HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4562'Oy �
FI.LEO
r HY 1 Rn y1
ORDINANCE NO. 4562 27
KA^c ,
co r' O0JV PRIT
AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEX(AtiT P�R N TE 0 eRK
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF �2T=A'�31 0 JERK
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE PROPOSED 0. ARK.
CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE III SUBDIVISION, WEST OF
DEANE SOLOMON ROAD AND SOUTH OF SALEM ROAD
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 72.50 ACRES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section l: That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
Section 2: The official map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended
to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is
hereby amended to assign the zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the subject
property.
Section 4: That the above -described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. Four.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4`h day of May, 2004.
;FAYETTEVILLE'
ATTEST:
By: Oba-o✓g MADU
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
, Mayor
I IIIIIII IIIIII III IIIII IDoc ID: IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII
Recorded: 05/21/20040atrOgel9:17 AM
Fee Amt:
Weshl ngton County. AR
Sette Stamoa Clrcult Clerk
Flle2004-00019668
EXHIBIT "A"
ANX 03-06.00
THE NE %4 OF THE NE '/4 OF SECTION 32 AND PART OF THE E %z OF THE SE '/4 OF
SECTION 29, ALL IN T-17-N, R-30-W, THAT PART BEING IN SECTION 29 IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION
29, THENCE WEST 1320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE SE'/4 OF
THE SE '/4 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH TO A POINT 384.25 FEET SOUTH OF
THE NW CORNER OF THE SE '/4 OF THE SE '/4 OF THE SAID SECTION 29; THENCE
N8302211855E 1067.69 FEET; THENCE NO2°35'14"E 357.47 FEET TO A POINT 35 FEET,
MORE OR LESS SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 894; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY PARALLELING SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 268.54 FEET,
MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE E'/z OF THE SE'/4 OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 1574 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 72.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
0512112004 0&19:17 AM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 20 000068
Cle6k
Bette StamPs Circuit
by
ftA)x 03- 6,400
• H-e,51<.,•ns1S A1J
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
NO.
��"�® �—
C�
DCD
N
TO THE COUNTY JUDGE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
=
RO
o
---4
—
v
—
PETITION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO
C>
r
m
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILI WASHINGTON COUNTY o
C> m -E 3
Comes now the petitioners, Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. and Sylvia Follows Schlegel, Husband a d4VA?
and for their Petition to annex certain property into the City of Fayetteville, Washin�om (Founp?
Arkansas, pursuant to A.C.A: Section 14-40-601, et. Seq.. States as follows:
That petitioners, Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. and Sylvia Follows Schlegel, Husband and
Wife, own the real property described on the Plat Map, Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and made a part hereof; and said property is situated in Washington County,
Arkansas, and is contiguous with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and is within
the City of Fayetteville, School District.
2. That the petitioners desire that their property become part of the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, and petition the County Judge for annexation of the
property into the City of Fayetteville.
3. That a true and correct presentation of the property and how it is contiguous to
the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is shown on the Plat Map, Exhibit "A", attached
hereto.
4. That the petitioners herein desire that the property become part of the City of
Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, and petitioners state that they will do
any and all legal acts necessary to accomplish the objective set forth herein.
Page 1 of 2
-n
r
M
Q
Ben F. Schlegel, Jr.
lim ..e.P wd)
Sylv Fellows Schlegel'
SUBSCRIBEa AND- SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public
on this the q day of A 72002.
My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL SEAL
JOHN H. DUKE III
NOTARY PUBLIC. ARKANSAS
S WASHINGTON COUNTY
I SIGN I:XP OV1012005
Page 2 of 2
I
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
FILED
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS T92IM
18 RM 9 17
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS MARILYN E. �1 AP OFsase No. CC 2002-19
CO. & PROBATE CLERK
µ1ASHINCT04' CO. ARK.
ORDER OF ANNEXATION
Now on this 18' day of November, 2002, this cause comes on to be heard, the Petitioner,
Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. and Sylvia Follows Schlegel, Husband and Wife, represented by the Engineer
of Record, Mel Milholland, after announcing the hearing of the cause and there being no protests
or objections, whereupon, the matter is submitted to the Court upon the Petition filed herein, and
the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Court being well and sufficiently advised finds:
The Petition in this cause was filed October 15's, 2002, at which time this Court
fixed November 18'", 2002, at 9:00 a.m., as the date and time of hearing for said
cause, and that a full thirty (30) days notice of hearing was given as required by
law and the proof of publication of said notice is now on file with the Clerk of this
Court and the Court has jurisdiction of this cause.
2. The Court is satisfied that the allegations of the Petition are sustained by the proof,
that the limits of the territory to be annexed have been properly filed; that the
property owner has a freehold interest in the property hereinafter described in the
Petition and constitutes the real owner of the area affected.
The land proposed to be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County,
Arkansas, in this cause is described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
4. The area is not unusually large
and
it is contiguous
and
adjacent to and adjoins the
present corporate limits of the
City
of Fayetteville,
and
it is adapted for urban
purposes and this territory should be annexed to and made a part of the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
IT IS THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
aforesaid real estate situated in Washington County, Arkansas, is hereby annexed to and made a
part of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, in accordance with Acct. No. I of the Acts of the
Legislature of 1875 of the State of Arkansas, and all Acts amendatory thereto, particularly
including Act 142 of the Acts of Arkansas for thee year 1953, as codified in Ark Code Arm. § 14-
40-601, et seq., and this Order shall be duly recorded by the Clerk of Washington County.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18d day of November, 2002.
County Judge
EXHIBIT A
TRACT B OF SCHLEGEL PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED AND REZONED
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 32 AND PART OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4
OF SECTION 29, ALL IN T-17-N, R-30-W, THAT PART BEING IN SECTION 29 IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION
29, THENCE WEST 1320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE SE 1/4
OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH TO A POINT 384.25 FEET
SOUTH OF THE NW CORNER OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SAID SECTION
29; THENCE N83122'18"E 1067.69 FEET; THENCE NO2°35'14"E 357.47 FEET TO A
POINT 35 FEET, MORE OR LESS SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD
No. 894; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY PARALLELING SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE
OF 268.54 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF
SAID SECTION 29; THENCE SOUTH 1574 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 72.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS,
FROM WACO CLERK
v
Sandra L. Hochstetler
Chairman
(501)682-1455
Daryl E. Bassett
Commissioner
(501)682-1453
Randy Bynum
Commissioner
(501) 682-1451
June 1, 2004
(WED)JUN 2 2004 11:10/ST
• ARKANSAS •
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
TAX DIVISION
1000 Center Street
P.O. Box 8021
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-8021
Phone (501) 682-1231 Fax (501) 682-6043
E-mail: taxApsc.slate.ar.us
Ms. Shirley Brown
Washington County Deputy Clerk
280 North College Avenue, Suite 300
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Annexations
Dear Ms. Brown,
11:10/NO.6314274065 P 1
RNt A]'1]
r
r�
Sarah M. Bradshaw
Director
(501) 682.1231
O
x
G
Z
-n
N r
m
� v .
ei
r
This is to acknowledge receipt of annexation(s) order of annexation CC-2002-19, CC-
2003-14 and CC-2003-28. The information has been forwarded to the appropriate
utilities.
Sincerely,
kf'u
Kathy Hug s
Executive Secretary
FROM WRCO CLERK
Charlie Daniels
Secretary of State
June 3, 2004
The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard
Washington County & Probate Clerk
280 North College Ave., Suite 300
Fayetteville, AR. 72701
Dcar Ms. Pritchard:
(FRI)JUN 4 2004 14:09/ST.14:09/NO.6314274078 P 2
Sta• of Arkansas
Secretary of State
unslness at Commercial Selvlci
dectlnl"
nuilding ar Grounds
Communications At educatlgli
state Capitol PollcaE
O
51,'JiucY301ticc 3bln
iT1
Information Tcchnipgp
a
yy
v
C5
1��p0
n
O
;
-4�m
Z
a
to
-a
e5
m
o
�
o
-4
r
^'
s
z
c
O
15A3 OS`l
i
602.5173
C.
