No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4602.n .,tp 3 ORDINANCE NO. 4602 r AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY ROBERT AND MINNIE BETH TIPTON LOCATED EAST OF DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD ADJOINING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LEGACY POINTE SUBDIVISION CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 29.31 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 17'h day of August, 2004. APPROVED: By: ATTEST: :`��'••G\SY oxc •GF ^ By; �Otida� �1)�Yvl� c •FAYETTEVILLE• SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk `L•• o .5 Doc ID: 007653870002 Tvoe: REL Recorded: 09/09/2004 at 02:28:18 PM Fee Amt: $11.00 Pace 1 of 2 Washinaton Countv. AR Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk File2004-00037311 CL lee 3-3'7 gvOaL 0 EXHIBIT "A" ANX 04-04.00 A PART OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE S87°39' 18"E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, 989.80 FEET TO A SET %z" REBAR; THENCE S02037'05"W, 1289.84 FEET TO AN EXISTING REBAR; THENCE N87°38'05"W 990.30 FEET TO A SET '/z IRON REBAR ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING N02038'0599E, 34.24 FEET NORTH OF THE SW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE NO2°38'25"E, 1289.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 29.31 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 0 0 Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 0910912004 022818 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2004-00037311 Bette Stamps . Circuit Clerk by IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. CC 2003 ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO ' r t w THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS C PETITION FOR ANNEXATION COMES now, Robert B. Tipton and Minnie Beth Tipton, husband and i�e; z Petitioners, and for their Petition for Annexation, state and allege as follq f 7t N 1. Petitioners are record title holders of the following described real property situated in Washington County, Arkansas: Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW%) of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/,) of Section Fourteen (14), Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty -One (31) West, being more particularly described as follows to wit: Beginning at the Northwest comer of the Northwest comer of said forty acre tract, said point being an existing iron pipe, thence S 87°39'18" E along the North line of said forty acre tract, 989.90 feet to a set Y2" rebar, thence S 02°37'05" W 1289.84 feet to an existing iron rebar, thence N 87°38105" W 990.30 feet to a set %s" iron rebar on the West line of said forty acre tract, said point being N 02°38'05" E 34.24 feet North of the Southwest comer of said forty acre tract, thence N 02°38'05" E 1289.49 feet to the point of beginning, containing 29.31 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas 2. All of the above -described real property is adjacent to and contiguous to the present city boundary line for the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. 3. The above -described real property is suitable for annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and is necessary for the proper growth, prosperity and management of the land and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 4. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-40-601 et seq, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein, and Petitioners request that the above - described real property be annexed in and to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. RECEI\!FD SEP 13 2004 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 5. Petitioners further state that the law firm of Raymond C. Smith, P.A. of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is authorized to act for and on behalf of the Petitioners in all matters connected with this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceedings connected herewith. 6. Petitioners request this Court set a date for hearing on this Petition, not less than thirty days after filing of this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceedings therewith. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the above -described 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, and 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 relief which the Petitioners may be entitled. ROBERT B. TIPTON and MINNIE BETH TIPTON, H&W Raynfond C. Smith Attorney at Law 70 N. College Ave. Suite 11 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Ark. Bar No. 80135 Attorney for Petitioners • E VERIFICATION State of Arkansas ) ) ss. County of Washington ) We, Robert B. Tipton and Minnie Beth Tipton, husband and wife, the Petitioners herein, having first been duly sworn, do hereby state on oath that the facts, statements and allegations set forth and contained in the above and foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. C Robert B. Tipton, Petitioner 4nnieeth T Bipton, Petitione 22�, Subscribed and sworn to before the undersigned, a Notary Public, on this delay f September, 2003. My Commission Expires: N w cm C %? 002) �� W / ♦ B wll4, WI/4 w cm a SIR FD rC 1➢TION APARTOFIMNORTHWESTQUAR (, 114)OFTHENORTHWEST' QUARTFA(NWIN) OF SE('I1ON FOURTEEN (14J, TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (IA) NORTH. RANGE THIRTY-ONE. () I) WEST, BEING MORE PARTH-UCARLY DFSCRIBFD AS FOW)WS: BEGINNNG AE'EHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID W ACRE TRACT'. SAID POINT BEING AN EXISITNG IRON PPE: THENCE S8779'IrE ALONG THE NORTH UNE CW SA03 40 ACRE TRACT 999.90 [RON TO A SET h' THENCE REBAIC TPNCE FEE T O A 13t9.84 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON RFAAR: 0AC NB']'JT. Mt 99030 FEET KI (S IS Y.' IRON 4 FEET ON NORTH WEST LINE OSAID40ACRE.TRACT.SAD)0 POINT ACRBF]NGT. TIOICE N24'25 NORTH OF THE: SOIJDiWF_OF CORNEA OF SAID 40 ACRE. TRACT: ACRES, MORE NOTlt'35'F. 13t9.19 FFI:T TOTIT.POINT OFBEGINNING,NSAS. MNG NJ ACRfS, MORI: OR LEGS M'ASNINQT)N CY)LINEY, ARRANSAS. 