legal: 24-17-30 Fay. Outiots FEATURES Tubwshower: Cmbation,$hower Neat: CenVal,Gas Au: CerMal,EJectric Wtr Htr: Gast Fanch None Windows: Metal,DouhlSPsne Ftndnntord* f;rrl7rfnan Rmk flat Coven:N Surveyed: N Zordng:R-1 Disclosure: Y Fid Zone: N Trad APHt Sq Ft+1-: 3000 ApTt Bq Ft +/-: Stories: 1 Rooms: 9 Bedrooms: 3 Fu! Baths. 3 112 Batts; 2 314 Baths: Total Bats: 5 Workshop: Dd veway: Gravel Garage Capacity: 2 Condition; Excellent Year Bult: 1994 Age:&10 Disabled Access: N Room Information Living Room: 19x18 Dining Room:18x15 Kitchen: 18xle Family Room: Otter Room; Master Bdr: 15x14 Bedroom 2: 15x14 Bedroom 3: 14x14 Bedroom 4: Bedroom 5: Basement Level: let Level: 2nd Level: 3rd Level: M6, Rate: 0 Taxes: $1,680 Assessment: $0 Foundation: CrawlSpaee Assess Year: Extra $or; Brick, Vmyl Parcel ID: 0 Roof: Asphltshngl Financing: Floor Cvr; Carpet,Tila,Vln !,Wood Patio: Patio,Covered Schools: Roads: Pub Elm: B -field Jr: W -land Ut0ates: ELEC,Gtb ee-P,weter-Pi,Sewsr-Pub • App*ances: Renee,Oven,Double,EScMc,VentAHood,GorbageDisp,Dislywasher Amenities: HomeWem.,Pantry,Wlklncloset,W/Dconn,lceMkrConn,CetNrgran,BPA4ns Flreplaoe: GasSV.LMn9 Exclusions: Sr: Manufactured Detail Approval: star Feet SO by Fee: $0 ........_ a... ,......_.,..._..........................,...._.,................................................ 1760 7J0N RD Fsyettsviis AR 72703 RINTERNAL :.:INFORMATION Listing Agent Dais CarlIOUJr 470402-217S Listing ORbe: Lindsey A Associates 470.621-5011 S •1 •owner. 0 D. Finance Terms: E Appraiser Nuns: Internal Remarks: T County; WeshMgtonCounlyAR Class' Last 10/10/00 Paid Date: Wdrwn Dab: F-xp Ds 10/04/01 DOM: 360 CommissionslFees Buyer Agent Fee: 2.7 8eang Aged Fse: $ 11N8gFt: 89.970 $ I Acre: 34950.00 Sold $1 Ht$gFt: $ Contingency: Be9arConsasslon: GREAT LOCATION. CLOSE TO MALL W/2ACRES. 3 SRNs OATH W/ALL HARDWOOD FLOORS. LARGE OPEN UVING AREAS. AU. LARGE ROOMS & HOBBY ROOM, PROPERTY DESCRIPTmPJ Lot Dlm: D Acres; 2.000 Road Front: Sub: 0 Lot Description; NotlnSub Legal: Pt 24-17-30 Tub/Shower. WNrVI.Shower Coven:N Zoning:R-t Lot: 0 Surveyed: N Disclosure: Y Block: 0 Fld Zone: N FEATURES Foundation: Slab , Contemp ApHt Sq Ft +l- : 3000 ApTl Sq Ft +/- : Statics: 1 Rooms: 9 Bedrooms; 3 Fug Baths: 3 112 Baths: 0 314 Baths: Total Baths: 3 Workshop: Driveway: Gravel Garage Capacity: 2 Condition: Excellent Year Built 1094 Age:6-1D Disabled Access: N Room Intormatkan Living Room:19x18 Dating Room:I8xi5 Kitchen: 18x16 Family Room: Other Room: Master Bdr 15x14 Bedroom 2: 15x14 Bedroom 3: 14x14 Bedroom 4: Bedroom 5: Basement Level: lit Level: 2nd Level: 3rd Level: Mti. Rate: Taxes: $1,680 Assessment: $0 Assess Year: Heat: 1,Cererel,Gas Exterior: Brick Parcel ID: Air 1Central,Eiectric Roof: AsphRShngl • Falanckp: wtr Htr: Gast Floor Cvr: Wood Ferrolp: None Patio: Deck Schools: Whitlows: Storm Roads: SuAPaved Elam: 84ekl Egi4pment: GatvrOpen.Smk Dot Jr: W4and Sr: Favettevife Utims: Telephone.sewer,ELEC,Gaa-Pub,Water-Pub Manufactured Detail AppUnces: Oven,Renge,VentAHood,Garbagetisp Make: MOAe1M: AmenMes: PanayJoeMkrConn,Ce*iglan,Btlt-Ms Semi# ParkName: Park Approval: Fireplace: WdBum Transfer Fee: $0 Excitsigrn: Monthly Fee: So -n.... ...