The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 4596ORDINANCE NO. 4596 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY JEAN GREENWOOD JOWERS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 46TH STREET AND PERSIMMON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 160.00 ACRES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: c .� s - a o j CD CO �t:3CV) nt 3 a > c; rn :CI ' &OFF 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. Four. PASSED and APPROVED this 3rd day of August, 2004. FAYETTEVILLE; Attest: �)uu„u�• By: ondra Smith APPROVED: By: r M 0 Doc ID: 007653820002 TVDe: REL Recorded: 09/09/2004 at 02:27:06 PM Fee Amt: $11.00 Pace 1 of 2 Mashinaton Countv. AR Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk F11e2004-00037306 cd ;Zx3-z9 V5I`6 EXHIBIT "A" ANX 04-01,00 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (N '/4) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY-ONE (31) WEST, CONTAINING 160 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9 Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 09/09/2004 02:27:06 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2004-000373Q6 Bette Stamps - Circuit Clerk by RECEIVED SEP 13 2004 CITY OF FAYEriEVILLE FILED ILED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE *03 DEC 29 RI711 19 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASLtINCn" ' �� "' -,Iy4C�Qtt�TIi1ARKANSAS �`RK IN THE MATTER OF ` ;1_eA5 ,,NO. CC 2003-� ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PETPITON FOR ANNEXATION Comes now, the Petitioner, Jean Greenwood Jowers, Trustee of The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A, and for her Petition for Annexation, states as follows: 1. Petitioner is the record owner of the following described real property situated in Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit: The Northwest Quarter (NW'/,) of Section Thirteen (13), Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, containing 160 acres, more or less. 2. The above described property is adjacent to and contiguous to the present city boundary line for the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. 3. The above -described property is suitable for annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and is necessary for the proper growth, prosperity and management of the above -described real property and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 4. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 144-601 et seq, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein, and Petitioner requests that the above - described real property be annexed in and to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 5. Petitioner further states that the law firm of Raymond C. Smith, P.A., Fayetteville, Arkansas, is authorized to act for and on behalf of the Petitioner in all matters connected with this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceedings connected herewith. 6. Petitioner requests that this Court set a date for hearing on this Petition, not less than thirty days after the filing of this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceeding therewith. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the above -described real property be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, pursuant to the provisions of Arkansas Law, after a hearing thereon as required by law; that this Court, by Order, fix a time and place for said hearing not less than thirty days from the filing of this Petition; and for all other proper and just relief which the Petitioner may be entitled. JEAN GREENWOOD JOWERS, Trustee THE HOYET GREENWOOD TRUST By C. Smith Attorney at Law 70 N. College Avenue, Suite I 1 Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)521-7011 Ark. Bar No. 80135 Attorney for Petitioner AUTHORIZATION I, Jean Greenwood Jowers, Trustee, The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A, authorize the law firm of Raymond C. Smith, P.A., to act for and on behalf of the aforesaid Trust and Trustee, in all matters relating to Rezoning, Planned Zoning District, Annexation, including but not limited to any and all petitions, applications, hearings and proceedings before or with the City of Fayetteville and County of Washington, for the following described real property situated in Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit: The Southeast Quarter (SE'/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4) of Section Twelve (12), Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, containing 40 acres, more or less TI The Northwest Quarter (NW'/4) of Section Thirteen (13), Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Containing 160 acres, more or less. Date: December o Jean Green Jower rustee The Hoyet Greenw d Trust A e C 400 3 _ C/L NORTH 46TH S SE1 4, SW1 4 S CTION 1 T-16-N, R-31-W 39.593 ACRES N. ral-v •�""m - yISS• •• .\ ,\ KU4. 11 \ , - T-ur 3-2 -v Tlzii V / NE /C4, NW13 T-156E4 aN -N, R-31-W }!. 39.603 ACRES NS /4. SECTION NWi/4, NWt/4' S ia-n l T-16E-CN, R-331-W SECTION 1 T-16-N, R-31-W NANI4 39.66f ACRES 39.643 ACRES an dRowswol sic m p $S CTI SECTION N I 1 SET/4, NW1/4 T-16-N, R-31-W S CTbN 1 T-16-N, R-31-W SNl 1, NEl/4 39.712 ACRES 39.662 ACRE SECTION 13 T-16-N, R-31-W 39.70f ACRES r W - 1biRT S1f60Pdb1RlNfi AR[ANHA$$lA1HPIANH zom (N OR SYSI6N 6WOH RONI61 UIY OP PAYHTTHVHl$A0. als. AIONInmrtAnoN v1Rf1rOD OPDR7F um1nON: GDs.065Q IADdB18 NAMVIGATIATIWAL 6VSI6M 41Dp , STASE /.HNO SIIRVHPoRPIIA fDD£ soo-le+a iwolrlaa>x.IDm wo-1aN-� 1 woI>•lo4n.lam 1imaa� P N IL IN PENCE MST fHVN➢ R.R. SPINE • STONE HARKER D MAR PO2 O SET IR01 PIN w FELINI1 IRW PIN + COPOTED CORNER • SEVER NMILLE 6 TELEPHONE PEEESTAL -E- OVERHEAD CLCCTRIC -R- FENCE LINE -SS- SANIIART SEVER LINE P ZEN 1m rm CHARLIE SLOAN was AIM n d®• AamC. rs m/rRpt XA a. t➢PJJra Ors rnanmau. u 4WROIfa mn IrFMN-aIm aGY RR 1PYIM a6 I- b0' rVr wm1 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CASE NO. CC 2003-29 n o ORDER OF ANNEXATION � o M Z: 2: r„ co On this _day of February, 2004, this cause comes on to be heard, thee °bnti�ter, �o< rn o a) cor Jean Greenwood Jowers, Trustee of The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A, represtni�dt6 hem m � r*r --=I Attorney, Raymond C. Smith of Fayetteville, Arkansas, announcing readytfop #0arirp a of the cause and there being no protests or objections filed, whereupon, the matg is submitted to the Court upon the verified petition filed herein, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Court being well and sufficiently advised finds: 1. The Petition in this cause was filed December 29, 2003, at which time the Court fixed February 5, 2004 at 10:00 a.m., as the date of hearing for said cause, and that a full thirty days notice of hearing was given as required by law and notice of publication 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. 3. The land proposed to be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas in this cause is described as follows: The Northwest Quarter (NW'/.) of Section Thirteen (13) in Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty -One (31) West, containing 160 acres, more or less. 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 particularly adapted for urban V D-- 91(0 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 Act 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 the year 1963, as codified in Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 14-40-601, et seq, and this Order shall be duly recorded by the Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas. C OUN Y JUDGE n u Sandra L..Hochetetter Chairman (501) 682.1456 Daryl E. Bassett Commissioner (501) 682-1453 Randy Bynum Commissioner (501)682-1451 September 14, 2004 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: tax0osc.state.arms Ms. Shirley Brown Washington County Deputy Clerk 280 North College Avenue, Suite 300 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexations Dear Ms. Brown, Sarah K Bradshaw Director (501)602-1231 x o c' _ s - o V n pC-n = r^ rn rn .'n � r � a This is to acknowledge receipt of annexation(s) Case No. CC-2003-27: CC-2003-29, CC-2003-30, CC-2004-2, CC-2004-3, CC-2004-5, CC-2004-14 and CC-2004-15. The information has been forwarded to the appropriate utilities. Sincerely; Kathy Hu es Executive Secretary 7 rl nS:11AR)QIRQ'ON/77:Qt 41V7.7.:Qt W?.. V. HIC(NOW) WOH( I r04 `�F' 20 rM 2 04 Charlie Daniels Secretary of State Ci•, & F[10'.'.t\IE CI.i:.. September16,2004 The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard Washington County Clerk 280 North College Ave. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Dear Ms. Pritchard: State of Arkansas Secretary of State Business B Commercial services 692.3409 elections 602-5070 811ilding Or Orounos 662.3532 Communications h education 111113,0057 Slate ulplmt rolice 602.3673 aus'rnos 0119ce 602-8032 Information Technology 682-3411 The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State: Date: 09/ 16/2004 Annexation: Incorporation: Census Information Ist 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 4596 CC-2003-29 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 G82-3451. Sincerely, anna Godley Election Services Representative Room 256 State Capitol • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.1094 S01-682-1010 6 Fax S01-682-3510 e-mail: +o6@ariwtolle.nel www.4o4.aFkan&aK.gov 0 d 08096i9199'0N/ZZ Sl'1S/SZ St tOOZ OZ d3S(NOW) WOa: NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4596 CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Document 1 08/03/04 Ord. 4596 w/Ex. A 2 07/02/04 memo to mayor & city council 3 Staff Review Form 4 memo to Planning Commission 5 memo to Planning Commission 6 copy of Table 6 7 copy of Project Wastewater Capacity 8 letter from police department 9 letter from fire department 10 copy of petition, CC2003-29 11 copy of order 12 copy of One Mile View 13 copy of Close Up View 14 copy of Planning Commission minutes 15 Staff Review Form 16 memo to Dawn Warrick 17 Affidavit of Publication 18 copy of petition, CC2003-29 19 copy of Authorization 20 copy of lots 21 copy of Order Setting Hearing 22 copy of Order of Annexation 23 letter from Sec. of State 24 faxed letter from Public Service Commission 25 faxed letter from Sec. of State 26 letter from Raymond C. Smith P7 copy of Order Confirming Annexation NOTES: 0/✓/"T City Council Ang of July 20, 2004 ` l§5pa Agenda Item Numberox Q qVI CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Gr.