9 c4POFBE LVF&' ARRANSASS-IATFPIANF COORDINATE SYSTENI (NORTH ZONE) STAT£ LAND SURVEYOR TILE COD£ C-EEY OF FAYETIEVIUE AR 500-16P.JIW-0-IAJJ0.]2-IIXIS G.I.S. MONIIMETTATON xvv;v. 4Yv4 WCTlo4 14 1-16-N. 4-01-Y ne A` • FOUND R.R. SPIKE • FOUND PIPE • FOUND IRON PIN p COMPUTED CORNER 'ILdA?ro`� -X- FENCE LINE CHARLIE SLOAN DR9RIP Alm WN ARID • Y'SDC. LLl: Ps/10/W Ire S. CAI" AIL. PATTETRPII I11. AP➢RDIRD Y9TR 47 -44hrI84 Sr4re 9RRRP NINI T ND. I' IDD' IoEI W4 s J IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASBINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSA� c: IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. CC 2003P-2T ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO r� THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 1> QCnJ � 0 m N N ORDER OF ANNEXATION 3 r O Now on this 22"d day of December, 2003, this cause comes on to be hear? theti Petitioners, ROBERT B. TIPTON AND MINNIE BETH TIPTON, husband and wife, represented by their attorney, Raymond C. Smith, P.A., of Fayetteville Arkansas, announcing ready for a hearing of the cause and there being no protests or objections filed, whereupon, the matter 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 on November 18's2 2003, at which time this Court fixed December 22"d, 2003, at 10:30 o'clock a.m., as the date of hearing .for said cause, and that a full thirty (30) days notice of hearing was given as required by law and the 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 owners having a freehold interest in the property hereinafter described joined in the petition and constitute of the real owners 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: Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section Fourteen (14), and part of the Southeast Quarter (SE'/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of Section Fifteen (15) in Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty -One (31) West, described as follows to wit: Beginning at the Northwest comer of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4) of Section Fourteen (14) and running thence East 60 rods, thence South 1201.56 feet, thence West 824 feet, thence South 100 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence South 106.5 feet, more or less to the center line of the County Road, thence in a westerly direction along the center line of said County Road to a point 6.76 chains East of the West line of the Southeast Quarter (SE'/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE Y4) of Section 15, thence North 80 rods to the point of beginning, containing thirty (30) 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 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 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. 14-40-601, et seq., and this Order shall be duly recorded by the Clerk of Washington County. *nWJJJ­g'e VZ - �19 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. CC-2003-27 ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE o AMENDED ORDER OF ANNEXATION O a CO Now on this 22"d day of December, 2003, this cause comes on to be y' tTe rn m 3 rD Petitioners, Robert B. Tipton and Minnie Beth Tipton, husband and wife rpregentq!�by �z cn their attorney, Raymond C. Smith, P.A., of Fayetteville, Arkansas, announc'fnireadffor a. hearing of the cause and there being no protests or objections filed herein, whereupon, the matter 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 on November 18d', 2003, at which time this Court fixed December 22"d, 2003, at 10:30 o'clock a.m. as the date of hearing for said cause, and that a full thirty (30) days notice of hearing was given as required by statute 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 property filed; that the property owners having a freehold interest in the property hereinafter described joined in the petition and constitute the real owners of the area affected. 3. The land proposed to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, in this cause is described as follows: A part of the NW%. of the NW'/4 of Section 14, Township 16 North, Range 31 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NW comer of said 40 acre tract, said point being an existing iron pipe; thence S 87°39' 18"E, along the North line of said 40 acre tract, 989.80 feet to a set %' rebar; thence S 02°37'05"W, 1289.84 feet to an existing rebar; thence N 87038'05"W 990.30 feet to a set ''/z iron rebar on the West line of said 40 acre tract, said point being N 02038'05"E, 34.24 feet North of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract; thence N 02°3812511E, 1289.40 feet to the point of beginning, containing 29.31 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 purposes and this territory should be annexed to and made a part of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 5. That the purpose of this amended order is to correct the scrivener's errors in the legal description as set out in the Order of Annexation entered December 22, 2003. 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 Amended Order shall be duly recorded by the Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas. NUNC PRO TUNC this day of March, 2004. (�a -a//a Sandra L.Nochstatter Chairman (50t)682-1455 Daryl E- Bassett Commissioner 1501)602-1453 Randy Bynum Commissioner (501)682-1451 September 14, 2004 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TAX DIVISION too0 Center Street P.O. Box 8021 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-8021 Phone (501) 682-1231 Fox (501) 682-6043 E-mail: lax[C I)SC.State.ayus Ms, Shirley Brown Washington County Deputy Clerk 280 North College Avenue, Suite 300 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexations Dear Ms. Brown, Sarah M. Bradshaw Director (501) 682.1231 C) s CA rn u1 -n r m 0 This is to acknowledge receipt of annexation(s) Case No. CC-2003-27; CC-2003-29, CC-2003-308 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 z. i of.ngfi/glRg'ON/z.z.:gl'IS/z.z.:gt ton?. nz rimNa) W0N( State of Arkansas Secretary of State 4U Fn Z _..........__.....------ --------- Wf �Y Iklecnons uilAing tr Grounds S 4jn(4s4N ':,' `v,, .. CummuniGtinnftreAuutlon t f.C.._� ""1'� PR IT P sane Capitol rolice Charlie Daniels 1. b. (ij;p, Peulinesso1/1ce ':•'tTE CLEA1\tntormatlnnTernnninay Secretary of State r,,:° "; r .•_., 1, September 16, 2004 The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard Washington County Clerk 280 North College Ave. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Dear Ms. Pritchard: The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State: Incorporation: Census Information 1 st Class City 2nd Class City Incorporated Town County: Washington Ordinance No. - 4602 Co. Order No CC—2003-27 Plat K Election Island Ordinance No. Plat Election Co. Order No. t have forwarded this information to the Arkansas Municipal League. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 1 -800-482-1127 or 682-3451. Sincerely, ov4f�6 $annxa God ey Election Services Representative Room 286 State Capitol • 1.11ne RoCk, Arkansas 72201 •IOAA 501-682-1010 • Fax 501.6R2-i510 e-mail: sos®aristotte.net • www.sos.arkansas.pov d 0£096191994aN/dd Sl NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4602 CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Document 1 08/17/04 Ord. 4602 w/Ex. A 2 07/02/04 memo to mayor & city council g draft ordinance 4 Staff Review Form 5 memo to Planning Commission 6 Table 6 7Projected Wastewater Capacity 8 letter from fire dept. 9 letter from police dept. 10 copy of Petition for Annexation 11 copy of Order of Annexation 12 copy of Planning Commission 4/26/04 minutes 13 copy of One Mile View 14 copy of Close Up View 15 copy of Planning Commission 6/28/04 minutes 16 copy of land survey 17 survey map 18 memo to Dawn Warrick 19 Affidavit of Publication 20 copy of Petition for Annexation P1 copy of Order Setting Hearing 22 copy of Order of Annexation 23 copy of Amended Order of Annexation 24 letter from Sec. of State 25 letter from Sec. of State 26 faxed letter from Public Service Commission 27 letter from Raymond C. Smith 28 filed marked Order Confirming Annexation 29 NOTES: 3/17bV City Council MVng of July 20, 2004 4/lo 4-2 Agenda Item Number oy,00/ . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO 'ipfuAIM ^gj9O" 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 Tipton/Sloan (ANX 04-04.00) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation for Tipton/Sloan. This action will incorporate a 29.31 acre tract of land contiguous with the city limits into the City of Fayetteville. BACKGROUND The subject property is 29.31 acres of vacant land located south of Wedington Drive and east of Double Springs Road. It abuts Legacy Pointe Subdivision Phase 2 along the east boundary of the subject tract. The property is adjacent to city limits to the north and a portion of its western boundary. The applicant requests annexation into the City of Fayetteville, along with a companion rezoning request. 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. On June 28, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 8-1-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with Commissioner Anthes voting no. BUDGETIMPACT None. 40 ,,., Ad ten, .. 8/310 ¢ ,y /sff-iLc. 7/zaI&y ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY ROBERT AND MINNIE BETH TIPTON LOCATED EAST OF DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD ADJOINING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LEGACY POINTE SUBDIVISION CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 29.31 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 I E EXHIBIT "A" ANX 04-04,00 A PART OF THE NW '/< OF THE NW '/< OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE S87°39' 18"E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, 989.80 FEET TO A SET''/z" REBAR; THENCE S02037'05"W, 1289.84 FEET TO AN EXISTING REBAR; THENCE N87038'05"W 990.30 FEET TO A SET % IRON REBAR ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING N02038'05"E, 34.24 FEET NORTH OF THE SW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N02038'25"E, 1289.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 29.31 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. STAFF RE* FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLATION AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: July 20, 2004 FROM: Dawn Warrick Planning Name Division ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: CP&E Department ANX 04-04.00: (Tipton/Sloan, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, adjoining the SE comer of the Legacy Pointe subdivision containing approximately 29.31 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. Department Director AgEL �� - Finance & Internal Services Dir. ve Officer Mayor Received in Mayor's Office ate l70 Date Cross Reference: Date Previous Ord/Res#: Date Orig. Contract Date: —7 Orig. Contract Number: Date New Item: Date Dat��`%vG Yes No E [J FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETFEVILLE, 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: June 23, 2004 ANX 04-04.00: Annexation (Tipton/Sloan, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, adjoining the SE comer of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.31 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): COMMISSION ACTION: June 28, 2004 Required YES O Approved O Denied CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied Date: July 20, 2004 (1st 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. The minutes from that meeting have been attached to this staff report. Property description: The subject property contains approximately 29.31 acres of vacant property located south of Wedington Drive and east of Double Springs Rd. Persimmon Street, identified a collector on the Master Street Plan, is planned to bisect the northern portion of this property and connect with the existing western extension of Persimmon Street through Legacy Pointe Subdivision Phase 2. The property is adjacent to city limits to the north and a portion of its western boundary. K: IRF-PORTS00041PC REPOR7SI06-28-04b6VX 04-04.00 (TLPTOA'-SLOAN). DOC r 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 29.31 acres to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. The rezoning request, RZN 04-10.00, 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. K. IRF.POR7`SI2004PC RFPORTSI06-28-04WNX 04-04.00 (TLPTON-SLOAN). DOC Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation. 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 R-A, Residential Agricultural South Single-family/Agricultural Planning Area East Vacant/Agricultural Planning Area West Single-family (Legacy Pointe RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units/acre INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The property has frontage along the unconstructed portion of Persimmon. This roadway will need to be constructed as a part of any development on this site. Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets: North: Persimmon St. (planned collector) and Wedington Dr. (principal arterial) South: Dot Tipton Rd. (collector) East: 541h Avenue (planned principal arterial) West: Double Springs Rd. (minor arterial) Water: This property has access to an 8" water main stubbed out from Legacy Pointe Subdivision on the west side of the site. Water mains will need to be extended within the development. Sewer: The site currently has access to an 8" sewer main stubbed out from Legacy Pointe Subdivision on the west side 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 chart for capacity information). Fire: The subject property is located 2.9 miles from the future Fire Station #7. Normal driving time is 4 min. 39 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. LAND USE PLAN: General.Plan 2020 designates this site as Residential. FINDINGS: 11.6 ANNEXATION GUIDING POLICIES K: IREPOR7S110041PC REPOM105-24-04W NX 04-04.00 T/1>70N-SLOAN DOC 0 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. The subject property is adjacent to city limits on to the north and partially to the west. Annexation of this tract will create a peninsula similar in size to surrounding city boundaries; however, an appropriate boundary will be created due to the area and configuration of the parcel. 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 a portion to the west. 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. Legacy Pointe Subdivision is located to the west of this property. 11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors. Finding: Proposed boundaries follow property lines. 1 1.