682-8032
z
6823411
'TT
M
v
�
0
re
The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State:
Date: 06/03/2004
Annexation:
Incorporation:
Census Information
1sl Class City
2nd Class City
Incorporated Town
County: Washington City: Fayetteville
Ordinance No. - 4562
Co. Order No CC 2000-19
Plat x
Election
Island
Ordinance No.
Co. Order No.
Plat
Election
1 have forwarded this information to the Arkansas Municipal League. If you have any further
questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 1-800-482-1127 or 682-3451.
Sincerely,
I.eanna Godley V
Election Services Representative
Room 256 State Capitol • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.1094
501.682.1010 • Pax SOI682.3510
e-mail: sosiiiaristotle.net • www.sos.arkansas.gov
I
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4562
w/Ex. A
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1
03/18/04
Imemo to mayor & city council
2
draft ordinance
3
03/03/04
memo to Planning Commission
4
Annexation Guide from General Plan 2020
5
copy of Table 6
6
11/03/04
letter to Dawn Warrick
7
memo from Milholland Company
8
10/31/04
memo from Ben & Sylvia Schlegel
9
11/21/04
memo to Planning Commission
10
10/04/02
letter to Tim Conklin
11
copy of map
12
memo to Planning Commission
13
copy of map
14
12/02/02
letter to Planning
15
letter to Janet Strain
16
letter to Janet Strain
17
12/03/02
letter to Planning Commission
18
copy of photo
19
copy of Planning Commission minutes
20
copy of Close Up View
21
copy of Future Land Use
22
copy of One Mile View
23
copy of Annexation Petition filed w/Wash. Co.
24
copy of Order of Annexation filed w/Wash. Co.
25
03/24/04
Staff Review Form
26
05/11/04
memo to Dawn Warrick
27
05/13/04
Affidavit of Publication
28
copy of Petition to Annex
29
copy of Notice
30
copy of Order Setting Hearing
31
copy of Order of Annexation
32
copy of letter to Shirley Brown
33
copy of letter to Karen Combs Pritchard
34
letter from Sec. of State
NOTES:
05/21/04 Ifiled w/Wash. Co. Circuit Clerk
City Council ivieeting of April 06, 2004 4156a
Agenda Item Number „
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO 141W 4&4041)11165,C'A45
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator I Hhr(
Date: March 18, 2004 NNN'
Subject: Annexation for Hoskins/Schlegel (ANX 03-06.00)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation for Hoskins/Schlegel.
This action will incorporate a 72.5-acre tract of land contiguous with the city limits into
the City of Fayetteville. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of
Fayetteville.
BACKGROUND
The subject 72.5 acre vacant tract of land is located west of Deane Solomon Road and
south of Salem Road. Phase III of Crystal Springs Subdivision is directly south of the
property. Annexation and rezoning requests for this tract of land have been requested
since 2002. The initial request in 2002 was for annexation and rezoning of the property
from R-A to RSF-7, Residential Single Family, seven units per acre. Staff recommended
denial of this request, citing concerns with the density proposed and the inability of the
city to provide adequate public services to this particular area. Specific concerns included
both the fire response time and the capacity of the wastewater system. Fire Station 47 has
recently been approved for development on Rupple Road, and a system -wide wastewater
capacity study identifies this area as having the capacity to serve existing and proposed
development, both of which alleviates the concerns of staff and the Planning
Commission. Additionally, the original application was withdrawn and submitted in its
current format, an annexation and rezoning request from R-A to RSF-4. Development on
this site will be regulated by the city allowing for a more uniform and consistent
development pattern making better use of city infrastructure.
Proposal: The applicant requests annexation into the City of Fayetteville, along with the
companion rezoning request.
DISCUSSION
On November 24, 2003, the Planning Commission tabled this item at the request of the
staff. Staff was not recommending in favor of the annexation at that time. Staff s
recommendation was later amended to reflect changed conditions (progress on the
development of a new fire station to serve the west side of Fayetteville, review of the
system -wide wastewater capacity study). On March 08, 2004, the Planning Commission
Table wmu Ay 1//
AO vn, /.*e A*' 4* 0///o7(
• City Council teeting of April 06, 2004
Agenda Item Number
voted 9-0-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval
of the annexation with a companion rezoning request.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE PROPOSED
CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE III SUBDIVISION, WEST OF
DEANE SOLOMON ROAD AND SOUTH OF SALEM ROAD
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 72.50 ACRES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
Section 2. The official map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended
to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is
hereby amended to assign the zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the subject
property.
Section
4.
That the above -described
property is
hereby assigned to Ward No. Two.
PASSED
AND APPROVED this
day of
2004.
ATTEST:
By:
Sondra Smith, City Clerk
APPROVED:
By:
Dan Coody, Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
ANX 03-06,00
THE NE '/a OF THE NE '/a OF SECTION 32 AND PART OF THE E %z OF THE SE '/a OF
SECTION 29, ALL IN T-17-N, R-30-W, THAT PART BEING IN SECTION 29 IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION
29, THENCE WEST 1320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE SE '/4 OF
THE SE '/< OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH TO A POINT 384.25 FEET SOUTH OF
THE NW CORNER OF THE SE '/4 OF THE SE '/4 OF THE SAID SECTION 29; THENCE
N83022'18"E 1067.69 FEET; THENCE NO2°35'14"E 357.47 FEET TO A POINT 35 FEET,
MORE OR LESS SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 894; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY PARALLELING SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 268.54 FEET,
MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE E'/1 OF THE SE %4 OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 1574 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 72.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEV ILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of March 08, 2004
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: March 03, 2004
ANX 03-06.00: Annexation (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland Company on
behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III
subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains
approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville.
Planner: Jeremy Pate
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included as
part of this report,
RLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
("pproved O Denied
March 08, 2004
COUNCIL ACTION:
Aarill06, 2004
I : �K!]:�1111►1177
Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Property Characteristics: The subject property is 72.5 acres of vacant property located west of
Deane Solomon Road and south of Salem Road. Salem Road at this location is a gravel road and
does not meet city street standards. Deane Solomon Road also does not meet city street standards.
Single family residences are located north of the subject property along Salem Road. Areas to the
west and south are vacant. Crystal Springs Subdivision, Phase III is proposed south of the subject
property. Gypsum Dr., a Collector Street, is shown on the Master Street Plan as an east and west
connection through the subject property. A portion of Gypsum Dr. was constructed when the Crystal
Springs, Phase I subdivision was developed.
An annexation and rezoning request was previously petitioned for the subject property in December
of 2002. At the time, staff recommended denial for both the annexation and rezoning requests, citing
K:IReporuL70041PC Report 103-08-04WNX R7-N (Sddegel)UNX 03-06.00 (Sddegel).doc
concerns for Fire response times and increased loading onto existing infrastructure, particularly the
wastewater system. The recommendation for denial was based on the inability of the city to provide
adequate services to this particular area. Actions are being taken to remedy both situations: The
Large Scale Development for Fire Station #7, to be located on Rupple Road, has been approved by
Planning Commission and awaits final construction documents and permitting; a report from a
system -wide wastewater study has been submitted and adequate capacity has been identified to serve
this area for existing and proposed development (see attached). The proposal to annex was tabled in
November, 2003, pending results from the wastewater capacity analysis.
Proposal: The applicant would like to develop a single family residential subdivision.
Request: The applicant is requesting to be annexed into the City.
Related Issues: When property is annexed into the City, it is annexed as R-A Residential
Agricultural. If the annexation is recommended for approval to City Council, the applicant would
like to rezone the 72.5 acres to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 Units per Acre. The rezoning
request, RZN 03-34.00, is an accompanying item to this annexation request.
Recommendation: Based on the information provided from the wastewater capacity study and
the findings included in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the annexation request.
Future changes or additional development on this site will be regulated by the city allowing for a
more uniform and consistent development pattern.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single family residential
In county, no zoning.