¢Qnax. "W e✓5 To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator Date: July 2, 2004 Subject: Annexation for Greenwood/Sloan (ANX 04-01.00) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation for Greenwood/Sloan. This action will incorporate a 160 acre tract of land contiguous with the city limits into the City of Fayetteville. BACKGROUND The subject property contains approximately 160.0 acres of vacant property located south of Persimmon Street, and east of the future Broyles Avenue. The approved preliminary plats for Persimmon Place and Cross Keys R-PZD are located north of the subject property. The property is adjacent to city limits to the north and the west. The applicant intends to develop a single family residential subdivision with amenities in conjunction with property to the east that is within the Planning Area and requesting annexation into the City of Fayetteville. Development of the land will most likely be in the form of a Planned Zoning District, as different zonings are required for single family lots (use unit 8) and a golf course (use unit 20). A conceptual masterplan for the property in question, along adjacent properties, has been submitted for review. The applicant requests annexation into the City of Fayetteville. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant on April 26, 2004. It was heard again at the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004. DISCUSSION On June 28, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. The accompanying rezoning request was tabled by the Planning Commission with a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Shackelford, Vaught, and Graves voting no. BUDGETIMPACT None. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY JEAN GREENWOOD JOWERS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 46TH STREET AND PERSIMMON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 160.00 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. Four. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 2004: ATTEST: By: Sondra Smith, City Clerk APPROVED: By: Dan Coody, Mayor EXHIBIT "A" ANX 04-01.00 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER IN '/4) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY-ONE (31) WEST, CONTAINING 160 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of June 28, 2004 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator DATE: May 19, 2004 ANX 04-01.00: Annexation (Greenwood/Sloan, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Suzanne Morgan RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included as part of this report with the following condition(s): PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied June 28, 2004 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: July 20, 2004 (1't reading if recommended) BACKGROUND: This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant at the regular Planning Commission meeting on April 26, 2004. Public comments were heard at this meeting regarding this annexation and accompanying rezoning request. Please reference ANX 04-04.00 Tipton/Sloan for the minutes of this meeting. Property description: The subject property contains approximately 160.0 acres of vacant property located south of Persimmon Street, east of the future Broyles Avenue, and west of the southern extension of Rupple Rd. The approved preliminary plats for Persimmon Place and Cross Keys R-PZD are located north of the subject property. The property is adjacent to city limits to the north and the west. KIREPOR7SI20041PC REPORM06-28-04W NX 04-01.00 (GREENWOOD-SLOAN). DOC Proposal: The applicant proposes the annexation of property into the City of Fayetteville. Request: The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. 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 160.0 acres to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 Units per Acre. The rezoning request, RZN 04-11.00, is an accompanying item to this annexation request. Property that is developed and/or subdivided in the Planning Area of the City of Fayetteville, outside of the city limits, does not allow for the enforcement of many regulations required within the City. When property that is consistent with the General Plan 2020 and the City's guiding policy of annexation is incorporated into the city and developed, a uniform and consistent standard of development includes the following: • Compatibility in land use and development standards • Ability to plan future capital improvements Ability to require the same level of infrastructure improvements required for new development within these areas as required within the City Less confusion for public safety — police and fire — who responds Police Protection Fire Protection • Trash Service • Sewer service Water service • Street standards (curb and gutter) and construction specifications • Sidewalks, based on the Master Street Plan • Street lights • Grading and Drainage review • Detention • Zoning Regulations (setbacks, bulk and area requirements, land use) • Code enforcement • Tree Preservation Parks land dedication Without appropriate annexation, developers of property in the Planning Area are offered water service from the City of Fayetteville, but have none of the other regulatory responsibilities for development. Many of the public services offered to citizens of Fayetteville in adjacent properties are not offered to those beyond the city limits. In some cases, new subdivisions adjacent to one another have very different street construction, creating problems with transition and the establishment of an efficient network of infrastructure. Property that develops directly adjacent to the city limits is required to develop within City specifications for street construction. However, other requirements such as parks, detention, grading and drainage, zoning/land use and tree preservation are not within the City's ability to control. K98EPOR7SI2004PC REPORM06-18-04NN,1'04-07.00 (GREENWOOD-SLOAN).DOC Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation. The subject property is adjacent to the City of Fayetteville and will create an appropriate city boundary. 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 Vacant (Persimmon Place and Cross Keys PPL under construction RSF-4, R-PZD Residential Single Family, 4 units/acre 04-02.00 Cross Keys South Vacant Planning Area East Vacant Planning Area West Vacant R-A, Residential Agricultural INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The property has frontage along Persimmon and Broyles Road. Persimmon will be required to be improved along the frontage of this property. Broyles Road is currently under design to be improved as a part of the wastewater treatment plant project. Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets: North: Persimmon St. (future collector) and 46 h Street (local) South: Sellers Rd. (future minor arterial) East: Rupple Rd. (future minor arterial) West: Broyles Rd. (collector) Water: The property will have access to an 8" looped water main system that is being installed with the Persimmon Place Subdivision. There is also a 12" main planned to be extended on the west side of this site to go to the proposed wastewater treatment plant. An extension of the water main will be required to provide water supply and fire protection within any development on this property. Sewer: The site currently has access to an 8" sewer main along the north property line and also through the middle of the site. Sewer will need to be extended within the development. This property's sewer will flow to the Owl Creek Lift Station (see attached charts for capacity information). Fire: The subject property is located 1.1 miles from the future Fire Station #7. Normal driving time is 2 min. 4 seconds. Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. KAREPOR73120041PC REPORTS106-28-04UNX 04-01.00 (GREENWOOD-SLOAN).DOC E E 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. It will significantly reduce the remaining area designated as Fayetteville's Planning Area in this portion of the City. 11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits. Finding: The proposed annexation area is adjacent to the City Limits to the north and west property boundaries. 11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide. Finding: This area does not consist of defined subdivisions or neighborhoods; however, future development plans may include the extension of the surrounding subdivisions to the north. The northern portion of this tract is designated as off - site drainage for the Cross Keys subdivision and is intended to provide detention for future residential development. 11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors. Finding: Proposed boundaries follow property lines. 11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered. Finding: Current conditions result in a response time of just more than 2 minutes for fire protection from the future Fire Station #7. Any development in this area would necessitate installation of hydrants to provide for fire protection. The site currently has access to an 8" sewer main along the north property line and also through the middle of the site. Sewer shall be extended at the time of 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: There are several tributaries crossing the subject property. K. IREPOM120041PC REPORTS106-28-04W NX 04-01. 00 (GREENWOOD-SLOAN). DOC EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES 11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. Finding: The police department reports that current levels of service would not be compromised and that coverage in this area can be provided. Sewer shall be extended from the 8" sewer main installed located north and through the property during the development of new subdivision(s). Access is available to an 8" water main being installed with Persimmon Place Subdivision. 11.6.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits. Finding: Fire and police service shall be provided to this area with the same level of response and service as other developments in this area. Sewer and water improvements to the area will be provided for with the development of approved preliminary plats. 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: Water, fire and police protection are currently provided in this area. 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: Improvements to sewer and street systems and installation of fire hydrants would be made necessary by the annexation should additional development occur on the subject property. 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. K:IREPOR7*S12004PC REPORTSI06-28-04W NX 04-01.00 (GRRENIVOOD-SLOAN). DOC 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. 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 to RSF-4, Residential single family, 4 units/acre. This zoning designation is compatible with surrounding developed property and the Residential classification of the area on the City's adopted Future Land Use Plan. 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. 11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals. Finding: Conceptual development proposals for this property have not been submitted to the Planning Division. At the time the owner desires to develop this property, the applicant will be required to submit a proposal for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 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. K: UZEPOR7S0004IPC REPORM06-18-04 4AW 04-0/.00 (GREENWOOD-SLOAN).DOC 11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. Finding: This annexation includes approximately 160.0 acres owned by The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A when the petition for annexation was submitted. The property is currently owned by Sloan Properties, Inc. The large size and location of this tract creates an acceptable city boundary. It is also adjacent to the McBryde/Sloan (ANX 04-02.00) and Marinoni (ANX 04-1083) annexation requests creating a more comprehensive area for the consideration of the combined requests. 