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered. Finding: Current conditions result in a response time of just less than 5 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. An 8" sewer main stubbed out from Legacy Pointe Subdivision is located on the west side of the site. When development is proposed, sewer will be extended. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas. Finding: N/A EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES 11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. K:I RF.PORTS120041PC REPORTSI05-24-041ANX 04-04, 00 T/PTON-SLOANDOC 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 with the Legacy Pointe Subdivision to the west during the development of new subdivision(s). 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. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions. Finding: N/A K:V2EPOR7SI20041 PC REPOR7S105-14-041ANX 04-04.00 T/PTOMSLOAKUOC 0 ;0 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. 1 1.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. Finding: This annexation includes 29.31 acres owned by Robert and Minnie Tipton when the petition for annexation was made. The property is currently owned by Sloan Properties, Inc. The size and location of this tract creates an acceptable city boundary. 11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations. Finding: A fiscal impact assessment has not been conducted for this property. K: I REPORTS110041PC REPORTS105-14-041ANX 04-04.00 TIPTON-SLOANDOC 0 -0 Frown Fayetteville General Plan 2020 — 2002 Revision 11.6 Annexation Guiding Policies Boundaries 11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or peninsula. 11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits. 11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide. 11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors. 11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas. Emergency and Public Services 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. 1 1.6A Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. 1 1.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on planned service extensions or availability of services. Intergovernmental Relations 11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions. 11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and sewer. Administration of Annexations 11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process. 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. 1 1.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities. 11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. 11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations. K:IREPOR7S120041PC REPORM05-24-041ANX 04-04.00 T1P7ON-SLOANDOC i 0 FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of May 24, 2004 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8202 ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Matt Casey, Staff Engineer DATE: April 20, 2004 ANX 04-04.00: Annexation (Tipton/Sloan, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, adjoining the SE corner of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 29.31 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Suzanne Morgan RZN 04-10.00: Rezoning (Tipton/Sloan, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, Adjoining the SE corner of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 29.31 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. This property has access to an 8" water main stubbed out from Legacy Pointe Subdivision on the west side of the site. Water mains will need to be extended within the development. The site currently has access to an 8" sewer main stubbed out from Legacy Pointe Subdivision on the west side 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 the unconstructed portion of Persimmon. This roadway will need to be constructed as a part of any development on this site. Name Matt Casey Department Engineerine L:l 40 \\\ \ ±)]� \ \ ■ CD / § _ � � } t � % CD CD )]% !!/ Ob ft Projected Wastewater Capacity With Maximum Allowable Development of Recently Approved and Proposed Annexations and Rezonings Development Maximum 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 JOwl Creek Greenwood/Sloan 1 640 JOwl Creek McBryde/Sloan 1 320 JOwl Creek Lift Station Current Remaining Capacity units Approved Additional Units Proposed Additional Units Projected Remaining Capacity Crystal Springs 670 0 290 380 Hamestring* 29906 68 0 Q57 Owl Creek 1,552 108 19083 361 *Total renraing,/low and units include all areas tributary to Hamestring Lift Station. Flow for Hamestring Lift Station includes,/low from Crystal Springs, Hamestring, and Owl Creek Lift Stations "Approved by City Council ***Pending City Council action. Apr 21 04 10:31a D;Farrar I5It44-3447 p.4 FxV FIRE DEPT FAVETTEVILLE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE From: Fire Prevention Bureau To: Planning Division Date 4 20�0¢ REZONING XX ANNEXATION XX REZONING # 04-10.06 OWNER Tipton/Sloan ANNEXATON# 04-04.00 OWNER Tipton/Sloan LOCATION OF PROPERTY East of Double Springs adjoining SE corner of Legaoy Point S.D. NEAREST FIRE STATION AND LOCATION Station #79 Ruple Rd (future) RESPONSE TIME FROM FIRE STATION # 7 TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY_,..4_NHN(T,S_ 39 SECONDS. TRAVEL MILES FROM FIRE STATION # PROPERTY. # -TO LOCATION OF COMMENTS ON FIRE DEPT. ACCESS/ROADWAYS EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS? IF SO LOCATION WATER SUPPLY WITH HYDRANTS. NEEDED?- Yes ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. r1-4e+>JaA4n. North on Ruple west on WedinPf:nn ..at ---'- MAIN OFFICE 115 SOUTH CHURCH ST. (501) 444-3448 / (501) 444-3449 FAX (501) 575-8272 Persimmon routing at thistime SU ST N N.W MALL e57 271 FAX 1) 575.8 2 KLULIVLU FAYE MEVI LLE API0 z°°4 PLANNING DIV. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS April 19, 2004 Dawn Warrick Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Warrick, POLICE DEPARTMENT This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed Annexation ANX 04-04.00 (Tipton/Sloan, pp 475) and Rezoning RZN 04-10.00 (Tipton/Sloan, pp 475) submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, adjoining the SE corner of the Legacy Point subdivision 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. kieuteSicerely, nant William Brown Fayetteville Police Department FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 P.O. BOX 1988 JAIL 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-1988 PHONE: 501-587-3555 FAX:501-587.3522 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. CC 2003 ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO W THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION oCor COMES now, Robert B. Tipton and Minnie Beth Tipton, husband atidW+,�'e;. � v =; ca Petitioners, and for their Petition for Annexation, state and allege as folhiws; x Z 1. Petitioners are record title holders of the following described real property situated in Washington County, Arkansas: Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW/) of the Northwest Quarter (NW /.) of Section Fourteen (14). Township Sixteen 06) North, Range Thirty -One (31) West, being more particularly described as follows to wit: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Northwest comer of said forty acre tract, said point being an existing iron pipe, thence S 87°39'18" E along the North line of said forty acre tract, 989.90 feet to a set S4" rebar, thence S 02'37'05" W 1289.84 feet to an existing iron mbar, thence N 87°38'05" W 990.30 feet to a set %," iron rebar on the West line of said forty acre tract, said point being N 02°38'05" E 34.24 feet North of the Southwest comer of said forty acre tract, thence N 02"38'05" E 1299.49 feet to the point of beginning, containing 29.31 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas 2. All of the above -described real property is adjacent to and contiguous to the present city boundary line for the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. 