�.. -... n — Iu.../iN. ,.1....-........ .. 1\, M. N.IP..... 1... 4.. The.Property Store...: 8honnie Gllbreath 07124W 3418.:W.Sunset SUlte k ' MESS 397859 Pendlnp $275000 Op Spun dale AR 72702 Phone:, . 470-750224 • Fax: 479-75042✓!4 Single Family 1750 ZION RD Fayetteville AR 72701 Traci TE N*.AL INF'ORMATION.' ApftsgFt+l-: 3000 .:APTt sq Ft +I.]EI Us*n0 Aount 8honri 3llpnath Phone: 61A P.01 The Property.Stort shonnle Gllbreelh :::... 071$' 3418 W. Sunset Suite k ... Mt S# 397!58 Pending $21$000400 :. . Springdale AR 727e2. Phone: 479-760.2224. Fax:' . 479.7%.4244: Single Family., .. . 1760 DON RD Fayetteville AR 72701 Trad ApHt$gPtN-: 3000 INTERNAL INFP.R'.MAt1ON ; .1 R 1-: Ft +1 IJORG AgenB Sbo" Sitbreath Phone: NA stxl s ; 1 • E LBWS Office: The Property store 479-750-2224 Rooms; 10 Badroornf; 3 S Canty: Washington County AR ull FBean: 112 a 14 I owrwr, Claw: Residential 3 3 a�sthel '-"-1-' p Fbxnnse Terms: L4! Date: 04109103 Workshop\ DrMWay: CkDINe,Grevel E Apprelser Nam.: Pared Data: 08111/0.1 Internal Ramada: Wdnm Dale: Camps Capacity; 2 N Corrr, : Good Rip Dale: 08)30/03N11 Year Buff 1994 Ags:B-10 T Dot 64 DUC: 43 DMabled Access: N I CanmisslonslFess sh owlog hnsbtwaons: Buyer Ag■M Pas: 3 Room Information A CaastOf,LeaveCwd,Lock Box,Vacant $sSig Agent Fes: UWrq Room: I9x19 L $ I HtSgFt: 91170 $ l Ain: 37500.00 SoS $ I IIISgFt $ Cortangsnry: Dining Rooln;18x15 seller Conseaabn. ■ KHthen: 18x18 Family Room: Other Room: Master Bdr; 15x14 REMARKS GREAT LOCATION IN CENTER OF FAYETlEVILLE, CONV. TO SPRINGDALE, CLOSE TO NWA MALL, Bedroom 2: 15x14 NICE LOCATION S LOT WITH BIG TREES, HARDWOOD FLOORS THROUGHOUT, BONUS ROOM Bedroom 3: 14x14 PERFECT FOR I/OME OFFICE WITH SEPERATE ENTRANCE. aedreom 4; Bedroom 5; DIRECTIONS Basement Level: 71 B EAST ON ZION RD HOUSE CTI LFxT. lot Level: IJ i7dJLiiD\7 1-7a:1;c i .in Acres; 2.000 Road Front Lot 0 Sub: Not In Sub Block: 0 Lot Description: Cleared Legal: Pt4-17-30 FEATURES WNrlpl,Trb,Shower Heat ContaLGes Alt: Cenhal,El%ttt WtrHU: Gal Fencing: None Whldows: Do blePane Eggyxnent Sink Dot Coven:N zoning:R-1 12nd Lem: Surveyed: N Disclosure: Y: Fld Zone:N MR\ Rafe: Taxes: $1,880 Assessment $0 Foundation: Slab Assess Year, Exterior: Bno*Vh 1 Parml C: Rant: Asphk2ingl Fblanning; Floor Cw; Yny4,Wood Path: Deck Schools: Roads; Pub Elam: Bfiekl Jr. Sr: Fev-MM UBRdes: cable,ELEC,Sewer,Telephone.Water-Pub Appliances: Dlsllwesher,GarbpgeUep,Rw ge AmerWks: Ce1ngfsn,Est-rrliLloeMMCem.W1klnCloaetW/Dcom,Cath.Ckq Fireplace: LMng,WdBurn Exckrslons: Menutaolurod Det9II Serials royal: N Fee: $0 see\ $0 -y •♦ -..... -Y..... .