South
Planned residential subdivision
RSF-4, Res. Single Family, 4 DU/Acre
C stal S rin s, Phase III
East
Undeveloped -
C-PZD
S rin oods C-PZD
West
Undeveloped
In county, no zoning
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: North: East Salem Road (Collector) — Does not meet City street standards
South: Proposed connections through Crystal Springs II subdivision
East: Deane Solomon Road (Collector) — Does not meet City street standards
West: Master Street Plan shows Raven extended north (Collector)
Further west is Salem Road (Collector)
Gypsum Dr., a Collector, is shown on the Master Street Plan as an east and west
connection through the subject property. A portion of Gypsum Dr. was
constructed when the Crystal Springs, Phase I subdivision was developed.
K. IRepor&L7004PC Reportr103-08-04WNX R7.N(Schlegel)WNX03-06.00(SdJegel).doc
At the time of development, Staff will recommend improvements to the roadway
from the subject property to Deane Solomon Road, to City standards.
Water: The property currently has access to an 8" water line that will be stubbed out from
the proposed Crystal Springs 3 subdivision. An extension of the water main will
be required to provide water supply within any development on this property. The
main will also have to be looped to the north to connect with the 2" line along
East Salem Road to provide dual feed for the development.
Sewer: The site currently has access to an 8" sewer main that will be stubbed out from the
proposed Crystal Springs III subdivision. Sewer will need to be extended within
the development.
Fire: The subject property is located 3.5 miles from the proposed Fire Station #7 on
Rupple Road. Normal driving time is 5 min. 42 seconds. Water supply will be
necessary for this property to develop. Access roads and street improvements to
allow for necessary fire apparatus ingress/egress will also be required.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site as Residential.
FINDINGS:
11.6 ANNEXATION GUIDING POLICIES
BOUNDARIES
11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an
island or peninsula.
Finding: The requested annexation will not create an island or peninsula.
11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
Finding:
The proposed
annexation area is adjacent
and contiguous
to the western City
Limits.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not
divide.
Finding: The proposed annexation is for an area proposed for residential development.
Development plans will include the extension of single family neighborhoods
into this area.
11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
K: IReportsld004WC Reports103-08-04WNX RZN (Schlegel) UNX03-06.00 (Sddegel).doc
Finding: Proposed boundaries follow property lines or desired property lines.
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Finding: The timing of the requested annexation is sufficient. Reports from a system-
wide wastewater capacity analysis have been submitted, indicating that
adequate capacity for development of the property is available. Additionally, the
Fire response time provided by the Fire Marshal's Office (5 min. 42 sec.) is
from the proposed Fire Station #7 on Rupple Road, which has been approved
for development.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and
utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Finding: N/A
EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES
11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
Finding: Fire Department: Response time to this location could be as long as seven
minutes from the current closest station. The Fire Department has provided
response times of 5 min 42 sec from the proposed Fire Station #7 on Rupple
Road. Fire Station #7 has been approved for development by the Planning
Commission and awaits submittal and approval of construction and permit
documents. Water supply and fire hydrants will be required with development.
Vehicle access will also be required with a twenty foot minimum wide access.
Police: Will not have a significant impact on police services, however the Police
Dept. has expressed concerns regarding the West Salem Road access in its
current, unimproved condition. Without improvements or the addition of
alternate access, 290 potential units would create an appreciable increase in
traffic danger and congestion in this location.
11.61 Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city
limits.
Finding: With the pending installation of a new fire station in the general area, service
will be able to be provided at a more appropriate level of service with a shorter
response time than what can be provided to the site currently. Sewer
improvements to the area are needed for existing and already approved
developments.
K:IReportsp004PCReporu103-08-04NNX RZN(Schlege!)IANX03-06.00(Sddege!).doc
11.6.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment,
training of personnel, number of units and response time.
Finding: These factors were taken into consideration in the responses and
recommendations included in this report.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
11.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
Finding: Fire and police protection are currently provided in this area. Water and sewer
lines are in the nearby vicinity, and are being extended with adjacent
subdivision developments.
11.61 Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the
demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety.
Finding: Public Works: The proposed annexation and ultimate development will increase
the loading on the existing infrastructure systems. The City has had some
recent capacity concerns with the sanitary sewer lift stations in this area, and
recently completed a comprehensive wastewater capacity analysis. The
completion of this study was required to prove the adequacy of the sewer
downstream of this development. If the existing lift stations are not capable of
handling the increase in flow, then improvements must be made to
accommodate the additional loads.
Planning: The proposed annexation and potential rezoning could result in 290
units. Using 2.21 persons per occupied unit (2000 Census for Fayetteville), the
total population of this rezoning could be 641 persons.
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas
based on planned service extensions or availability of services.
Finding: The proposed annexation is not part of a phased annexation initiated by the
City.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
Finding: N/A
11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and
sewer.
K:IReportsl10041PC Reporls103-08-04W NX RZN (Schkge!)IAA'X 03-06.00 (Sddegel).dx
Finding: N/A
ADMINISTRATION OF ANNEXATIONS
11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
Finding: Annexations are automatically zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. The
applicant is requesting to rezone the 72.5 acres to RSF-4, Residential Single
Family, 4 units per acre.
11.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals.
Finding: Planning staff has asked the Engineering Division, Fire Department and Police
Department to study this annexation request to determine if facilities and
services are available to serve this request. Responses are included in the staff
report.
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
Finding: The development of the subject property will be required to go through the
development review process.
11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
Finding: Adjoining neighbors have been notified of the annexation request. A legal ad
and display have both been submitted with a local newspaper prior to the
Planning Commission meeting for which this item is scheduled.
IL 6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
Finding: Staff finds
that this
request
is of acceptable size.
The request creates a
reasonable
boundary
avoiding
the creation of islands
or peninsulas.
11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
Finding: N/A
K:IReports12004NCReports103-08-04WNX RZN(SchlegeQUNX03-06.00(SdJegel).do
From Fayetteville General Plan 2020 — 2002 Revision
11.6 Annexation Guiding Policies
Boundaries
11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or
peninsula.
11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide.
11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize
appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Emergency and Public Services
11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
11.61 Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits.
11.6.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment, training of
personnel, number of units and response time.
Infrastructure and Utilities
11.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
11.61 Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of
development unless there is a threat to public safety.
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on planned
service extensions or availability of services.
Intergovernmental Relations
11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and sewer.
Administration of Annexations
11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
1.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals.
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
K: IBepora'2004PC RepornI03-08-0414NX RZN (Schlegel) UNX 03-06.00 (Schlegel).doc
0
�
®
,
OMQ
\e$�
trio
§i
moo»
/±w
\
/
}
C7%
\
\.�
`~~
;
7
�I«§
;
70
ant
ƒC
\\
rI
L
rnoerwy 8Sanleyiag
Melvin L. Milholland, PE, PLS
November3. 2003
FAYETTEVILLE
125 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
ATTN: Dawn Warrick, Planning Division
RE: Schlegel Property - Annexation and Zoning continuation
Dear Dawn:
REGISTRATIONS:
PE: AR, MO
PLS: AR
Project No. E-689
Milholland
Company (MCO),
on behalf of our Client, Tracy Hoskins,
and
that of Schlegel,
request the
continuance of the.
referenced property for annexation into
the
City of Fayetteville.
Mel and Tracy, I believe, both have spoken with you on this matter.
Attached is correspondence received, dated October 31, 2003, and signed by both Sylvia and
Ben, requesting that the previous submitted petition for annexation be continued. Please note the
exception of need for a Lot Split assuming annexed zoning of RSF4 (explanation herein). MCO
has updated the attached plat to indicate current parcel numbers and changes in ownership.
In all cases, please change any reference or indication of Mark Marquess to:
Tracy Hoskins
3588 Buckingham Drive.
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Also attached with this request for continuance, are two (2) sets of mailing labels and other
required items for placing the Schlegel property back into the processing schedule. The Decree,
Order for Annexation, signed by The Honorable Jerry Hunton, Washington County Judge, is still
valid at this time, is my understanding. I realize that public advertisement of the Annexation and
Re -zoning will have to occur again, but am enclosing copy of the previously submitted data only
for referencing and review.
I am assuming that all previously submitted applications (no Lot Split of the requested parcel for
annexation will be required assuming that a zoning designation of RSF4 is given), remains
applicable and that no additional fees are required.