3. The above -described real property is suitable for annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and is necessary for the proper growth, prosperity and management of the land and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 4. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-40-601 et seq, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein, and Petitioners request that the above - described real property be annexed in and to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. d d 166ti1d61£9'ON/£Z ll'1S/tiZ;ll 6OH H 8dV(301) MID OOVM W083 5. Petitioners further state that the law firm of Raymond C. Smith, P.A. of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is authorized to act for and on behalf of the Petitioners in all matters connected with this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceedings connected herewith, 6. Petitioners request this Court set a date for hearing on this Petition, not less than thirty days after filing of this Petition and subsequent hearings or annexation proceedings therewith. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the above -described 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, and 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 relief which the Petitioners maybe entitled. ROBERT B. TIPTON and MINNTE 13ETH TIPTON, H&W Bayrrfond C. Smith Attorney at Law 70 N. College Ave.Le 11 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Ark. Bar No. 80135 Attorney for Petitioners £ d HH H ddtl(IAI) H]3) 00VA W08d VER Icy ATION County of Washington We, Robert B. Tipton and Minnie Beth Tipton, husband and wife, the Petitioners herein, having first been duly sworn, do hereby state on oath that the facts, statements and allegations set forth and contained in the above and foregoing document arc true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. RVmnnie obert $. Tipton Petitio er ' ) Beth Tipton, Petitioned Subscribed and sworn to before the undersigned, a Notary Public, on thj!KOLday of September, 2003. -4010 My Commission Expires: L : 6 : '; . . z Ip is C d tiOOZ OZ ddV(301) N8310 OOVM WO8A N ift w CM fly A PART UYI NURTHWP%J WwRTf11 tA'WII.I Or TNi. FM)OTHVrA'I'UIiA¢rvn (NWIN) C,3L1`n1:MVIIFI Nna IK"WIiN lHf .MF..0I WN%l. HFIKi PAR M.131,ARLY nFY(m,w A.\ r(1 W.INS:IllSiPMiIN: A'F nR wwnito'CsT ccm>timu witwACR!'Ixncr. sAIUnear RHNIiAN Fxlsvm aoN Yu•�no-yfce qrp lrr:wl.lmu'Iw'.1«.M]N IJNF. ofaAR]aAMTRA M.W FWp TO A aT W utc mAR. 12F9.f1 FAT w AFI e)osTalc Imwl aFAfna; nwlcT: NmF'os-v v.oJa FeF�'m A wr q- urn+ReeAR off nm WFSr I.oFa as anm ancw rRAcr, xAm roerr etaNc ro�rare N3� FB6r Nrfarx ur TFn: 80ViHWESF CtORMJl O(SARIq ACW TAA(T: TOTH Ca f11K CnMnINRJf liJl ARr.CWIRE M [FUM WAslm*ITCNaINTY. 19q.N F9} I' ARawrsns. fr (m _/ 1-1". .-n-, \C't[ry"` �tu rOIWD k R, fYIRI 1 •' • t'UIhD'IPC • rfp.IND IPDY PIN �r - COaPUTrD CWNCR -A rCNCC LINO ..•.so�ser_+nvc3- ARRANYA.Y 4IATF. n,ure CUItaIIpAT: xvslxAl (11( CRYOF CtF FFINFI 87AIIC � ' Q'UIIYPYUI F((fti['OO� AYhT'itVILLf_A0. SWIWJI W.0.14M0.]2-IDM c.u. FAonufmrrwna+ CHARLIE SLOAN dun+ awry a IIM • A - nx a/uy F la a. LCHsaa Ara. Nry3 =,, AI. I!•fOrID mm 4711 1141 swu savr aRO"Ra f-. FW two •ana 9 d 1666LZ61£9'ON/£Z:ll'1S/SZ:II 00H H UVUni) M110 00VM W084 _o w IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS � N o IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. CC 2003 2y co ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO rn a 3 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS " _ r -+ ORDER OF ANNEXATION '- n Now on this 22nd day of December, 2003, this cause comes on to be heard, the Petitioners, ROBERT B. TIPTON AND MINNIE BETH TIPTON, husband and wife, represented by their attorney, Raymond C. Smith, P.A., of Fayetteville Arkansas, announcing ready for a hearing of the cause and there being no protests or objections filed, whereupon, the matter 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 on November 18d'3 2003, at which time this Court fixed December 22nd3 2003, at 10:30 o'clock a.m., as the date of hearing for said cause, and that a full thirty (30) days notice of hearing was given as required by law and the 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 owners having a freehold interest in the property hereinafter described joined in the petition and constitute of the real owners of the area affected. r rn 0 3. The land proposed to be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas in this cause is described as follows: Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW I/4) of Section Fourteen (14), and part of the Southeast Quarter (SE'/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NEl/4) of Section Fifteen (15) in Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty -One (31) West, described as follows to wit: Beginning at the Northwest comer of the Northwest Quarter (NW /4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4) of Section Fourteen (14) and mmming thence East 60 rods, thence South 1201.56 feet, thence West 824 feet, thence South 100 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence South 106.5 feet, more or less to the center line of the County Road, thence in a westerly direction along the center line of said County Road to a point 6.76 chains East of the West line of the Southeast Quarter (SE %4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE'/4) of Section 15, thence North 80 rods to the point of beginning, containing thirty (30) 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 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 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. 14-40-601, et seq., and this Order shall be duly recorded by the Clerk of Washington County. 