-.... ..Y -\L. ., ..a..I-.IL•1....-...• ..-....a.u.JY.4-JMVa.-.....- 1\..\. Y.IY\uYv.lvhl........ •1 Rt 1M1r `JI\{vi ♦ .[[YI n �' a ( 1 r ew2 J 1; Y It )!I/���"[ '• .� 1ffF [ a'1 1'[f l �� "S 11 A�t 1 %�I'i21 Al I? ; ft�iehli i r+ ~IN fl� } r r 1h—`- P 6hM'�J�yI l { } 'ya �j [ Fr i •-�! y1 ✓ i� Y" ! f p r L4 f �xm� �'rr�, l yr :. • (* [ rr p l -.I '4 '1 v[1 i 1 .R' P. V .n P ```y�.7�rPtt4 ,�Ir J�• Al�lai �i ii .'.-/I ( r �. i 1 1a .. y�V ! �a`A .✓.{3� I r A�11,• r. •'1 r yrJyx. y' . �• _. 1 .. a' a; t ('P I:':^ 1 l► °4` a `ivvf 1 tt��•lYY�yyl�lI�l j i.'G ��p,�if• ik �f n V M`a^lli,, t \\f\[I )I. `.i•ilp IVVA i 1 �' 'j / l r�r •,�•l'i{ 1 P •"""w. :. �A ``{i`.\\trM Y} 1 n .I J l L i Y • ] '4 �:' i •5: Ulf,, .1 1 w'H1 i I AID r � <�"'ihw�P�"}F�..�I _ ���,'i. Yfj' • p� P ' �I i .:� � A .nxL,l�i TI_ • {�I Fi A .I:jy+A 1. 1$, { /6Yky �j,{a�.i p tl I a1 a 'ai a 341' A���• �•FI��a+y ��I I 1 la1!){.4df4 I:• r l 1 14.K `l'AP Vi5r n .t (ll'. •J.� .., I 1 1 • y Ott , ca'r't 1". °r` tkd��t� - 1!-, Y.•„1 Y' r i�'4. r1 Ny( ♦y1� �• J , . •l ,♦• i '� I apl .Y.(� a �1 1nAtiFir� 1 � } �' 1 ._.�1JY.'� �e'a.♦�.a Iv R .e K .i 'i �. .f.. NI LI �SI i v , t' iti Rl � P 1♦11},"R n r ; i." ,A \ � - �[ E r i • 1 rla b e. 'f SJ '[ Alf i'c',, {� p I � rPi• off•�• ! .{,� a C _• ♦ y. 'y'� l-[P�l ' S� Y}, 1py.'I(• ,pll Ir ) a• •r I ,)..•. Ra. }1I/� q n !Q� ♦ i a f 1 r � jj la`J �~[ •9 Irl 1 • •,.y , 1 M v ! I ' a AEI ry p��l-{♦ �./'!',ti 7f , ..rat ,� 1 1 yii rl: Y.� 1� , J'\\a �[f l+Wr . !•'F'l .fii♦ r�11 1:. , f�d JI I). '!a` y� ys Va •a y j�p r '1't •t 1 y 1 a `y �I irl'1! • l,�p IN I 1i 1.1 y' I �• -i 1 �iyfr: L' I ♦ . y� / IN • LI II -4 e1 .14 I! la .11 \' Tl r . t 1 1'@ i • ')1 J :iY. it �♦ ia, _ 1ar �1' T-- 4 •, '; r d}, rL. 't }a Ir ,1'y.• ';�.' 1 'a nM 'S+cA '� 11•x} 'rl 1 k • y)It a • r � i e Y a I)� yl if •yP 4 a { t v Jr r,J}1 [t!1 { •,a 1 MC[ „ • t ..1R' " r•! r.x .. rl �!�py y K/w 4(a { t^ n 1 '1 1` /Opy • 'r 'i y ' RN r 1• r,,// t 1 "Itll �t �a{ hl]YIT 1a V 1Jl �r 1• : li Pv it �y%�y . ..b .r ]].:. l,y- y.. Irt i F} ^r'1.✓ �''- •1 t t ('c(}, 1 I II i�`•Klt} Ir1�p{ y I'r rr 1•i J ;ylA .� ., ..! •ii}L� ih\ I[/��{•llr:�ftF .- { lli il, a♦ ♦! •, '` at fey 1♦• I^(iI1,�1♦ ^ • !' ( 1 1 ;1 . l.ar ,5 i.11 ll / 11., • y rJ.r. ,1 T a 1 .rla 'F �pfT ar 4 ppllf;1' ) Ir 1'I„ R j lr . iIN ? ri Jy y I ,r �4>�I{• ,I fa, a t I] •aw1 i{'rM41 .ffr „( r/• ♦' I. fi K '. L�::af` Y V I I 1n } 'i jrl Y. I .Irr I w i 11.: � ,it' .•4L 'I�1�! l`tt r .I♦ I I. '`i_ s 1p�., ITT {(,r! Ii•, 1 1.}!: r' J {}r ( TI ., 1 ll! ♦0 . Iyt �Yafn P {u l,i r ' I. '} yl 1 y Y..li a r• + " i.• {1f( rtyf ~Tl \"Aaa P•[f. Fi.♦P} tY r 11Y1S ly. -Jlr. Y )1./ aAlrl.+ {:[ +i It +� S' 11 i ,V jlrvn•\i,Ylj}.