205 West Center Street; Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 4434724; Fax: (479) 443-4707; E-mail: MCOeugr(tswbell.net
'�•«� amrany REGISTRATIONS:
`�"91teeP19�une�ing PE: AR, MO
Melvin L.'Milholland, PE, PLS PLS: AR
I was made aware of the Schlegel desire to continue the annexation and re -zoning process later
Friday afternoon and have not fully reviewed current changes to the processing procedure,
therefore, there may be the need for additional items than are attached. MCO will promptly
provided any missing data.
It is my understanding that property annexed into the City now becomes zoned RS174, Single
Family Residential at a density of 4 units per acre. If that is correct, it is our Client's intention
and that of Schlegel for the property to be zoned RSF4. I would like to follow-up this
corresoondence and submitted_ data by meeting with you to to over the processing schedule,
present any missing data, and to review with you our Client's development intentions. Please
advise of a convent time.
Should there be any question as to the purpose of this submitted request for continuance of the
Annexation process or others, please call me.
As always your assistance and cooperation are appreciated, and in this matter are especially
welcomed.
Projects Manager
cc: Tracy Hoskins
Sylvia Schlegel
205 West Center Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 443.4724; Fax: (479) 443A707; E-mail: MtOengrPswbell.net
p�� c_L
Ben F. Schlegel, �. FareFr� u AR 72701
SyMa Fellows Schlegel
October 31, 2003
City of Fayetteville
Planning and Development.
Dear Dawn Warrick:
Please be advised that we would like to continue our petition for annexation, lot split and rezoning; as
described in "EXHIBIT A7 attached. Please note; the Developer has been chv.aert from Mark
Marquess to Tracy Hoskins as our designated representative and proposed developer. Please be
informed and make any necessary changes in the previous applications to reflect my representative
from Mark Marquess to Tracy K Hoskins. All items will remain the same with the exception of the
rezoning application amending proposed rezoning from "R1.5" to "RSF4".
Sincerely,
-3F. Schlegel
;`�-r�
Sylvia lows Schlegel '
mmmmmm�►.�
TRACT B OF SCHLEGEL PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED AND REZONED
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 32 AND PART OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4
OF SECTION 29, ALL IN T-17-N, R-30-W, THAT PART BEING IN SECTION 29 IS MORE.
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION
29, THENCE WEST 1320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE SE 1/4
OF THESE I/4 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH TO A POINT 384.25 FEET
SOUTH OF THE NW CORNER OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SAID SECTION
29; THENCE N83°22' 18"E 106.7.69 FEET; THENCE N02035`14"E 357:47 FEET TO A
POINT 35 FEET,'MORE OR LESS SOUTH -OF THE CENTERLINE. OF COUNTY ROAD .
No. 894'� THENCE NORTHEASTERLY -PARALLELING SAID CENTERLIJE A DISTANCE
OF. 268.54 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OFF THE E I/2 OF THESE I/4 OF
SAID.SECTION 29; THENCE SOUTH 1574'FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 72.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS.
0 �)' vt
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPERTY TO BE REZONED
AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
IOLG �%ZZ•Li2C%I'�Gu/
Applicants Signature
,2
/// UL d l ompaiu� • REGISTRATIG•
&S WW=q C7 J uva f of PE: AR MO
Melvin L. Milhollard, PE, PLS PLS: AR
MEMO TO FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING
November 21, 2003
"SCHLEGEL ANNEXATION & REZONING"
"PROPERTY DESCRIPTION"
REQUEST* ANNEXATION: . "ANX 03-06.00"
REQUEST: REZONING: "RZN03-34.00"
To: - Dawn Warwick:
The "Metes & Bounds" description of the 72.50 acres, more or less, submitted for annexation and rezoning is
reported by your staff as the reason to recommend "Tabling" this request. The staffs statement of reason is
"Closure Errors", defined as "Discrepancies" in the description, which have to be resolved before further action
A large percentage of the previous annexations and rezonings of many cities are done so without the benefit of a
boundary survey with computed bearings and distances to more particularly define the direction and distances along
a property boundary line or fines called for in the deed or description. Bearing and dismacer are on the assurance
needed to orooerly identify the boundaries of a deed, or a land description. Monuments identify the proper
boundaries of a trw of land when described with "Metes & Bounds"calis . Thee monuments can be surveyed by
an experienced Professional Surveyor. These monuments include descriptive items, as well as, physical items.
Liereripifve Uems, which may be called our in the land description, are not always visible in the field by initial
observation, but can be located by a experienced Professional Surveyor by proper surveying technics & procedures.
Descriptim Uems are usually the strongest tears that define the boundaries of land, such as, "....the SE 1/4
of the SE 1/4, of Section 10, T-IbN, R-30-W of the fin, Principal Meridian....... "........ or, .... "... the south
east comer of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4.... ........ or,... " the centerline (or south right-of-way) of County
Road No.43... or,..College Avenue"...., or ... "..... beginning at a point on the 40 acre line 257.50 feet south of
the North west comer of said 40 none tract_", .. and, each of these type items can be located by a surveyor..
Physical items described in a "Metes & Bounds" land description may or may not be field located by the surveyor.
Some ahvsicai items defined in the land description may also be a descriptive item, and is a principai
monument, such as ......... ..... the centerline of a creek or street or road, or the rfghtof--way of a road... ",
which are monuments and can be located by the surveyor.
Other items called for in a "Metes and Bounds" description, such as, iron pins, stones & fence comes; are not
always monuments, but only physical evidenceof a possible previous survey. The latter of the above are
secondary monuments and must be proven if used by the surveyor to represent & identify the chain -of -title
comers dwough a proper "Sectional -Breakdown".
The metes and bounds description of lands submitted for said annexation and rezoning is described by very strong
"Descriptive calls", and can be surveyed by a Professional Surveyor, and the boundary of the tract of land in
question will not be different than than submitted. - -
The emoroftlosure in your staff report is a "MATHEMATICAL" problem, not a land line "BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION" closure problem. There are no "discrepancies" in the land description, it can be surveyed as
described. - .. .
1, on behalf of my client, respectfully request the land description as submitted be used as land requested for said
.. annexatiou and.reoning.. - .. .
With over 31 years of Professional Surveying experience in Northwest Arkansas, it is my recommendation to
continue to use descriptions defined in Sectional Breakdowns and/or Metes & Bounds in the future, and not give
ALL the credibility to "Mathematical Closures" by computers, except when the land description is presented in a
survey form by a Registered Professional Survey"..
Respect Ity submi r{E7 �.11V
M r ollan4 Arkansas P.L.S No. 648. NO4 i ' 2O03
Cc file Trwy Hodum iP Ailiivi:vvG DIV.
205 West Center StreeK Fayetteville, Adonsu 72701; Pboar (479) 4434724; Far (479) 4434707; [-mail: MCOenfrr0swbell.net
WilhoCland ampany REGISTRATIONS:
PE: AK OK MO
Melvin L Milholland; PE, PLS PLS: AR, OK
October 4, 2002
City of Fayetteville
Mr: Tim Conklin, Planner
113 West Mountain Street
.Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
RE: SCHLEGEL REZONING
Project No. E-614
Dear Thn:
In.response totheCity of Fayetteville Application for Rezoning, the following is submitted:
-sir. Current ownership and proposed/pending property sales:
Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. & Sylvia Fellows Schlegel
722 Franklin Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72761
Proposed sale to Sierra RE., LLC for Proposed "Schlegel Subdivision"
S: b. Reason for requesting zoning change:
Owner has offer to sell property for subdivision, based on approved Rezoning
5, c.. Surrounding properties: land use, traffic, appearance and signage:
Undeveloped to the West, North and East; a Resident Subdivision planned for the South.
Traffic is presently low to moderate, except school traffic.
Appearance and"signage is will be discussed during LSD Review.
5.d Water and sewer availability, line size:.
8" Water and 8" Sewer
6.a The degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with the land use planning
objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans:
Consistent with City Land Use and Zoning Plans .
6. b. Whether the proposed zoning isjustified and/or needed at the time of the request: .
Yes, for Residential Use.