0 • Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 65 Ostner. The next item on the agenda is which is ANX 04-04.00 for Tipton/Sloan. Can we have a staff report please? Morgan: The applicant is requesting to table the Annexation and Rezoning pairs for Tipton/Sloan, Greenwood/Sloan, and McBryde/Sloan until such time that a full Planning Commission is available. Those are the last six items. Allen: Why were we not made aware of that earlier'? It would've been nice so that people wouldn't have had to wait so long. Ostner: This has been a published meeting. It is appropriate to hear from the public and even to make a few comments from the Commission before we end the issue. We will table these motions after we hear them. Since we haven't had really much of an introduction, 1 will introduce this item. This Annexation was submitted by Raymond Smith on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road adjoining the southeast corner of the Legacy Pointe Subdivision. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 29.31 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. The applicant has tabled this item but we are going to open it up to the public for comments. Davison: Thank you and I appreciate that. For those of you who don't know, my name is Sharon Davison and 1 have lived in or around the Fayetteville area for about 25 years. I would first like to really thank you all because you are doing very, very important work here. I would also like to say that you have given me a lot of hope tonight that we are going to get things a little back in control here. 1 really appreciated your frankness in acknowledging that you are new to this process but more importantly I was impressed with your willingness to ask questions. I am actually here tonight to make a request, which I think you followed the theme: Density, Traffic, Safety, please don't annex anymore. In watching, too, 1 was very proud at how you looked at each issue. Yes, it was appropriate in that case to annex that small piece on Crossover for it's situation. Yes, this other piece was appropriate to annex, not rezone. Excellent! Here we are at a totally, totally different thing as the end of your agenda will show. This is inappropriate annexation and inappropriate rezoning at this time. I think we'll find out this area is actually probably not going to be as good for building as people think because it's flat. We found some surprises in what is going on over there anyway. I will try to get back to my point. Quickly, 1 did want to address that my husband is at our son's baseball game tonight, but he wanted me to ask you to keep in mind three major things and that would be roads, sewer and taxes. To generalize, traffic counts, we are waiting on some traffic studies and we would hope that you maybe would wait on some of your decisions until we get a lot of this important data back instead of rushing all of this development. In fact, I a r� Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 66 would like to add up how many things we actually approved tonight anyway, I think it is a few hundred units. If we had gone through this whole process tonight and these folks got all that they wanted, you, in one evening, would've approved over 1,400 units and that is a lot when we don't have roads and other things. He wants to know where the cars are going to go. Even if we build out here what is going to happen when they all come into town because we know what a mess that is. Our questions also is we are waiting for our new sewer to come on line. Staff, can you tell us the projected date of sewer coming on line? Ostner: If you could keep your comments to us and we will try to ask them later. Davison: Urn sorry, I didn't realize that was inappropriate. That is alright, that is a question that we want to make sure. Part of the deal is 1 have this new sewer thing in the mail today. We approved this tax under our Mayor Coody telling us we had to have this sewer to maintain ourselves. We have, 1 think, found out that's really not the case because look at what all is coming through here. My husband would also like to know about our subsidizing this as the tax payers. You will learn more about proportions and what developers pay but I think a lot of tax payers are a little concerned for their part for paying for roads and infrastructure for developing and the profit on our exterior which is actually not beneficial and works against the third item on our 2010 plan, Development of our Crown Jewels, the Square and Dickson Street. It works against planned and managed growth and it works against improved mobility and street quality. These are reasons that 1 am asking you to go ahead and not annex our property out west until we have more in line. Thanking you for staying strong and looking at issues and not just saying yes to everything. It would be frustrating when I've come in the past and developers would ask for things and there would be a feeling they had to give it because it was asked. In your position people are coming to you wanting to check their T's, they have pretty much dotted their I's over here but they are really coming to you to ask for favors, the exceptions and you have every right to say no, this is not appropriate at this time even under great pressure, which I know you often are. Our city is overburdened by infrastructure needs and new service demands. Let's get to the specifics over here on the mess, and it is a mess on the other side of 1-540. Asbell has been flooded and dealing with issues for years and years and years. Those issues of being in that low lying area were exasperated when I-540 went in. We have done nothing yet to help those people who have lived in our town for 10, 20 or 30 years. The other problem on the other side of the highway, if you remember Wilson Springs, that whole section to what 1 call Marinoni Mountain, which is the mountain on the back side of all of this between 61h Street and Hwy. 16. It is a swamp. It is low lying. Everybody wants to build in there because it is easy to lay lines because it is flat. If you went out there today you would still see huge standing planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 67 sections of water in fields. You will also notice with a lot of these construction projects the extent of retention ponds that they need. The amount of trench drainage, the width of these drainages, that is a clue in itself. When I drove all the way down to where Persimmon will eventually go, that goes back to eventually, people want a lot of things before the streets and all are there. There is a huge water retention pond right about where I think Persimmon would have to go through if we go through there and that would end up making the street just right on the doorstep of the Boys and Girls Club then they are going to have to remediate whatever the water is in there because it really, really is wet over there. The issue for that, and this is my bombshell that the developers don't want you to know is that there is a lot of mold going on over there. We have already had mold growing in our new schools. Holcomb hasn't even