���:. IG, ` Y'`•F Jiri - :•ae� ,� •' ryl t)j1r` '+ ffJ )i [ti P[ Ali a• ./a'O` • l'1 4 I ' a ��IA n. .� r%. iet 1� '��� f'v's •ntP YyyyKHYy"lir(` A}�Yj�I" p11/ J 13 '�A♦i} ., /l '• .i of l}Or^-^fil'. a,7 rg7"t I� 1.aiy ; IL,I {� �1, ' V" 'pl}I i 1 ♦♦' O �j� P:� l� i • _ •'I►.�f:' .. "I ` `•(% .rv( • .A r Ir. .l •..I r� 1 L', tl II 1.1 w. n• ry{_t yy.( •:.. �µ• a ''yJ •Y �rr ^I'f '`it� �.J�. 1 ['� 'II ,\IYI ib ( 1 .l.i I'. �n ., r ' .'Ai♦ai$5 ♦ ., +. n,•I 'lP i•�1 'wa•+� 1 flf. ! `'• ` • I'tj �I,e� Nf iii. Pf+�!a 1'111 x•• nI 1I �.1 ,. J ♦ ! r 1'e f r4 } r , iv I� IY� fXl ry j4 �� (��4:: ♦ 1 List. ;A lit 1# • L i IYr F } i yt ♦'1 1�1 n �'-Yh•NlIIN'!a ..�i[•i111xb - I ii.J� r! 11'I h �' lIII u� `I ♦1.' I\\�Ia X111 .( \ :I L LI 1 S �t II N' II VYr M•'�tiI II .f♦ 1� rz3K �, , t. 1 .k..u), t•,� i 1 I�6. • :\ - 'ls•.. I I: .. t • i! . y ' 1 r r� rt 1i I1 IYAI ` Ir II``I i .• ti3 : a 1 ( 4' .-(17.• 4a , •� W.t.., y .•- W` fl ^n•[•• 4� '•% a n' .+xt .,, ky ti Yr�� r. F F t rs. l 'I; AINo Ir v , / f Jti'. Y I•/,+,171 .�• I ~ 1 %1 '• 1M1 tV�11 IrI Itt�•IM} 1 uY.tN `. ♦♦'�n u • 1 T1 }'D J i•` ri•.I {. it v772P, tt( !r y,.c ,:I .•fir., [ of r 1,- Ir 'J/ J�'• [ll. r r ..r •\ t lt` I•. 2 {^ ar1 • _ d i I LI! ' � / • I T;...� ��� lI .t . lr� • c �.a �`I u,; �. 5 ♦ Ia .:1 ;IY.. 1..y. I . 1 I 1 V• LL • - ti a r'�lN r '\ • •Q"• lrt/a..9.n ." { awn i.1. y'�.•' (' I,, '• •' � •`� i l!' .4• . Y n i l ..yry .h< yN �?, M I ri4` ��. y t -•L l 1 Gam. vK.. • • / I. i:l y2rte. 4, •.1 :..-,:'p ?ti 111 •. 1 ` I i I 44 BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, "'41'`° , r ii{" Z .w (hereinafter "Petitioner") Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. Pope, hereby voluntarily offer this Bill of Assurance and enter 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 Petitioners and Petitioners' property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioners' rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to professional office (Use Unit 25) or a single family dwelling (Use Unit 8). 2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are limited to no additional building shall be constructed or placed on the property. 3. Ground vegetation in the yard on the property along both sides of the driveway and along Zion Road shall be cleared, or trimmed and maintained, so as not to obscure traffic visibility from Zion Road or the driveway. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall ran 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, Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. Pope, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign names below. Date Signa e and Printed Name Sou/ LOKCEY Address 4-i?9a��3 _ __ E eA_F_ q papa Signature and Printed Name NOTARY OATH STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON And now on this the 3/} day of �, 