205 West Center Street; Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 443A724; Fax: (479) 443A707; E-mail: MCOeng ell.net
s�
4•
MiL&nd antramj
McM�n L Milholland, PE, PLS
Schlegel Rezoning
October 4, 2002
Page Two (2)
REGISTRATIONS:
PE: AR, OK, MO
PLS: AR, OK
6.c. Whether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger and
congestion:
Rezoning falls within the long range plans depicted on the Land Use Map and Master
Street Plan.
6. d Whether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby undesirably
increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities:
The zoning is in general compliance with the Land Use Map, and will not impact the
City's long range plans for growth. .
6. e. Why it would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its
existing zoning classification:
A-1 does NOT permit practical; nor feasible options within City Limts.
Your favorable review is appreciated!
Respectfully,
iMel L. 1ZhoV11an PE, PLS
cc: Schlegel
Sierra R.E., LLC
file
C:UiyF4cm0RMS rjditWkWR E614 Schkgd I&&wPd
205 West Center Street; Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 4434724; Faic (479) 4434707; Eamail: MCOenlr(a)swbell.net
Y
i r �CK. T, HERD k 11w,rto�5y1
I 1S.�j nl 3 z .o-I JEANS CHARLE5�CA55AT
NYIC ill o it CD- DORO
SE_, SE 1/4 = J I 16143
29-1 %o yqq Z I{ S P1,RCEL 16742 PARCEL - `
2 W n � � I �i/ � 2�u.
0X ��E��' t� SE 1/4, SE 1/4
665.03. 29-17-30
1/4
Y
�` __v/
. G
HE 1/4
?'..CRYSTAL SPRINGS. LTD. PARTNERHSIP
54 PARQ&L 16658.010
EAST 1320.00'*
0
6 3 d"f
4 P apE�`��
NE 1/4. HE 1/4
32-1 -30
WEST 1320.00'3
?� JED DEVELOPMENT, INC.
S�, PARCEL 16658-070
J
November 23, 2003
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
RE: Annexation 03-06.00 (Schlegel, pp 207/246)
and
RZN 03-34.00 (Schlegel, pp 207/246)
Dear Planning commission,
RECEIVED
NOV 2 4 2003
PLANNING DIV,
In adding comments to this proposed annexation and rezoning, I am assuming that the
issues of building on a wetland, reduced quality of fife for the surrounding property owners,
and potential adverse affects on our livestock have already been studied or addressed by
others. The concerns I wish to address in this letter have to do with access to the proposed
residential area and traffic hazards that are already present and will increase with increased
traffic. I have enclosed a map to help you understand where the areas are that I am
concerned about.
1. Dean Solomon Road is very narrow, has no curbs, no shoulders, crumbling edges
and steeply angled ditches. This is currently not much of a problem because there are
rarely more than one or two cars on the road at one time. With more traffic there will be
increased risk of meeting another car that is traveling over the centerline because of the
narrowness of road.
2. On large sections of Dean Solomon the paving is cracked and sinking. This sinking is
not a few "potholes" but large sections that suddenly shift your vehicle's weight toward the .
edges of the road. I have indicated the worst area on the enclosed map. This cracking and
sinking will, of course, increase with increased traffic.
3. The '7' curve is so narrow relative to the sharpness of the curve, that it is almost
impossible to drive through it without crossing the centerline. If you don't cross the
centerline, most full sized cars' inside rear wheel will go off the pavement on the inside of the
curve. It is best that only one car at a time go through this "Z" curve.
As an example, on the morning of Nov. 20 (last week) I was traveling north and was
between the first curve and the second curve of the "Z". An approaching large truck, traveling
south, was clearly not going to wait for me and was already coming at me in my lane. I
stopped, but even with that, it appeared that he was going to hit my car head on! He moved
back into his lane and missed hitting my bumper by about 6 inches or less! The most
important point of this incident is that he could not negotiate that curve without coming into
my lane!
Currently, most of the accidents on this curve (and they occur on a fairly regular basis)
involve only one car that drives off the end of the road (they are going too fast and don't make
the turn). During the time that 1-540 was being resurfaced, many people were using Dean
Solomon to avoid the traffic problems on 1-540. 1 helped with one young man who was run off
the road in an incident just like I was facing. The result for him was that he rolled his car and
hit a tree. The person who ran him off the road never stopped. With the increased traffic frgm
a residential neighborhood the accidents on this curve will increase. 11
i
4. If this residential area will be using West Salem Road, there will have to be major
changes since West Salem is not a two-lane road.
5. The left turn from Highway 112 onto Dean Solomon Road is a blind left turn. If you
are in an average sized car traveling north on Highway 112 you cannot see over the crest of
the hill before turning left onto Dean Solomon. This crest of the hill is about two "car lengths"
away from you. With a speed limit of 45 M.P.H. (or even a slower one) this is not enough
distance for you to safely turn left without knowing if any cars are coming south. I do not turn
left at this intersection. I see people risking it and turning there, but again; this has not been
much of a problem because of the low volume of traffic. If you add a residential area that has
Dean Solomon as its main access road, more and more people will start turning left, even
though they can'tsee far enough to do it safely, and there will be -increased accidents.
In summary, I feel there are some major safety issues that must be resolved before
approving a residential area on Dean Solomon Road, because of the increased traffic that will
be caused by that residential area.
If the annexation and rezoning is approved, I assume one of two conditions is in effect:
A. You have studied Dean Solomon road and concluded that there really aren't any safety .
problems from increased traffic on Dean Solomon Road.
Or
B. You already have a budget and timetable for fixing the problems on Dean.Solomon Road
before the residential neighborhood is built.
Should you approve the annexation. and rezoning, I will be contacting you for a written copy
of either (A) The study that shows no safety problems or (B) The budget andrtimetable for .
repairs on Dean Solomon Road
Thank you,
i.
Patricia Brown
2M West Salem Road
Fayetteville; AR
Phone: 443-4664
email: horseweaver@cox-intemet.com
0 0
12/02/02 VON -18:11 FAX 11001`
2002
Perry L. Butcher
3481 Deane Solomon RD.
Fayetteville, AR 72704
4794364545
. City of Fayetteville
Planning Division
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attention: Mrs. Janet Strain, Senior Planning Clerk
Re: Annex 022, Rezone 02-42
Marquess & Schlegal Property
Please allow this letter to express my concern and formally protest the annexation &
rezoning of this property. Note the following reasons for my protest
1. All of this general area has potential for wetlands. Reference being the
Arkansas Business & Technology Park. as well as the surrounding arm The
soil is probably hydric on this proposed site as is with the surrounding
properties.
2. Potential density of this property will generate 6-8 vehicle trips/day. This
could immediately generate from this area alone 400-500 ADT.
Consequently demanding infrastructure improvements to Deane Solomon.
(Mt. Comfort to Highway 112) and to W. Salem Road. The Developer will
probably not desire to carry the burden of this construction. Therefore, who
will fund these improvements? Deane Solomon is an opal ditch narrow
road. This street will definitely require complete reconstruction.
3. Deane Solomon Rd. (Mt. Comfort to Highway 112). the street saving this
proposed development has hazardous/difficult intersections at both ends,
also there is a large offset in the road alignment at about mid length
In conclusion, these reasons propose problems that the City and area residents will have
to consider and solve. Therefore, the best and really only solution is neither annexation
nor rezoning.
RA*JED
DEC 3 25u2
- pLANNiNG-D17 _. _.
no I
to
to-
(IO RECEIVED
DEC n a 2W2
PLANNING Md
O
BASS.ETT MIX
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Tuesday, December 3, 2002
To: Members of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: The Al Zaccanti Family
Re: Re -Zoning of the Schlegel Property
We firmly oppose the Re -Zoning of the adjoining property to RS
We support Re -Zoning of the adjoining property to R-1, single family residential, as long
as the lot sizes are 1/4 Acre or larger.
We have lived and farmed on the 80 Acres which adjoins this subject property. Our
home contains over 3500 square feet. Homes immediately to the North, East and West of
our home and the subject property are all similar in size. We are not opposed to growth
or to the development of this property. However RS, high density zoning, is in direct
conflict with the land use (20-20 plan) and the sizes of homes surrounding this property.
We plan to attend the meeting on December 9th to express our opposition and concerns
regarding the re -zoning.