11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations. Finding: A fiscal impact assessment has not been conducted for this property. K. UZEPORM004LPC REPOR7S106-28-04WNX 04-0/.00 (GREENWOOD-SLOAN).DOC 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. 1 1.6.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 1 1.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. 11.6.h 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 1 1.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process. 11.6.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. 1 1.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. 1 1.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations. K:IREPOR7Y20041PC REPOR7SI05-14-041ANX 04-01.00 GREENWOOD-SLOANDOC FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVTLLE, ARKANSAS ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Matt Casey, Staff Engineer DATE: April 20, 2004 PC Meeting of May 24, 2004 1131V. Mountain SL Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-820 2 ANX 04-01.00: Annexation (Greenwood/Sloan, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 461' and Persimmon. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Suzanne Morgan RZN 04-11.00: Rezoning (Greenwood/Sloan, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Planner: Suzanne Morgan A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion 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. The property will have access to an 8" looped water main system that is being installed with the Persimmon Place Subdivision. There is also a 12" main planned to be extended on the west side of this site to go to the proposed wastewater treatment plant. An extension of the water main will be required to provide water supply and fire protection within any development on this property. The site currently has access to an 8" sewer main along the north property line and also through the middle of the site. Sewer will need to be extended within the development. This property's sewer will flow to the Owl Creek Lift Station. The property has frontage along Persimmon and Broyles Road. Persimmon will be required to be improved along the frontage of this property. Broyles Road is currently under design to be improved as a part of the wastewater treatment plant project. Name Matt Casey Department Engineering Projected Wastewater Capacity With Maximum Allowable Development of Recently Approved and Proposed Annexations and Rezonings . Maximum Development Additional Units Lift Station Shlegel*** 290 Crystal Springs Dunnerstock" 68 Hamestring Creek Cross Keys'* 108 Owl Creek Chance and Tuggle*** 6 Owl Creek -Tipton/Sloan 117 Owl Creek Greenwood/Sloan 1 640 JOwl Creek McBryde/Sloan 1 320 JOwl Creek Current Remaining Approved Proposed Projected Remaining Lift Station Capacity units Additional Units Additional Units Capacity Crystal Springs 670 0 290 380 Hamestring* 29906 68 0 P1,357 Owl Creek 1,552 108 1,083 361 *Total remaing.Jlow and units include all areas tributary to Hamestring Lift Station. Flow for Hamestring Lifi Station includes flow from Crystal Springs, Hamestring, and Owl Creek Lift Stations "Approved by City Council is"Pending City Council action. FAYE PEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYEREVILLE, ARKANSAS April 19, 2004 Dawn Warrick Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Warrick, WCEIVED APR 10 2004 PANNING DIV. POLICE DEPARTYEKT This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed Annexation ANX 04-01.00 (Greenwood/Sloan, pp 477) and Rezoning RZN 04-11.00 (Greenwood/Sloan, pp 477) submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowersfor property located SE of the intersection of 46a' and Persimmon would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation and rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. Sincerely, L" ieutenant William Brown Fayetteville Police Department TTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT BOX 19M TTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72702-1988 (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 JAIL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 PHONE: 501-587-3555 FAX: 501-587-3522 FAYEI FIRE MARMIIAL'S OFFICE Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Division Date ¢ 20 0 REZONING XX . ANNEXATION XX REZONING# 04-11,00 OWNER Greenwood/Sloan ANNEXATON# 04-01.00 OWNER Greenwood/Sloan LOCATION OF PROPERTY SE o-f intersection of 46th & Persimmon NFi4REST FIRE STATION AND LOCATION. Station P, RuPle Rd (future) RESPONSE TIME FROM FIRE STATION # 7 TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY 2 MINUTES 4 SECONDS. GRAVEL MILES FROM FIRE PROPERTY 1.1 STATION # 7 TO LOCATION OF COMMENTS ON F DEREI ACCESS/ROAD WAYS EXIS RNG FIRE HYDRANTS? IF SO LOCATION WATER SUPPLY WITH HYDRANTS . NEEDED2-. Yea ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. MAIN OFFICE 115 SOUTH CHURCH ST. (501) 4443448 / (501) 444-3449 FAX (501) 575-8272 F'ILfrO 103 DEC 29 A(711 19 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WAS I(QT Ar & ARKANSAS Cl IN THE MATTER OF �1 t-A VO. CC 2003-.q ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PETMON FOR ANNEXATION Comes now, the Petitioner, Jean Greenwood Jowers, Trustee of The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A, and for her Petition for Annexation, states as follows: 1. Petitioner is the record owner of the following described real property situated in Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit: The Northwest Quarter (NW%.) of Section Thirteen (13), Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, containing 160 ages, more or less. 2. The above described property is adjacent to and contiguous to the present city boundary line for the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. 3. The above -described property is suitable for annexation to the City of Fayetteville. Arkansas, and is necessary for the proper growth, prosperity and management of the above -described real property and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 4. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-4-601 et seq, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein, and Petitioner requests that the above - described real property be annexed in and to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 5. Petitioner further states that the law firm of Raymond C. Smith, P.A., Fayetteville, Arkansas, is authorized to act for and on behalf of the Petitioner in all matters connected with this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceedings connected herewith. 6. Petitioner requests that this Court set a date for hearing on this Petition, not less 9 d lV6tLZ6l£9'ON/£Z ll'1S/5Z ll PON OZ ddV(3f11) H310 OOVM W081 than thirty days after the filing of this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceeding therewith. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the above -described real property be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, pursuant to the provisions of Arkansas Law, after a hearing thereon as required by law; that this Court, by Order, fix a time and place for said hearing not less than thirty days from the filing of this Petition; and for all other proper and just relief which the Petitioner may be entitled. JEAN GREENWOOD JOWERS, Trustee THE HO'YET GREENWOOD TRUST B Maymev6 C. Smith / Attorney at Law 70 N. College Avenue, Suite 11 Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 521-7011 Ark. Bar No. 80135 Attorney for Petitioner Z d tON OZ 8dN(3W MID OOVM WOdJ IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CASE NO. CC 2003-2� n o n o rn s m ORDER OF ANNEXATION = s:• z o � On this _day of February, 2004, this cause comes on to be heard, th4@45ner,u' i= �3>cn o m v Jean Greenwood Jowers, Trustee of The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A, repry hF 1.Cd> --. n M o Attorney, Raymond C. Smith of Fayetteville, Arkansas, announcing readg'o7c�gearirg � of the cause and there being no protests or objections filed, whereupon, the matte is submitted to the Court upon the verified petition filed herein, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Court being well and sufficiently advised finds: 1. The Petition in this cause was filed December 29, 2003, at which time the Court fixed February 5, 2004 at 10:00 a.m., as the date of hearing for said cause, and that a full thirty days notice of hearing was given as required by law and notice of publication 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. 3. The land proposed to be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas in this cause is described as follows: The Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section Thirteen (13) in Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty -One (31) West, containing 160 acres, more or less. 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 particularly adapted fordiffban mPv 0 (1Zi�34 y'..'...... idIV3 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 Act 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 the year 1963, as codified in Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 14-40-601, et seq, and this Order shall be duly recorded by the Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas. COUNTY JUDGE 2lj44b N 2 = ►l kviviSISI IYARN ROY! Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 48 ANX 04-01.00: Annexation (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-11.00: Rezoning (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: I believe the next item on our agenda is ANX 04-01.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. Morgan: This subject property contains approximately 160 acres of vacant property located south of Persimmon Street east of the future Broyles Avenue and west of the southern extension of Rupple Road. The approved Preliminary Plats for Persimmon Place and Cross Keys R-PZD are located just north of this subject property. The property is adjacent to the city limits to the north and the west. The applicant proposes the annexation of this property, 160 acres into the City of Fayetteville. Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation based on findings within the staff report and that the subject property is adjacent to the City of Fayetteville and will create appropriate city boundaries. In conjunction with this annexation request is RZN 04-11.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from R-A to RSF-4 should the preceding annexation request of 160 acres be approved. The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance limiting development to 1.5 units per acre. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could step forward, introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Smith: Good evening, my name is Raymond Smith. I submitted the application on behalf of Greenwood and Mr. Sloan of Sloan Properties. As was explained, this property is located southeast of the intersection of 46`h and Persimmon. It is approximately 160 acres. It is adjacent to 40 acres for the Cross Keys subdivision which this would be part of the Cross Keys subdivision that is already in the city being developed. Mr. Sloan has quite a bit of detail here that he is passing out to you that shows the location of this property and what the plans are. Planning Commission • • Jime 28, 2004 Page 49 Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, the owner/developer of the 160 acres. What I have given you tonight is a drawing. This has my property which is the west 160 acres and then the McBryde property which is attached to mine on the east side running parallel. I am working with the McBrydes to help them develop theirs at the same time that I'm doing mine. What we have proposed here is a subdivision, we do have floodplain in this subdivision. We knew that going in. One of the questions that 1 had was what to do with that floodplain which would be open field for the neighborhood to look at. One day it dawned on me why not putting in a first T golf course for kids. It is across the street from the Boys Club and was it possible. We went and talked with the Boys and Girls Club, visited with them for a little bit and they said yes, that they would be interested in doing something if we could build it and make the revenue neutral for them so it didn't cost them anything to maintain. We sort of put our heads together and talked with a couple of other developers in that area that are already under construction right now and asked them if they would be willing to participate with us and they said yes. We are trying to take the floodplain, we have had a wetland study done and are avoiding all of the wetlands and we decided to see if we could get in a nine hole golf course. We have talked with the First Tee again to see if they would be interested in helping us out with the golf course that teaches kids nine core values. We plan on having lots that will range in different sizes from 145' lots to 95' lots around this golf course and down to the south of it. We do expect to bring this to you in phases. We are probably not going to go out there and do this all at one time. Knowing the city's situation with the sewer plant we do know that we have to do this in phases according to plan. Obviously, we are not going to build streets and get lots ready and find out that we don't have capacity. We understand that but we do already have the property. On the south comer coming up on the McBryde's southeast corner there is about 11 acres in there. Some is in the floodplain, some is not. There are some wetlands around it. Rather than try to work our way into the wetlands we decided just to make that a park for that area. That is what we would like to have. Once again, whoever maintains the golf course and has ownership has to maintain the park. Basically, what we are trying to do is put this in and offer it to the Boys and Girls Club to offer kids golf. It shouldn't cost them anything. There are scholarships to buy clubs for kids who can't afford it. It is a good amenity. There is still a lot of meshing of different people, architects and engineers that it has to go through. A lot of things that we did ask for is that it has to be environmentally friendly because there is a creek around this. We don't need to build pebble beach. We need to build a golf course that has low maintenance, something natural that keeps fertilizers and things like that down to a minimum. There are a lot of issues that we are trying to address. We will maintain a minimum of 20' buffer off of the creek. We have had the Corp. of Engineers out there with us. They have looked at our plans and said that they did not have problems with anything that we Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 50 were trying to do. We will need detention and things like that so there are a lot of issues still to address. What we would come through first would be the portion abutting Persimmon Street. We are building Persimmon Street now in the first phase of Cross Keys. We are building from 461h Street and over to the Nock property and the McBryde property and then it is going to be taken on over to Rupple Road for the Boys Club. Other than that, with staff s recommendation, we have met with other developers that are coming through tonight to get together so good things could happen that would benefit each one of us. One of the things hat we talked about that is not on my plat and I don't think it is really on his yet because it hasn't been worked out, we talked with the Corp. about maybe not having Rupple go straight south, go to the south of the property that the school would like to purchase and bring it away from the wetland area, south around the valley basically verses putting it on the side of the hill as it does now. Those are some issues that will have to be worked out. Right now it is just a concept plan. We feel comfortable with that 1.5 Bill of Assurance for my property and the McBryde property together. We left a little bit of flexibility. We did look at the RSF-2 zoning and the problem with that is that it requires the 100' lots and some of these lots are 90' or 95'. It is almost like a great thing for a PZD except it has so many people that would have to come together to make this work. We would like to at least go ahead and get started to build the road across there. We would like to get that started and then get some answers basically on what we need to do further to the south. We can do this in phases. This phase is going to be based on what city capacity is. We have been working closely with Greg Boettcher since a year ago on this thing to know what the capacity of the treatment plant was at knowing that if I purchased this property could I have capacity in 2006. We know that there are issues to face on this project. That is sort of where we are at. I bought my property January 91h. The McBrydes have owned their property for 24 years. We did not go out and make this decision based on the school. We made a decision to do this project. The Jowers asked me if I would be interested if they wanted to sale. Jean and I have been friends for years. They have been gracious to work with me and give me the opportunity on this project. We have already paid for it and purchased it. It is the same price whether it is in the floodplain or not. We did think that maybe bringing an amenity to Fayetteville would be great. I did talk to First Tee and there will be a First Tee golf course in Northwest Arkansas. They are fishing for a home. I would like for it to be in Fayetteville. I would like for it to be on this property. Right now I think that is where they would like to have it at. Ostner: I will open the floor to public comment at this point. Ralston: Good evening. I'm Linda Ralston. I'm fairly new to the Planning process. I just want a clarification. I know it was comment about the Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 51 RSF-2. I just wanted that clarified, it sounds like maybe a portion of this is commercial so I wondered if that all ties into the same zoning area. Are there different zonings? That is a comment just from being a little bit green. Also, through this area that is being talked about for Rupple Road and Persimmon and along that. Rupple Road I believe is no longer on the master street plan to go all the way through to Hwy. 62 or 6`h Street. There is a lot coming together right in that area and I'm greatly concerned about a cul-de-sac almost bottlenecking. Ostner: Thank you. Would someone else like to speak? McGuire Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I live at 2742 N. Cheryl Avenue. I'm actually almost reduced to hysterical laughter. I don't even know if I will be able to speak because I believe I have just heard that the disadvantaged children of the Jefferson School neighborhood are going to get to trade their neighborhood school for a golf course! That is just what they need. I would be curious whether this Greenwood/Sloan annexation included a golf course when they brought it before you before but decided to table it. If not, I would say that there has been some influence by those of who has been trying to take a closer look and maybe resisting all of this annexation because these people are now trying to put in amenities to make these things more attractive than what they might have been before. I do appreciate your hard work of sitting up here and doing all of the studying that you have to do. I want to say again almost hysterically, that we just got a notice from the tax assessor for our land. We have some land in Goshen and it's value has gone from $36,000 to $75,000 in one year and we don't even have sewers or a school or anything. Definitely things are going on here. I just want to point out that 1 imagine that the reason that this Greenwood/Sloan annexation came forward when it did, which was a couple of months ago and right at the same time as the McBryde/Sloan is because of the location of the school on the McBryde/Sloan plat. It was immediately after the McBryde/Sloan property was chosen as the most possible location of Jefferson School that this annexation came out. I just wanted to point out again that there is a tremendous relationship between school placement and development. I do feel in terms of the annexation task force and even getting the right of citizens to speak at the school board that it is really all too late. That the very wise entrepreneurs and business men and investment bankers in town have done wonderful long term planning and are all ready to leap out with everything already all planned, a ten year plan for schools and all of these things and before we barely have time to wake up it is going to be over. It is going to be over tonight a lot of it might be. Anyway, I don't know if we should annex or not. I am more looking at the relationship between school placement and development. With this school placement out here the Westside development is taken care of. Next it will be the Cummins Park school on the south side and that will take care of the development Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 52 out there, acres of development added on. Then there is going to be the Hissum School on Hissum Lane going out toward Goshen on Hwy. 45. Ostner: Ms. Bowman, there is no school called for on this project that we are talking about tonight. Bowman: We'll look at McBryde/Sloan to see if there is a school called for there either and we will wonder why not. Anyway, I just want to make a relationship between all of this annexation. It wouldn't be going on right now, they wouldn't have come forward except that the school got placed out there. Ostner: Thank you. Are there other comments from the public? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. We have talked about both annexation and rezoning in the same conversations but really we are only looking at the annexation item first. Anthes: In contrast to the last annexation that I voted against I do find that this particular parcel seems to fit more of the criteria for annexation guideline policy. One is that it is a piece of property that is tucked in a pocket that is almost completely wrapped with the City of Fayetteville. It is much closer to density and to a commercial neighborhood node at Wedington and Rupple and the Boys and Girls Club and a R-PZD that we just approved for Rupple Row and the fire station. We have density there that seems to speak to this property having more pressure for development than perhaps some of the more outlying areas. Also, we do have quite a large amount of environmentally sensitive area within this property that I would hope that the city could work with on. I had no idea about this golf course and the annexation, which way we choose to vote one way or the other has nothing to do with whether this amenity is offered. I will say that protecting that water way and making sure that whatever happens there, whether it is a golf course, greenspace, dedication or whatever, is handled in a way that contributes positively to the tributaries and streams in the area. If this is 160 acres, which seems to me is large, and would be something that I would be looking for a fiscal impact assessment on. However, since it seems like we have not ever required those before nor has the annexation task force, from what Commissioner Graves was saying, it doesn't seem like they are going to be requesting those reports. I guess I'm not going to let that hold me back on this site. Graves: I don't necessarily think that the taskforce won't be asking for those kinds of reports. I think that the taskforce is looking at a wide range of things such as recommendations to make amendments to the General Plan when that occurs next year. Recommendations for the ordinances surrounding annexation and some guiding policies for annexation. The chance of getting a fiscal impact study for these particular properties in the time Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 53 frame that the taskforce has been organized could not have occurred. It is information that the taskforce is certainly interested in and has inquired about. I would expect that information much like the sewer impact study tat everyone waited on last year on annexation. I would expect that some of that type of information would be forthcoming as a result of recommendations coming out of the taskforce. It probably isn't something that we are going to see right away on some of the things that are coming before us in the meantime. Shackelford: Staff, part of this request we have been given a Bill of Assurance limiting density to 1.5 units per acre. Just for the record to make sure we are all on the same page, Commissioner Vaught asked earlier what goes into the denominator of that calculation. We have talked about this area being a golf course and possibly greenspace that would be dedicated. You made the comment earlier that if it was a park that it would not go in to the calculation for density. What about if it is as proposed a golf course or if it is required to be set aside as greenspace? Would that go into the calculation for density? Warrick: That is an issue pertinent to the rezoning which will be the next item that we are talking about. Not knowing what is going to happen my understanding is that 1.5 that is being offered with the Bill of Assurance for this project covers the whole 160 acres. We would certainly have to look at all of the variables with regard to whether or not the Parks Department wishes to have that property dedicated to the city so that it would then be under the city's ownership for the golf course. I am not sure that that is necessarily in the plans for this particular site. The golf course is relatively new for all of us I believe. Right now my understanding is that the offer by the developer is a calculation of 1.5 density over the entire 160 acres. Shackelford: Obviously I am jumping the gun and talking about rezoning before we talk about annexation but I've already started so I'm going to finish. What about as the applicant indicated this thing comes in and is phased? Will the Bill of Assurance limiting it to 1.5 per acre, I don't understand how that is going to work because they bring in the first phase that is probably going to be greater than that density thinking that they are looking at the overall piece. How would you approach that as staff? Warrick: Honestly, for this particular site it is a little bit problematic to look at one overall zoning. The speaker who made the first comments with regard to the golf course questioned the zoning and whether that was a different district and how that would be handled. We did some quick checking and golf courses are permitted in certain zoning districts but not in residential zoning districts. My suggestion would be that this area, because of the varying densities that the developer appears to be proposing and because Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 54 of the amenities that they have proposed with the golf course if it does come to fact and also the fact that there is a portion of this property that is covered by floodplain and floodway. This is a site that falls under the criteria that we would encourage a developer to process a Planned Zoning District. At that point they have some latitude with setting out densities and lot sizes and different types of community open space, which is part of the idea with regard to this golf course area if I'm understanding it the way that 1 believe it has been presented then it really does kind of fall under those types of projects that we would encourage someone to process as a Planned Zoning District. It is not something that really fits into the package of one existing zoning district for every portion of the site. Shackelford: With that I have one more question. Have we seen a situation and is it possible to have a PZD when you have a project that encompasses more than one tract of property which brings in more than one applicant as this proposed development does? Warrick: I think as long as all of the applicants were willing and served collectively as one voice then it is possible to do something like that. In many cases we see groups of individuals come together to make a request for a commercial development or in some cases an annexation. You will see later in the agenda there is an annexation proposal that has several different property owners represented in the petition. That is something where collectively it works better than individually. It is possible. Ostner: My concern is that this is a terrific drawing. I've never even heard of First Tee and I'm blown away. It is an amazing concept but with an annexation and rezoning it is really just a suggestion. The applicant, good intentions aside, is not legally bound to this drawing. This is an idea that he wants to do. Mr. Shackelford raised a great point. If we rezone to single family, Mr. Sloan could run into a problem trying to rezone the golf course, can't get it rezoned and suddenly two years from now the golf course isn't built. I just want to make it clear that if this were a PZD we would have a lot more certainty that this terrific concept could be brought through. We are simply considering the annexation and the land use rezoning at this point. Vaught: I guess my opinion on it is we need to look at whether we think it is appropriate to rezone and then we need to establish an appropriate rezoning, with or without a Bill of Assurance, with or without these concept drawings. Let the developer, if this is what he wants, work with city staff and hopefully he would be amicable to bringing forward a PZD. He understands the complications with breaking up a zone like this in these ways because you would have to break up the lots and then it gets funny with the Bill of Assurance and how do you calculate the 1.5. Those are a lot of my questions, even floodplain and actual creek acreage. I Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 55 don't know if that is included in the calculation. Is it included in the calculation of the 1.5? Warrick: My guess is that it is. This is relatively new information for us. Vaught: In my opinion itisprime to be annexed. It is definitely a residential area of town with it's location and with what is going on around it. With the Boys and Girls Club and with our statements that we would like to see heavier density in some areas like Rupple Road and some of these new areas that have come in. I would almost think that 1.5 units per acre is too low but I think that with the amount of floodplain that's where we are falling into that 1.5 units per acre because we can't build on a lot of this site. I would hope as a PZD we could possibly work with the applicant. If they came to us as one 240 acre site that would be a situation like we had on wilson springs where we had such a large area that the engineering work that had to be done on the site was overwhelming. It could possibly be one of those more confusing PZDs would be correct in this situation. Ostner: Thank you. Matt, on 7.10 and 11 can you explain a little bit how I'm to read this? I'm understanding that there is sewer capacity for these projects but if you could just touch on how to read your charts for me. Casey: The chart hereon 7.10 lists the three major lift stations in the area. We are looking at Owl Creek lift station for this area but it also pumps directly into Hamestring Creek. Any impact we have on Owl Creek will also impact Hamstring Creek. What we have shown here are the estimated remaining units left that could be added to lift stations. If we add 200 units to the Owl Creek lift station we also need to figure that into the impact of the Hamestring Creek also. On the next page, Dawn may need to help me on this, I have not seen this table before. That was something that our Planning Division put together. Warrick: I will try to help. On page 7.11 what we've tried to do is give the Planning Commission and City Council an understanding of what impact on that determined remaining capacity on those three lift stations on the west side of town that new development would have. This goes back to some degree to Ms. Clark's conversation earlier about having available the ability to serve new developments. We have in the first table included the various projects that have been submitted and processed through the city. The last four are items that we are seeing tonight but those are projects that we have been considering since he study was released. That study gives you the numbers on page 7.10 as available units or remaining capacity on each of those lift stations. Those numbers represent the maximum based on the zoning district that each of these developments have requested. It is not real numbers with regard to approved Preliminary Plats. It is a maximum density if it was fully developed at Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 56 that zoning that is being requested. We have calculated that out and projected remaining capacity, which is the last column in the second table on page 7.11. That indicates that there is remaining capacity in each of those lift stations to accommodate proposed developments at full density build out. Ostner: This is with our current sewer system and is totally independent of our project? Warrick: That is correct. That is without the Bills of Assurance that this developer has proposed. This is at the density that the underlying zoning would allow. Ostner: The Bills of Assurance lower these numbers? Warrick: Yes, they would lower these numbers significantly. Vaught: If we approve this with the Bill of Assurance if he comes back through with a PZD it will trump that Bill of Assurance, is that correct? Williams: That is correct because in fact, it would be a rezoning. It is like if he came back with a different kind of zoning that was approved and then the most current rezoning folds. MOTION: Shackelford: In an effort to keep this thing moving forward, I agree with the comments that Commissioner Anthes made earlier. I think that this annexation makes a lot of sense based on where it is in relationship to the other standards that we are charged to look at. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of ANX 04-01.00. Clark: Second. Ostner: I have a question. I'm not sure if staff can answer it. On our findings our services, fire police and engineering have given us their report. On page 7.12 the Fayetteville Police Department's approval letter says that this project will not alter the population density or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. Wedington is a problem. It is less of a problem since it was widened. The Wedington/Betty Jo area is very problematic. I'm wondering what the capacity of Wedington might be. How close to capacity Wedington is flowing now. The accidents and the length of wait at that signal. I believe traffic should be right in here as an infrastructure that we have a finding for. I'm not sure the qualifications of the police department to consider the engineering of traffic flow. I would like to believe that they are fully Planting Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 57 capable. I'm not sure they are. That is my question. Can you address any of those issues? Warrick: I can request reports and traffic counts on that area to get an understanding. I can tell you that the Highway Department is working on improvements to Wedington west of Rupple. Rupple Road east all the way into Garland to Gregg Street has been improved and the Highway Department currently has a project that they are working on widening Rupple Road west 1 believe to Double Springs but I can get you the information on that. That is a project that they are currently under way with. I believe that they are looking at rights of way acquisition and easements and utility relocations at this point in time. That is something that I can tell you. I can also say that when the Police Department is reviewing this they are reviewing this for annexation of vacant land. Annexation of vacant land doesn't necessarily cause any new impact. A development certainly would. Their evaluation of an annexation is to determine whether or not they can reasonably serve it and whether or not they serve that existing development in that area right now. Ostner: It is the same form letter for the rezoning as well. Warrick: It is. I encourage them to evaluate that specifically as well. If they give the same area then I have to take it on faith that they have reviewed it. They go on our Zoning Review Tours with us and they look at these sites. In this particular area yes Wedington does have a tremendous amount of traffic on it. Hwy. 62 does as well. These projects that we are considering, this property specifically is right in between the two. The city is currently building Broyles Road which is the north/south connector street between those, at least to the south end of the city limits of Fayetteville where it will be picked up and exist in the city of Farmington. Then we have Rupple Road which is projected to connect Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 16 but it can't unless development occurs along that corridor or the City Council determines that is the high priority and it becomes a capital improvement project on one of the city's future capital plans. Persimmon is a projected connector street east and west between Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 16 is being pieced together as various properties develop. That street will connect Double Springs Road to Shiloh Drive, the outer road to 1-540. Like I said, it is built in pieces and it is getting there but it won't be complete unless property is developed on either side or unless the City Council determines that is one of the highest priorities with regard to capital improvements that needs to be installed by the city. That is what I can tell you about the infrastructure in the area. I can request accident reports and traffic numbers and things like that if you would like. Ostner: I would like to know more about the traffic. The strategic plan that the Council came up with and are very proud of it has a goal of improve Planning Commission • June 28, 2004 Page.58 mobility and street quality. The top action for 2003 was an east/west connectivity plan. We have lots of east/west corridor issues in this town. I believe that Hwy. 62 and Wedington are two great examples. I'm not sue when we are going to solve them if we don't at least examine them now when we are looking at annexing 160 acres. Those are my concerns. I agree with Commissioner Anthes that this project is very different from the last project much further west that we looked at. I would be more inclined to annex this area. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 59 Ostner: The next item is the tandem item on this same piece of property, RZN 04- 11.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. We have already heard the staff report. Are there any members of the public who would like to address this rezoning? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Vaught: I have a question for the developer. I just wanted to make sure you understood a lot of these issues that we have been talking about. Sloan: Yes. The golf course has been involved in this thing since the day that I walked in and told Mrs. Jowers that I would buy it. That was two days before we made the decision and that was almost a year ago that we were going to put the golf course in. I have spoken with a few people in Planning about it. We didn't want it out in public or anything right now because we still have to bring a lot of entities together to see if we could make it work. I don't like the fact that people think that I just brought this up to the table. It has always been on the table and I can bring witness after witness in here. Some of them are city employees. I see the problems with it. It probably should be a PZD. I don't mind pulling the rezoning and coming back with basically the same drawing and having the surveyors break out the boundaries and everything. Would a concept plat fly through verses doing the whole thing? 1 know that this got to be a question before. I guess in a sense that we can bring a concept plat in and then each phase completely drawn to actual scale and things like that. We can easily get the boundaries because we know that we are going to work within limited boundaries for the golf course. We know that the front lots are all going to be 300' deep. We have already made that determination. We just put the line 300' south of Persimmon and said that's it for those. We know where we are at there. You guys suggest the best way to do this and we are willing to work with it. That's not a problem pulling it back. I didn't realize the golf course needed to be in a separate zoning district. Homes are on the golf course. I have never built one and wouldn't be doing this except for it's a First Tee situation and it is worth the effort that we have to put in for it and we have enough people to support it. Once again, I don't mind bringing it back as a PZD. We would love to do concept rather than doing sewer and trying to work out everything on the last lot and the whole project may be two years away or three years before we can even break ground on it. That is the only question I've got. You guys advise us and we will try to work within that advisory. I see the problems 1 would have with the zoning. We were hoping that the Bill of Assurance would be the thing. Some of it was because all of the sudden we were asking for the RSF-4 and it looks like many homes could go in there. We are not looking for that. That was the reason for offering the Bill of Assurance that we wouldn't exceed that. I did not realize that the golf course needed to be in another zoning district. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 60 Vaught: I would say that is something that you need to work with staff on. We have one other really large PZD that has come through as something similar. I don't know how it would work with a residential PZD or whatever this winds up being. That was more of a residential section and commercial section with defined lots. 1 don't know how it works. Warrick: We have within our ordinance the mechanism to look at this the way Mr. Sloan wants to have this. You mentioned the springwoods Planned Zoning District. In that development they had 289 acres and broke it out into nine large lots and identified land use and density for each of those lots with the expectation that we would then follow that up and see development proposals on each of them. One thing that was unique about that project is that much of the infrastructure was already existing at least to provide access to each of the large lots that was being created because it is surrounded by various city streets. We are right now processing through the development review, two subdivisions for two of those lots that were created in the springwoods PZD. We are looking at lot 3 and lot 5 which are both single family subdivisions. I would suggest that we might be able to treat this in a very similar fashion where we look at the whole 240 acres and say that this large tract will be single family residential developed at a density of "X". This large tract would be commercial recreation developed for a First Tee golf course and then take it out in chunks that basically matches an appropriate development pattern. We would be looking initially at just blocks of property, large lots that would have to be followed up by Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Developments, whichever is appropriate, for each of those large lots under the conditions of the zoning that is set for the PZD. Shackelford: Just a follow up question on that for the record. That, as you explained it, wouldn't be that much different from a developer's standpoint than doing it in phases. If you do Phase I of A,B,C subdivision and then you do Phase II you have to come through