been here for a few years. We don't want to talk about it but we are setting ourselves up. California has quite a rush on mold mitigation lawyers. Those are issues that are very, very real going on over there where there is too much water and that is why it wasn't built on or planned on before. Now, the third part is there are a little bit of things that I think hopefully you all find out about sort of plans that we are all left out of the loop between our city government and our school districts and some of these developers and I think if they were more up front about it and maybe you can research some of these connections because it seems that their plans are being made assuming that you are already going to approve all of this. That concerns me that we have done that. I will try to go ahead and close so other people can speak to this. One little comment on it is the school that we are trying to put in right next to the Boys and Girls Club, that directly relates to all of this property. This property all runs to what I consider Farmington. 1 used to live over there right behind Dot Tipton Road and we all called it Farmington. I understand that we are moving over there but that does not have to happen right now. There is something wrong if we only need 10 acres for a school but for some reason we are entering into a contract for 20 acres and we are being told don't worry about the 10 acres that is in the floodplain that you won't need to build on it anyway, you don't need it. So that is telling me that if I need to do a major project 1 have to buy two for one acreage. One acre I won't be able to use. Essentially, that means instead of paying $30,000 an acre, we are essentially paying more for one usable acre. There is something wrong with what is going on over here. I would just like to ask that you all please go ahead and check it out. Wait on some of this. Look at some of the projects. My whole thing is that if you go back through the past year and look at what has been approved you will be amazed. If you go out and look at what is going up you will be amazed. I think you can then step back and say wait a minute, we need to fix our roads first. Wait a minute, we need to get our sewer plant on line functioning before we make all kinds of promises to people. All I'm a • Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 68 asking you to do is please hold off on annexation and rezonings in major growth areas like that. Thank you. Ostner: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to make a comment? Bowman: ►'m Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. 1 am here in kind of an unusual situation, I don't know quite how to do this but I think there needs to be a gap bridge and I'm going to try to do that. It may be hard to do it but I'm going to try. I did want to come to make sure that you realize the school board's proposed purchase of 20 acres from McBryde and Company next to the Boys and Girls Club fronting on Persimmon Street as the location for the Jefferson School relocation is intimately connected with the annexation request before you for acreage on Persimmon. Maybe you all knew that but I think there is not an overlap here between the school board's massive real estate planning that is going on now and what the Planning Commission is doing. I'm concerned that you have to bring those two things together that you need an overview of what the school board is doing because right now he school board is in a dramatically different role. They are, if you look at their overall plan which I gave you in the packet, the colorful news letter is called a long term capital investment plan. If you look at the overall what's happening, they've already closed Bates Elementary School. Now they are going to close, that's a neighborhood school in the city's center right behind the high school. Now they are going to close Jefferson Elementary on the south side and they are going to relocate it to west of 1-540. In fact, at this Persimmon address. That is the proposal from the school board, the offer from McBryde who is listed here in your annexations at Persimmon, to sale 20 acres to the school board for the relocation of Jefferson School. This school is going to be unique to anything that has ever happened in Fayetteville. It is going to be different than anything that has ever happened in Fayetteville. It is going to be a combined elementary and middle school. It is going to have 1,000 students out right here where all of this development is happening. I'm a psychologist. Everything I know about education would go toward smaller schools, neighborhood schools, and here we are having this mega complex. I guess I wanted you to be aware that you need to look at the overall plan in terms of planning for the growth of our city. You need to realize that this development is being spurred by putting that school out there. Mayor Coody talks about how school placement drives development and that is what you need to be looking at. What is the school district doing, where is it placing schools and how is it driving development. When you start looking at the school board process you realize that it is not like the City Council process. There is very little opportunity for public input. I think that if you add these two things together, they need to be seen together. You will discover that development in Fayetteville is being determined by a handful of people. I gave you a list of the Capital Investment Planning a 0 Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 69 Committee. It did include Hugh Earnest from the city. That is another reason why school business has really become city business at this point. Hugh Earnest, City Manager, sat on the Capital Investment Planning Committee for the school board. Tim Conklin was on a sub -committee so they were intimately part of this planning when you look at the whole overall decisions in that capital plan you see that you are moving schools from the city to the outskirts of town including eventually, the high school is going to be relocated to the outskirts of town. Jefferson is being closed and it is a neighborhood school. It is really frightening if you look at it in context and look at the whole picture. When you see a lot of development happening on the west side you also need to understand that it is development being taken away from the south side by the location of the school. 