Highest Personal Regards,
Al and Helen Zaccanti
3019 W. Salem Rd. WC 894
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Family Members: Mary Bassett, Al Zaccanti Jr., Jacueline Calcagni and Ed Zaccanti
RESIDENTIAL, FARMS AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
3263 North College * Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 * (479) 521.5600# (479) 751.5900 -*Fax (479) 521-5698
website: www:bassetttnixxom
THE STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE
Working For You I M[S
YY1
Planning Commission* •
March 8, 2004
Page 8
ANX 03-06.00: Annexation (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland
Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal
Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the
Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to annex the
property into the City of Fayetteville.
RZN 03-34.00: Rezoning (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland
Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal
Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the
Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to rezone the
property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre.
Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is ANX 03-06.00 and RZN 03-34.00 for
Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision west of Deane Solomon Road.
Jeremy?
Pate: Thank -you Madam Chair. The subject property is 73.50 acres of vacant
property located west of Deane Solomon Road south of Salem Road.
Salem Road to the north of this location is a gravel road and does not meet
city standards, nor does Deane Solomon. Single family residences are
located north of the subject property along Salem Road and areas to the
west and south are vacant, although, Crystal Springs Subdivision Phase
III, as you mentioned, is proposed south of the subject property. Gypsum
Drive, a collector street, is also shown on the Master Street Plan as an
east/west connection to the subject property. Any development to be
consistent with the Master Street Plan would most likely look at
developing that street as part of it's circulation patterns. A portion of
Gypsum Drive also was constructed with the Crystal Springs Phase I. As
with the last two items, an Annexation and Rezoning request was
previously petitioned and tabled in December, 2002. The two primary
concerns for this site included fire response times and the waste water
capacity study as mentioned. Again, the waste water capacity study has
identified this area as an area that does have sufficient capacity for
development. Additionally, fire station number seven which is a closer
fire station than the ones that currently exist to serve this site has been
approved and awaits construction plans. Staffs findings with regard to
water and sewer, extension of water and sewer mains will be required
although, they are available in the nearby vicinity. The proposed
annexation and potential rezoning could result in 290 single family units
as a maximum. Again, that has been identified as being within the
capacity of the lift stations based on the waste water capacity study. With
regard to the rezoning, this proposed rezoning is justified in order to
ensure orderly and consistent development patterns making use of existing
infrastructure. The rezoning is needed for the development of a single
family residential subdivision as proposed by the applicant. Projects
existing in this area already of course, do receive police services and the
Planning Commission*
March 8, 2004
Page 9
rezoning will not substantially alter the population density. Again, I
mentioned the fire department findings as well. Surrounding properties
are similarly developed and zoned appropriately for this request and staff
is recommending approval of both requested ANX 03-06.00 and RZN 03-
34.00.
Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward?
Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company.
Hoover: Do you have anything to add?
Jefcoat: We appreciate your consideration of this Annexation and Rezoning. We
are aware of the street conditions, the infrastructure, water and sewer and
those issues will be addressed during the planning and design development
stage. Thank you.
Hoover: At this time we will open up this Annexation and Rezoning to public
comment. This is for the Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision. ANX 03-
06.00 and RZN 03-34.00. Is there any member of the public that would
like to address these? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission.
Bunch: I have a question for the applicant. I know this is a little premature
because the Preliminary Plat is not before us but one of the concerns in
this area has been traffic and access. What provisions do you think will be
made on securing the right of way to extend Gypsum to Deane Solomon
Road? Have you looked at that yet?
Jefcoat: Yes we have. We are aware that
that road will
be improved to the city
limits.
Excuse me, I was thinking
about Salem Road. Gypsum Road we
did not
know what would occur to
the west of us,
nor to the east of us but
during
the design development we will provide
connectivity to the east
and west.
Bunch: Then also go ahead and tell us about Salem Road.
Jefcoat: We understand that staff is recommending that that be improved to the city
limits from wherever we have access on Salem Road to the city limits.
Bunch: Where is the city limits, is that at Deane Solomon?
Jefcoat: Yes it is.
Bunch: You
are aware that
that would
be part of the development process would
be to
extend Salem
Road to city
standards to Deane Solomon?
Planning Commission • •
March 8, 2004
Page 10
Jefcoat: Yes, that's what is in the recommendation, yes.
Bunch: A question for staff I guess. On Gypsum Road our packet does not show
ownership of Gypsum. What process would there be as this comes
forward for development to provide a second access on Gypsum that
would be south of the "S" curve on Deane Solomon that would help avoid,
from a traffic standpoint, avoid that bad spot on Deane Solomon.
Warrick: That is part of the springwoods project. That is one of the lots within the
springwoods PZD east of this tract between this tract and Deane Solomon
Road. We expect that property to come through the development process
relatively soon as we have had the Final Plat for that subdivision
submitted to our office this last week. With regard to when this comes
through the development process, the subject property, we will be of
course, looking for connectivity which is a policy of the city to require
developments to have stub outs and/or to connect to existing stub outs.
We will have to wait until we see what is on the ground existing compared
to what the proposal is and how we can ensure that those existing stub outs
match up to any new infrastructure and that if they don't if there is nothing
to match up that new stub outs are in the proper location so that streets can
be connected affectively.
Allen: I noticed that there were a number of letters in our packet from neighbors
that are concerned, I wondered whether or not you have met with those
neighbors and felt that problems had been resolved in some manner.
Jefcoat: Resolved in some manner, yes. I would say in some manner. We have
talked with the adjoining neighbors over the past two and a half years in
the process of developing this and we have some rapore with those people.
When we do a development plan and begin to have a conceptual plan then
the more detailed meeting process will occur with those residences.
Allen: Have you met with them since the last time this came before us?
Jefcoat: We have talked to some of them by phone, yes.
Allen: But not like a neighborhood association type meeting?
Jefcoat: No, we don't have a plan concept with which to talk to them about yet as
far as layout. That's what they are most concerned about is how the
layout adjoins their property. When we get to that point we will have a
neighborhood association meeting.
Warrick: If I could just add, there are a few letters in this packet and we included
everything that we had with regard to this property. The original request
for this project came in November or December of 2002. At that time the
Planning Commission* •
March 8, 2004
Page 11
request for rezoning was to a more dense zoning district with smaller lots.
The RSF-7 district now. Some of these comments are reflective of that as
the proposal. The proposal now is for an RSF-4, Single Family four units
per acre zoning district. While the substance hasn't really changed, it is a
request to annex and zone. The density has changed that this applicant is
requesting.
Allen: Thank you.
Shackelford: We looked at this previously if my memory is correct. The main two
concerns we had at that point was based on fire coverage and sewer
capacity, it seems like at this point those issues have been addressed. I
think staff has done a good job on recommending approval of this project
so based on this I am going to recommend we approve ANX 03-6.00 as
presented.
Vaught: I will second.
Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by
Commissioner Vaught, is there any other discussion?
Ostner: This is just a question for staff. I understand that the improvements to
Deane Solomon aren't really relative at this point because it is just an
annexation and rezoning. When it does come time to develop I'm noticing
that this property does not adjoin Deane Solomon. Are we still talking
about requesting the developer help improve Deane Solomon?
Warrick: Offsite improvements are at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
We do not have a development plan to assess in order to determine
whether or not there is a demand placed by that development that would
cause a need for improvements on Deane Solomon. We are working with
a different developer right now on the "S" curve in Deane. Solomon and
trying to establish a reasonable way of straightening that out some. We
are progressing in making improvements on Deane Solomon and
additional development is most likely going to be occurring in that general
area in the near future so we will have to take it as it comes and determine
those types of assessments or improvements based on the development
plans when they are submitted.
Ostner: Thank you.
Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll on the
annexation?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ANX 03-06.00 was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Planning Commission• •
March 8, 2004
Page 12
Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero.
Hoover: The rezoning of this?
Shackelford: Based on the comments that I made earlier and the findings and the fact
that I think this is consistent with surrounding use I will go ahead and
make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council of RZN
03-34.00.
Vaught: I will second.
Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by
Commissioner Vaught for the rezoning, is there any discussion?
Anthes: I'm a
little torn on this one.
From what I'm reading
here there seems to be
quite
an amount of wetlands
in this area, is that true
staff .