2003, appeared before me, Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. ope d after being placed upon his/her oath swore or affirmed that he/she agreed with the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his/he ame above. TARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: /0 -3-1/ Ottic�al seal LEE A. SILER Notary Pubko Arkansas WASHINGTON COUNTY MY Commission 'Aires 10-3-2011 RZN 03-22.00 (Pope) • • C. 3. Page 17 BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification, the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, o"3t `° f °{° Zwn (hereinafter "Petitioner") Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. Pope, hereby voluntarily offer this Bill of Assurance and enter 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 Petitioners and Petitioners' property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioners' rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City Council. 1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to professional office (Use Unit 25) or a single family dwelling (Use Unit 8). 2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are limited to no additional building shall be constructed or placed on the property. 3. Ground vegetation in the yard on the property along both sides of the driveway and along Zion Road shall be cleared, or trimmed and maintained, so as not to obscure traffic visibility from Zion Road or the driveway. 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 RZN 03-22.00 (Pope) C. 3. Page 18 noted on any Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF and inagreement with all the terms and conditions stated above, Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. Pope, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign names below. q -3i -p13 Signa e and Printed Name Date 3OO/ LoxtFY Address es a t �i�2Fv A poPt� Address 'y,tcf A'212103 ' Signature and Printed Name NOTARY OATH STATE OF ARKANSAS } COUNTY OF WASHINGTON } And now on this the day of , 2003, appeared before me, Ronny W. Pope and Karen A. ope d after being placed upon his/her oath swore or affirmed that he/she agreed with the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed hMTARY ove. IC My Commission Expires: official seal LEE A. SILER Notary Public -Arkansas WASHINGTON COUNTY My Commission-..Kpires 10-3-2011 ci • • ?tA' oaa-2a2zo (POPE) August 5, 2003 To whom it may concern: Re: Rezoning request at 1750 ii. Zion Ronny and Karen Pope have offered to purchase the property at 1750 East Zion Road contingent upon a rezoning approval of R -O. It is my understanding that the above mentioned property will he used as a Certified Public Accounting office. I own the adjoining property directly to the West (1720 East Zion). and have no objection to this property being rezoned to R -t). Sincerely, % Ji ' fin Tuggle 9 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Dawn Warrick Planning FROM: Sondra Smith City Clerk DATE: 08/27/03 SUBJECT: RZN 03-22.00 for Ronny and Karen Pope Attached is a copy of Ordinance No. 4507 approving RZN 03-22.00 for Ronny and Karen Pope. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. Thanks! Sondra Smith City Clerk cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor .John Goddard, IT Scott Caldwell, IT Clyde Randall, IT Ed Connell, Engineering RECEINfED SEP 1 q 2003 Legal Times newspaper, printed ' U B L IC AT IOC Ct-ERK'S OFFICE D 2) , do solemnly swear that I am s Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, that advertisement of: l ½ju2,i Vdo' was inserted in the regular editions on /13-C1? Po# 1 t3 - Y/� ** Publication Charge: $ /&'f • /dp Subscribed and sworn to. before me this 7fk day of SfP'-P.bQ✓',2003. ORDINANCE NO. 4607 fL•��z�N'/�zy� N ORDINANCE REZON Rz THAT F'ROPERiV DESCED RB IN REZOMNG PETII@! NON 03.22.00 AS BUBMRTED BY Notary Public RONNY AND KAREN POPE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 E. ZION ROAD FROM R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO R -O. RESIDENTIAL OFFICE SUBJECT TO A BILL OF ASSURANCE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE City Of Fayetteviue My Commission Expires: o____ APART HEREOF, HEREBY REFERENCED As EwiIBR -B• ea R ORDAINED By THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CRT OP PAYUT79YIW, ARKANSAS: Please do not pay from Affidavit. An invoice will be sent. Official Seal SEAN -MICHAEL ARGO Notary Public -Arkansas WASHINGTON COUNTY My Commission Expires 07-25-2013 I Secton 1: That the zone dassiflcaton of the following described properly Is hereby changed as fdlows: From RA. Rodtlentlel Agrlaitural. to R -O, ReselentW Onto as shown In EOibl1-A- attached hereto and . made a part hereof. Secten 2. That the offidal icing map of the sty of Fayettaville, Mkertses, Is hereby amended to reflect ,.a the zortlrg change provided In Section 1 above. _ Section 3. That this rezarirg is made wbjecl to the BI of Aswence attached a9 EMtlbit'B-. PASSED and APPROVED thi 19th day of August. 2003. APPROVED: EXHIBIT'A' RZN 03-22.00 PART OF THE NE _ OF THE SW - OF SECTION 24, Ti 7N. R3OW OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MEPoDVW IN WASHINGTON COUNTY. ARI 4146A8 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO -W11 COMMENCING AT THE NROTIM'EST CORNER OF SAID NE u SW _ THENCE 50 11 39-E 239.29 FEET THENCE EAST 243.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE EAST 148.92 FEET, THENCE 5011 39E 585.00 FEET, THENCE WEST 148.92 FEET THENCE N0°11'39 W 585,00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: CONTAINING 2.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 16O7 • FAYETTEVIIIF, ARKANSAS 72702 i