with a Preliminary Plat and that sort of thing, is that correct? Warrick: It would be very similar to that although we would look at the whole grand scheme of things, the whole master plan up front to understand the relationship between the various uses and densities the major street connections that need to be talked about and identified at that time as well. Vaught: All that said I don't think we should pull the rezoning request. I think that we are bound to assign some zoning to this and if we do nothing it is assigned R-A, which I don't necessarily think it is appropriately zoned. I think that we are bound to set some sort of zoning. Ostner: I believe if we do set some sort of zoning we, in our minds, need to forget about the golf course, which is not compliant with the zoning district we Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 61 are granting. We are granting a zoning district, we are granting a density, we don't know about the golf course. I just wanted to clarify that. Anthes: I'm encouraged to hear the developer discuss the possibility and probability now of a PZD for this property. The reason why is because I look at that R-1.5 and 1 look at the proximity of this to city services and commercial nodes and I find that density to be alarmingly low in certain parts of this parcel. That doesn't mean that it would be alarmingly low over the entire 260 acres. Some graduated use of possibly mixed density, mixed income and other uses rather than mere single family homes, particularly when we have talked about accessibility to things like golf courses. In fact, in looking at this where you have the lowest density might be something that I would ask you to look at possibly exchanging for the higher density and vice versa. That is to give more people access to the public amenity rather than fewer people access to the public amenity. Give more people public access and a closer walking arrangement to an already more dense zoning, which I think is about 7.9 units per acre just north of here and the commercial zone and the Boys and Girls Club. I'm heartened by that. I would like to see this come through as a PZD and I think one way we could do that if the applicant is willing is that we could table the rezoning request for reconsideration, which I believe we have done before on following an annexation. I will move to table RZN 04-1100. Allen: Second. Sloan: Does that allow us to come back with a PZD? Anthes: Yes. Sloan: I would do that. That keeps you guys thinking. Shackelford: If we make a motion to table do we need to put a date specific on it or what are the repercussions of the motion as it stands? Williams: You have some choices on that. You could have a motion to table to a definite date or you could motion to table indefinitely upon request of the applicant to get back on the agenda. You can do either way. Sometimes in parliamentary procedure a motion to table indefinitely is also a motion to kill because it usually means something doesn't ever come back up and I don't think that is your intent. Shackelford: That was my concern because I don't think that is our intent either. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 62 Anthes: I will restate my motion. I would move to table this rezoning request until time that the applicant requests it comes back before us with a different classification. Allen: I will second. Vaught: By tabling it we are not allowing him to jump right in where he was with a PZD, does he have to start all over with a PZD? Warrick: A PZD is kind of a different ball of wax. It does go through a different review process than a rezoning does. We will have to start at the initial stage in looking at this as far as the development and land use classifications. To some degree he is starting back at the beginning but it is not just a request for rezoning at that point. It is a request for zoning and development combined approval. We are really getting back to the beginning with the development portion of it. Vaught: By tabling this rezoning we are probably never going to vote on it again. Warrick: Not as an independent rezoning without a development. If the developer does what I think he will do, which is process a PZD. The only thing in a PZD you do not hear that zoning independent of the development. Vaught: Because of that I feel it is appropriate for us to go ahead and assign the zoning that we think is appropriate and a PZD will trump that when it comes back through. Shackelford: I concur. I don't want to be problematic, especially with where we are on this agenda and where we have to go. I don't think that if we go ahead and make a recommendation for a rezoning that that has any affect whatsoever in this applicant and following the applicant's ability or desire to bring forth an R-PZD. I think that we need to look at this in tandem as our ordinances are written now and that we request annexation and assign a zoning to it. I think the question before us is RSF-4 appropriate given the surrounding land use of this property. I think that it is. I would like to go ahead and in the nature of what we are supposed to be doing, go ahead and recommend approval of that rezoning. Again, this is a recommendation for approval by the City Council so it will be reviewed there. Any development that came through on this would have to come back before this board as well. I don't think that we are giving up any control. I think we are keeping this thing moving so we are not asking the applicant to start over and we are not in any way inhibiting his ability or desire to bring forth an R-PZD. Anthes: I respectfully disagree and that is because on 160 acre tract in this location I don't feel that there is one consistent zoning that makes sense across the Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 63 entire property and therefore, I couldn't find for one. In addition, I feel that there is a motion on the table and that that needs to be heard and I don't intend to withdraw it unless there is a procedural problem. Williams: The motion to table would take precedence. Sloan: What if we just went R-A right now? Let me just do the R-A and then we will come back because we were going to do the golf course and obviously, 1 need more density on the southern end of it. 1 don't mind coming back through if that is what we need to do to make this thing official. Anthes: The reason why is if something happens and Mr. Sloan sales the entire piece of property then there would be development by right to a certain level of density that we haven't been able to study yet for it's appropriateness. That is why I would rather leave it either tabled or at a low density in favor of the PZD. Warrick: if this rezoning request were withdrawn the annexation continued on, and if it were approved by Council then the default zoning designation would be applied to this property as R-A. Thereby basically resulting in what you were talking about and the property having to come through some sort of approval process to be developed with any density other than one unit per two acres. I would be willing to bet that the applicant wouldn't mind withdrawing in light of that result. Anthes: Can I ask if the fees that are paid towards this rezoning request would then be able to be transferred to the PZD process? Sloan: I'll answer that for you. No. Warrick: We have spent a lot of staff time and materials on this. I'm pretty hesitant to do that. Ostner: Mr. Sloan, would you like to withdraw this rezoning request? Currently we have a motion to table. Sloan: R-A is fine. We will come back through with a PZD. I just don't know how fast the engineering firm can come back with the information. That's the biggest thing is just trying to coordinate everybody. That is the reason we were trying to stay with sort of a blanket zoning until you get about four different entities together and everybody fights over how many square feet they need for this or for that amenity and then what's left we will develop with residential. I'm not sure how quick we can pull that together but that was the reason for sort of avoiding the PZD. We did the PZD across the street. I liked it. We come to you, we show you exactly Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 64 what we are going to do, we guarantee we are going to do it and it makes the neighbors real happy. It is the same thing here except because of the time constraint, can we get in, do we spend more money knowing whether we are going to get annexed in or not. That was one of the issues and then can we get zoned so that we can do a concept like this. I guess that is where a PZD needs to be looked at as a concept PZD. That would be a strong issue. To me that is a great idea to allow us to run it through here. We don't spend as much money and time and then come back with all of the real drawings and everything else. Ostner: It would seem to me procedurally that it would be more helpful for the Council to see this thing tabled than as an annexation with a withdrawn rezoning request. I would suggest that we go ahead and vote on the tabling on your behalf. Warrick: I thought the annexation was already approved. Ostner: By us. Warrick: Now the request is... Ostner: I'm just thinking in these chambers on a Tuesday night they have to look at an annexation with no rezoning request. Warrick: They will have your minutes and they will have your recommendations and I think that there is a clear understanding of the expectations that we look at this as a comprehensive development plan and determine appropriate zoning based on the development plan for a PZD. I don't think that is too far of a reach from the policy that they have set out. Again, it is a policy that they look at those items together. It is really your determination. If it is tabled it is expected to come back as some type of zoning request. That is a little bit problematic because it wouldn't really be the same type of request. Very likely there would be additional land included in the PZD than just this 160 acres. Vaught: I have a question. By not voting on annexation we are recommending R- A as an appropriate use of this thing. I don't think it is an appropriate use for this land. I think that we should put something on there because a PZD may never come before us. We don't know. He is intending to but something could happen tomorrow and it doesn't happen so we have to look at what is appropriate for this area. R-A is not and by right they could develop that to R-A. That is an area that we have talked about wanting something more than R-1.5 per acre. By R-A you are saying one per two acres. Anthes: I'm saying to table it which is not R-A. Planning Commission Jime 28, 2004 Page 65 It is R-A right now. If we don't send something forward it is R-A. I think that we should send something forward with it. I think that we need to consider the zoning and if R-A is not appropriate we should make a recommendation when we vote on annexations. 