Warrick: We've not seen a development proposal, I believe that there is potential
for some but we've not gotten to that point yet for analysis of that.
Anthes: Looking here where it adjoins the more dense zoning districts along the
eastern boundary but as it goes north and west, I'm kind of surprised we
haven't heard from more residents based on the numbers of letters that
were in our packet. That is a beautiful open valley with a certain character
to it. I'm just questioning if the density of RSF-4 might be a little high in
that area based on what I think might be wetlands and geology and the
view shed and then the surrounding property owner's letters.
Hoover: Staff, you might repeat why you thought the RSF-4 was appropriate
perhaps.
Warrick: Based on the General Plan which calls this area out to be residential we
felt that the RSF-4 district was appropriate with regard to the existing
surrounding developments and the proposed developments to the south
and to the east.
Anthes: It just seems like RSF-4 seems to be our default position on single family
but we do have other district designations, an RSF .5, an RSF-1, an RSF-2
zonings available to us. The site, because it's got this differentiation where
it adjoins a more dense zoning and then drops way in that valley, to me it
is difficult to look at it as one piece because it might develop in such a
way that development might be clustered more towards the front than
another piece of property but without seeing that, it is hard for me to get
behind a basic overall density of RSF-4 on that site.
Planning Commission* •
March 8, 2004
Page 13
Shackelford: This is presented as Phase III of an existing subdivision, Phase I and Phase
II, are they RSF-4 as well?
Warrick: This is not Phase III of Crystal Springs. This is north of the proposed
Crystal Springs Phase III. Phase III is zoned RSF-4, it is located
immediately south of this and it has already been through the Preliminary
Plat process. The Planning Commission has already approved the layout.
Shackelford: The property just south of this proposal will be RSF-4 as well?
Warrick: That's correct.
Thomas: If I could just add, I spoke with Mary Bassett earlier and she asked me to
write you a letter but I didn't get to that. She is asking for larger lots as it
goes up the hill and she will be here at the time of Preliminary Plat to talk
to you about that.
Hoover: Thank you.
Vaught: I think she's the one in her letter that said they were against seven but they
would be in support of four. I saw that in at least one or maybe two of the
letters. I do think RSF-4 is a good fit for this area. It is still very close to
I-540, it is an area that is rapidly developing and changing with a lot of
RSF-4 around it. We have a lot of things coming before us in this area
and a lot of them are RSF-4. Between that and it is a buffer I think
between those larger homes to the west and things like Wilson springs
where you even have a strip of RMF-24 abutting the property. I do think
it is a good density. Just because it is zoned that doesn't necessarily mean
they are going to do that. Like was said, Mary Bassett wished they would
get larger as they would go up the hill. I believe she was here at the last
meeting and said that exact same thing. I know the developer will have
lots of comments with the neighbors through the development process.
„- Bunch: A
question
for staff and
possibly the applicant, the property immediately
to
the south
zoned RSF-4
is part of Crystal
Springs Phase III?
Warrick: Yes.
Bunch: That is a piece of property that I know we have had a Preliminary Plat
come through on that and there will be access to Deane Solomon on that
but I cannot remember if there was access to the north. I think the same
applicant had the same project, Tom, can you shed a little light on that?
Jefcoat: Yes we do have the same project and we do have a stub from Crystal
Springs north into this property. I also may mention that yes, to our east
there is RSF-4 zoning where we are talking about connectivity also, which
Planning Commission • •
March 8, 2004
Page 14
is Gypsum. It is our proposal and we have had communication with Mary
Bassett and we talked earlier today also.
Bunch: We are looking at two potential connections to the east, one on Gypsum
Drive and the other one on the extension of Crystal Springs?
Jefcoat: At least one through to the south on Crystal Springs. One to the north on
Salem and at least one both directions east and west.
Bunch: With the Master Street Plan there is Gypsum Drive so that would give a
minimum of three accesses east?
Jefcoat: A minimum of four, minimum.
Vaught: Gypsum Drive to the east of Deane Solomon has been vacated with the
Wilson Springs PZD correct?
Warrick: Yes. It has been removed from the Master Street Plan as a collector. It
doesn't mean that there couldn't still be some connectivity there. It is no
longer classified as a collector street.
Hoover: Is there any other discussion? I believe we had a motion and a second.
Renee, would you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of
RZN 03-34.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with
Commissioner Anthes voting no.
Thomas: The motion carries eight to one.
Hoover: Thank you.
BAD C -rM
pW°Vie SCHLEGEL
Close UppVew
." _t wHn,R_uaK§L RSF4
k. Q
.dAlm
0
SUBJECT PROPERTY
R-A
I Overview
1-1
RMF-24
Legend
Boundary
Subject Property
rpm RZN03-34.00
e0% Planning Area
Master Street Planrww
0 000�
Overlay District
� Freeway/Expressway
Streets
000000°
L City Lints
�O Principal Arterial
Existing
� Outside City
02� Minor Arterial
111/ Planned
0 i Collector
00,*0 Historic Collector
0 150 300
600 900
1.200
Feet
lil
0
m
Wil
X0
C-PZD
ANY 03-0ta
One Mile View
N !
RA
I
!
P
!
RA
RA
Lt
to 41e,a
„ l i 1-' I
rvl 1—le I t r fl x I C-PZ.0
rA—
—
IrNIIRllfflli1XNINiIXXIXiIXFII kHI1U�h11 InlliNlFFfiNllliilhN 1 1 [ u + - RA `°
� D J44
� DR
1j
— s v _ - Ah DR '1 I _ (]I y 44
0.1 aA yy'RA! I III t�' L_rL�J L"f —---
i Ly �`' I(NAPR ST . �i'5
ti
RA ..9:_'.��.i�v._. v
Overview Legend
_ Subject Property Boundary master Street Plan
OzZtndr
_--_- RZN03Jd.00 x�\„i Planning ArearlYnm"0`a4°'Y
8000o P
Streets °00000 Overlay Districtibitlpi1 d`10da1
W — — 40%W► sAmw Al I
L — I City Limits �a, , Caaactar
Outside City 000, 1¢smRcccoedn
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0l
files
STAFF MEW FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OPGATION
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: April 6, 2004
FROM:
Dawn Warrick Planning
Name Division
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
CP&E
Department
ANX 03-06.00: Annexation (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of
Tracy Hoskins for property located west of Deane Solomon Road and south of Salem Road containing
approximately 72.50 acres. The request is to approve an ordinance annexing the subject property into the city
limits of the City of Fayetteville.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Received in Mayor's Office
Div(sion Head Date
Q/,� 3(22 Q
Cit mey Date
Cross Reference:
Department Director Date
Previous Ord/Res#:
Finance & Internal Services Dir.
Date Orig. Contract Date:
L 3- OV Orig. Contract Number:
Date '
New Item
Date /n
.3/a�VD ,
Date / 6
Yes No
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIEEE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division
From: Clarice Buffalohead-PearmanA
City Clerk Division
Date: May 11, 2004
Re: Ordinance No. 4562
Attached is an executed copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, May 4, 2004,
approving ANX-03-06.00, confirming the annexation of property located west of Deane Solomon
Road and South of Salem Road containing approximately 72.50 acres.
This ordinance
will be recorded in the
city clerk's office and microfilmed.
If anything else is
needed please
let the clerk's office know.
Attachment(s)
cc: John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering
A*Awas Democrat
05azette
,y.
AFF
IT OF PUBLICATION
I, do solemnly swear that I am
LegAl Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest,Arkansas
Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication,,,th//at advertisement of:
O• -�fJ`��o was inserted in the regular editions on
PO#
"" Publication Charge: $
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of Aa , 2004.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: 7/ASdal3
*` Please do
not
pay
from Affidavit.
An invoice
will
be
sent.
RECEIVED
Official Seal MAY 14 2004
SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO
Notary Public -Arkansas CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
My Commission Expires 07-25.2013
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
Pi
u rr ONOJUNm NY TNN cny COUNCIL Of THE cm ON PAYEMMILLE,
OF THE NE OF 8E ., ODON 32 AND PART OF THEE 12 OF
12
TO
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
NO..
N
TO THE COUNTY JUDGE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS = sp^ CM
PETITION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO z cn
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE_ WASHINGTON COUNTY_ ARICAN�'A� o
C> m ::E 3
Comes now the petitioners, Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. and Sylvia Follows Schlegel, Husband Q( VWitp
and for their Petition to annex certain property into the City of Fayetteville, Washino' guntpq
Arkansas, pursuant to A.C.A. Section 14-40-601, et. Seq.. States as follows:
That petitioners, Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. and Sylvia Follows Schlegel, Husband and
Wife, own the real property described on the Plat Map, Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and said property is situated in Washington County,
Arkansas, and is contiguous with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and is within
the City of Fayetteville, School District.
2. That the petitioners desire that their property become part of the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, and petition the County Judge for annexation of the
property into the City of Fayetteville.
3. That a true and correct presentation of the property and how it is contiguous to
the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is shown on the Plat Map, Exhibit "A", attached
hereto.
4. That the petitioners herein desire that the property become part of the City of
Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, and petitioners state that they will do
any and all legal acts necessary to accomplish the objective set forth herein.
T
r
m
0
RECEIVPD
Page 1 of 2
MAY 2 8 2004
CITY OF FAYET'(EVi6Lt
CITY CLERK'S CFFICE
Ben
�F. Schlegel, Jr. A
Syl ' Fellows Schlegel
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public,
on this the day of &,Vtt 2002.
My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL SEAL
JOHN H. DUKE III
NOTARY PUBLIC, ARKANSM
S WASFUNOTON COUNTY
I SIGN 13XP o2nonoos
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A C cA oq:1-11'
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
THE NE } OF THE NE } OF SECTION 32 AND PART OF THE E } OF THE SE } OF SECTION
29, ALL IN T-17—N, R-30—W, THAT PART BEING IN SECTION 29 IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, THENCE WEST 1320
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE SE } OF THE SE } OF SAID SECTION
29; THENCE NORTH TO A POINT 384.25 FEET SOUTH OF THE NW CORNER OF THE SE } OF
THE SE } OF THE SAID SECTION 29; THENCE N83'22'18"E 1067.69 FEET; THENCE
NO2'35114"E 357.47 FEET TO A POINT 35 FEET, MORE OR LESS SOUTH OF THE
CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD No. 894; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY PARALLELING SAID
CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 268.54 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE E
OF THE SE } OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE SOUTH 1574 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 72.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS.
P L A T M A P
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
NO. 66 apoo2 A/C(
TO THE COUNTY JUDGE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. and Sylvia Follows Schlegel, Husband and Wife,
have petitioned that the following described property situated in Washington County, Arkansas,
be annexed into the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas:
See Attached Exhibit "A"
That a hearipg on this Petition has been set for day of 20022
at .m. for the Honorable Judge Jerry Hunton.
Any person interested may be present and present testimony for or against said Petition.
This notice will be published once a week for three co five wee
en F. Schlegel, Jr.
jd&4 t A11
Sylv§Fellows Schlegel
VERIFICATION
State of Arkansas
County of W
We, the undersigned, state that we have read the above and foregoing document and that the
facts, statements, and allegations therein contained are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge and belief.
WITNESS my hand on the _q6 day of t C406&L> , 2002
Page 1 of 2
Sylv# Fellows Schlegel
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public,
on this the 2 day of IC49aA 72002.
My Commission Expires: OOM'H D M
JOHN H. DBE' �
NARY PUALIC . ARKAMAS
/5Z/n �� S'- WASHINGfON CO[JN M�
Page 2 of 2
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
CC 2002-19
ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE
� v
o
nOX
fV
xs'°x
o
0xo--Ic
-4w
z
cn
o
m
r
n rn
3
Co c>
a
n m
v
�
•
s
On this 15' day of October, 2002, upon Petition to annex certain property into
Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, pursuant to A.C.A. Section 14-40-601, the Court
finds as follows:
1. That Jerry Hunton, Washington County Judge, has consented and approved
the Petition and pursuant to A.C.A. Section 14-40-601, the Court hereby sets a hearing date on
the Petition for the 18' day of November, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. Petitioners are directed to cause
Notice of Hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Washington County,
Arkansas, as directed by law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
County Judge
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
IN T$E MATTER OF: FILED
AMIfEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE ' 02 NOU 18
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS C�Ng. �� 2002-19
MARILYN EDWARDS
yCO.
gg& PROBATE CLERK
T ORDER OF ANNEX AION CTON CO. ARK.
Now on this 18'" day of November, 2002, this cause comes on to be heard, the Petitioner,
Ben F. Schlegel, Jr. and Sylvia Follows Schlegel, Husband and Wife, represented by the Engineer
of Record, Mel Milholland, after announcing the hearing of the cause and there being no protests
or objections, whereupon, the matter is submitted to the Court upon the Petition filed herein, and
the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Court being well and sufficiently advised finds:
The Petition in this cause was Sled October 15'h, 2002, at which time this Court
fixed November 18` . 2002, at 9:00 a.m., as the date and time of hearing for said
cause, and that a full thirty (30) days notice of hearing was given as required by
law and the proof of publication of said notice is now on file with the Clerk of this
Court and the Court has jurisdiction of this cause.
2. The Court is satisfied that the allegations of the Petition are sustained by the proof,
that the limits of the territory to be annexed have been properly filed; that the
property owner has a freehold interest in the property hereinafter described in the
Petition and constitutes the real owner of the area affected.
The land proposed to be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County,
Arkansas, in this cause is described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
4. The area is not unusually large and it is contiguous and adjacent to and adjoins the
present corporate limits of the City of Fayetteville, and it is adapted for urban
purposes and this territory should be annexed to and made a part of the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
U;z Q5
IT IS THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
aforesaid real estate situated in Washington County, Arkansas, is hereby annexed to and made a
part of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, in accordance with Acct. No. 1 of the Acts of the
Legislature of 1875 of the State of Arkansas, and all Acts amendatory thereto, particularly
including Act 142 of the Acts of Arkansas for thee year 1953, as codified in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-
40-601, et seq., and this Order shall be duly recorded by the Clerk of Washington County.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18m day of November, 2002.
<K.", I "\"
e onor le Jerry Hunton, Washington
County Judge
U�-3W7
• 0
TRACT B OF SCHLEGEL PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED AND REZONED
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 32 AND PART OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4
OF SECTION 29, ALL IN T-17-N, R-30-W, THAT PART BEING IN SECTION 29 IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION
29, THENCE WEST 1320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE SE 1/4
OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH TO A POINT 384.25 FEET
SOUTH OF THE NW CORNER OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SAID SECTION
29; THENCE N83°22'18"E 1067.69 FEET; THENCE NO2°35'14"E 357.47 FEET TO A
POINT 35 FEET, MORE OR LESS SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD
No. 894; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY PARALLELING SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE
OF 268.54 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF
SAID SECTION 29; THENCE SOUTH 1574 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 72.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS.
Ua. 3(3LP
i •
State of Arkansas
Secretary of State
Charlie Daniels
Secretary of State
June 3, 2004
The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard
Washington County & Probate Clerk
280 North College Ave., Suite 300
Fayetteville, AR. 72701
Dear Ms. Pritchard:
Business & Commercial Services
682-3409
Elections
682-5070
Building & Grounds
682-3532
Communications & Education
683-0057
State Capitol Police
682-5173
Business Office
682-8032
Information Technology
682-3411
The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State:
Date: 06/03/2004
Annexation:
Incorporation:
Census Information
1st Class City
2nd Class City
Incorporated Town
County: Washington City: Fayetteville
Ordinance No. -
Co. Order No
Plat
Election
Island
Ordinance No.
Co. Order No.
Plat
Election
4562
CC 2002-19
X
I have forwarded this information
to the Arkansas
Municipal League.
If you have any further
questions please do not hesitate to
contact me at 1-800-482-1127
or
682-3451.
Sincerely,
Leanna Godley V
Election Services Representative
RECEIVED
JUN 0 7 2004
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
C1TV CLEp`'. G' 7.,,=
Room 256 State Capitol • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1094
501-682.1010 • Fax 501-682.3510
e-mail: sos@aristotle.net • www.sos.arkansas.gov