1 understand your concerns. I would tend to disagree. Land inside the city limits that is zoned R-A is not cost effective. When you are a land owner and you are sitting on R-A you are passing up a lot of opportunities. I believe the market speaks when R-A is zoned into the city it is going to be rezoned. R-A is not that bad. We have a motion to table unless he would like to withdraw. Mr. Sloan, do you agree with tabling this so you can come back with a PZD? If I am tabling it and we go through and are annexed in we are automatically R-A anyway. If that is the consensus then we are fine with it. We have a motion and a second to table. We are tabling but technically if it gets annexed in we are going to be R-A That is how it will go. Is there further discussion to vote on the issue of tabling? Renee, could you please call the roll? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table was approved by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Shackelford, Vaught and Graves voting no. The motion carries by a vote of six to three. STAFF REA FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLIWION AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: July 20, 2004 FROM: Dawn Warrick Name Planning CP&E Division Department ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: ANX 04-01.00: (Greenwood/Sloan, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located southeast of the intersection of 46th Avenue and Persimmon Street containing approximately 160 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval. Received in Mayor's Office-r)—ou DatdavL Date Cross Reference: Department Director Date Previous Ord/Res#: 0-?- 0� Fi ance & Internal Services Dir. Date Orig. Contract Date: 9`- ? 'U Orig. Contract Number: hief ministr tive Officer Date Z� New Item: Yes No Mayor Date FAYETTEXALLE 0 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS City Clerk Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 576-8323 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Dawn Warrick Planning Division From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman L City Clerk Division Date: August 9, 2004 Re: Ordinance No. 4596 Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, Au%ust 3, 2004, confirming ANX 04-1.00, which annexes property located southeast of the intersection of 46 Street and Persimmon Street containing approximately 160.00 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 NORTHWVSST ARKANSAS •• FMITION C, , s Demolcm0r0azeW AUG 16 2004 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLi CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, do solemnly swear that I am Lego 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, that advertisement of: Chd 1' a,YlQL 4 61P was inserted in the regular editions on Y- ** Publication Charge: $ gao2_-'� Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 2004. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 0746 Aod ** 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 — ORDINANCE NO. {BGB - ----- --' -- - -- AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING ARKANSAS, THE ANNEXATION TO THE e ev le CRVOFINANCECONFRMING I -I OFCERTAIN PROPERIV OWNED By JEAN GREENWOOD JOWEAS LOCATED SOUTH- EAST OF THE INTERSECRON OF 4EM STREET AND PER- ARKANSAS SIMMON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 160.00 ACRES BE R ORDAINED BY THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF FAYBTTEYILLE, ARKANSAS: Sestbn 1: That he Cny Counod hereoy confirms the areNxatlon to the City of FayenevNe. AMDwee, of that property d0Wbed In Edubt'A' attached hereto and made a pert hereof. Section 2: The official map of the Clty of Feyenevile, Arkehs . Is hereby emended to reflect the tlterge PruAded h Sections 1 above. Section 3: That fhe 0151 zOning reap of the CITY of Fayetteville. Arkansas is hereby Mended to assign the zodng deslgnetlon of R-A. Reeloent el Agricultural to the sutJoat property. Section 4: That the etc v esuibed pmpery is hereby asslgneo to Ward No: Four. PAESM WINI APPROYeD this 3rd day of August, 2004, APPROVED: Br DAN COODr, 1Aaaror Ayes: Seam amKD , M04 EXHIBIT 04-01.W 1.0 - AM THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (N 1/4) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13). TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY-ONE (31) WEST, COr<RAINING 160 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, 212 NOHiH EAST AVENUE P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 0 (501) 442-1700 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUTRiFF4�RKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF '03 rE-C 29 F'n 1 28 ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CArQ CC{2gR3 CLERK ORDER SETTRI SETTING HEANG' " ' = ') On thi5�qffday of December, 2003, is presented to this Court a Petition for Annexation filed in the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas on December 2003, by the Petitioner, Jean Greenwood Jowers, Trustee of The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A. IT IS THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-40-602, a hearing on said Petition for Annexation shall be held in the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas, on then day of r�grttlA/i 2004, at IQ .'O Uo'clock a m.4wa.; and the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to issue a notice of said hearing as set forth herein which shall be published in the manner and for the full length of time as required by law. COUNTY JUDGE Charlie Daniels Secretary of State September 16, 2004 The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard Washington County Clerk 280 North College Ave. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Dear Ms. Pritchard: State of Arkansas Secretary of State 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: 09/ 16/2004 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 4596 CC-2003-29 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. I. Sincerely n, ianna Godley OJOA Election Services Representative RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2004 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Room 256 State Capitol • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1094 501-682-1010 9 Fax 501-682-3510 e-mail: sos@aristotle.net • www.sos.arkansas.gov Barristers Place, Suite 11 70 North College Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-6101 RAYMOND C. SMITH, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW September 17, 2004 City Clerk City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: In The Matter of Annexation of Certain Lands To The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Washington County Court Cases No. CC 2003-027, CC 2003-029, and CC 2003-030 Dear Madame Clerk: Telephone (479) 521-7011 FAX (479) 443-4333 Toll Free 1-800-282-0168 Email omith70ll@sbcglobal.net 4 Enclosed are file mark copies of the Order Confirming Annexation entered on September 14, 2004, in the above referenced cases relating to lands owned by Tipton, McBryde and Hoyet Greenwood Trust respectively. Sincerely, and C. -th Encls. RECEIVED SEP 21 209 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERICS OFFICE • *-ILED IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON CODUNTY, ARKAIVSA;3 23 IN THE MATTER OF KAREPil COMBO PRITCHARB CO, il& PROBATE CLERK ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE Co - 1idCrUf CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CASE NO. CC 2003' a ARK, ORDER CONFIRMING ANNEXATION NOW on this/ day of September, 2004, comes on for hearing and consideration the Petition for Confirmation of Annexation filed by the Petitioner, Jean Greenwood Jowers, Trustee of The Hoyet Greenwood Trust A, by its attorney, Raymond C. Smith, and there being no objections or protests filed herein, and from the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Court, being well and sufficiently advised finds: 1. That an Order of Annexation was filed February 5, 2004, in the above styled and numbered case by which certain real estate owned by the Petitioner and situated in Washington County, Arkansas, was annexed to and made a part of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. Said real estate is fiuther described at Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2. No objections have been filed by any interested person with the authorities of the City of Fayetteville, or to the Petitioner, and no exceptions to the Order of Annexation has been filed with the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas. 3. The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas has by ordinance confirmed the annexation of the real property described at Exhibit "A" to the City of Fayetteville pursuant to Ordinance No.4596, "An Ordinance Confirming the Annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, of Certain Property Owned by Jean Greenwood Jowers Located Southeast of the Intersection of 46`h Street and Persimmon Street Containing Approximately 160.00 Acres", approved and passed by the City Council on the 3rd day of JEAN GREENWOOD JOWERS, TRUSTEE ORDER CONFIRMING ANNEXATION PAGE .I OF 4 August 2004, and recorded on 9 h day of September, 2004, at 2004-00037306 in the real estate records of the Circuit Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas, and filed for record on the 9 h day of September, 2004, at 2:45 o'clock P.M., in the records of the County Clerk for Washington County, Arkansas, a copy of said filed for record ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit `B." IT IS THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Order of Annexation entered on the 5th day of February, 2004, that annexed the herein described territory to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby approved and confirmed in all aspects. PERRY HVJNTON, County Judge JEAN GREENWOOD DOWERS, TRUSTEE ORDER CONFIRMING ANNEXATION PAGE .2 OF 4 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY-ONE (31) WEST, CONTAINING 160 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, JEAN GREENWOOD LOWERS, TRUSTEE ORDER CONFIRMING ANNEXATION PAGE .3 OF 4 r l • ORDINANCE NO, 4596 • C(� a6t3 ;�7 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY JEAN GREENWOOD JOWERS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 46TH STREET AND PERSIMMON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 160.00 ACRES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: r; s T T - :CI�' 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 I 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. Four. Section 4: That the above -described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. PASSED and APPROVED this 3rd day of August, 2004. APPROVED: >: •G�TY pc •G� i• ; FAYETTEVILLE: Attest: ,.- By: ondra Smith r m 0 Doc ID: 007653820002 TVDe: REL Recorded: 09/09/2004 at 02:27:06 PM Fee Amt: $11.00 Pace 1 of 2 Hashlnoton Countv. AR Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk File2004-00037306 r d aoo3 -29 ci*ti .erk's Ofc 501-0-7695 p.2 V5J6 EXHIBIT G°A" ANX 04-01,00 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (N '/4) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY-ONE (31) WEST, CONTAINING 160 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.