1 was talking about the more closed process of the school board. Here is an example that may be a dramatic example of how decisions might be being made at the school district or school board level. I have been told that Mr. Hissum of "H" Farms going out towards Goshen was going to have a casino complex. I've been told that he went to the City Council in Goshen, told them that his casino idea had fallen apart and that now he was going to have a Fayetteville school on his property and then he has a whole plan. The plan was described in the paper and it includes, according to the new rules you have to have mostly greenspace along the highway but you are allowed to have 25% commercial frontage right on the highway. In his description of his packets there was 20 acres of frontage on the highway and the school district is always talking about 20 acre plots for their new schools. If you think about this from what I've seen hanging around the school board, the way it sounds is that Mr. Hissum as already made a plan with the school district to have a school on his property. That is where we have to get it folks. This does not come before the school board where the public might have a chance to have input. You have to consider the administrators who do not have any decision making power may be making deals with developers. Again, this needs to be looked at and that is what I'm asking, is that you, as the Planning Commission, begin to look at this. What is going on in terms of development here? How is it that these Persimmon developments have shown up tonight one week after the school board was approached with this surprise opportunity to buy land by the Boys and Girls Club, as if that hasn't been in the works for years since they got the Boys and Girls Club. I do have an example that I want to read. This is not particular to the school district but it is an example of this kind of under the table, possibly kind of relationships that go into development. This is from September 19, 2000. It is from the law office of Deb Sexton. Dear Mayor Hanna, in order to document the understanding between WHM Investments, Inc., Mcllroy Company and the City of Fayetteville, City, this letter is being written. The Fayetteville Youth Center, d/b/a The Boys and Girls Club of Fayetteville, the old FYC is purchasing 9.69 acres in the Meadowlands Development from the Mcllroy Company on which a new FYC building 0 a Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 70 will be built. Mcllroy Company will deed six acres shaped to go around the new FYC building to be deeded to the city for new parking lots and playing fields in consideration for the city banking the six acres to be used for any parks and greenspace required by the city in order for the Mcllroy Company to do any future development in the same quadrant of the city. He Mcllroy Company has already deeded to the city and banked for future development, three acres of land adjacent to the above -referenced six acres causing a total of 18.69 contiguous acres to be available for a joint project for the FYC and the City. If the above describes an understanding of the transactions please indicate so by signing this letter and returning a copy to me. If you have any comments or questions please call. Sincerely, Deb Sexton for Mcllroy Company. 1 wasn't here for all that planning time but the point here would be if this kind of an arrangement was made before it was brought to the voting arms of the public then that is problematic and I'm concerned that this is happening in a lot of the real estate deals going on. I do have a petition here. It does have 245 signatures of tax payers who have said that they would like to slow school board real estate action. I support further community and neighborhood discussion of the Jefferson School relocation decision. I respectfully request that the school board allow further public comment on the board's current plans for design and location of our public schools and that an outside mediator be called into negotiate such two way communications with myself of Fayetteville Hopes as the representative in choosing a mutually agreed upon outside mediator. Those of us who have been trying to deal with the school board on letting the public have access in the decision making have found that it is not an open and democratic process. It is driving development from what we see so I wanted to bring this to your attention. I know I'm taking a long time and it is late. I am just going to read one letter. Some people think that those of us trying to bring this out are our own little kooky clan so 1 want to read a letter from someone who heard what we are saying and validates it. This is from someone who has been here since 1974 and 1 never met him and he wrote this letter which echoes what we are trying to say. INSERT LETTER HERE I just want to make this clear that this is not a new idea. Again, 1 do have 245 other tax payers who very much want the way that the school district is driving real estate decisions to be considered and the example of all the new houses around the new Jefferson School, around the Boys and Girls Club, all of these things taken from the center of the city. The Boys and Girls Club was the first. You remember the battle. Mayor Coody came in just when that was happening and there was a lot of outcry and he said ok, ok, we will consider keeping it in the center of the city. Then we were told oh no, the Reynolds grant will be pulled. You cannot even consider, you cannot even talk about changing the location of this Boys and Girls Club because the money will get pulled. 1 would say, looking at this Mcllroy letter that I just read, that this was a very predetermined first move. Now we've got the Boys and Girls Club what are they telling us? a 0 Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 71 They have to bus the Jefferson children over there now so that they can go to the Boys and Girls Club after school. It is very disturbing. I will stop. I'm sorry for taking so much time. Ostner: I would like to assure you that we will completely revisit this issue when it is not actually tabled and we will vote on it. McMillan: I'm Amy McMillan, I just want to say very brief, very brief, thank you for your time and your effort into this and it is very encouraging some of the votes that you guys made tonight. About 10 days I turned on the television and I saw Mayor Coody doing his show that he does and he is talking about an award that our city has received for being a livable community and I have to laugh to myself because I sit here and I look at the list of units that are going before you which have been tabled tonight. The total is so discouraging. I have driven out to Persimmon. I drove out there today. This land is under water. The land is under water. It lies in the floodplain. 1 wonder if soil samples have been taken and at what point are soil samples taken? I wonder how these units are going to affect our waste water treatment plant that has not even been built yet and I wonder how it will impact our south Fayetteville. My children attend Holcomb Elementary. This school is running at capacity. We are full. We cannot make anymore children. I will reiterate that yes, we do have a mold problem there. It is true. The roads that are out on the west side of Fayetteville, the four lane highway begins right at the development of our subdivision, it begins right there at the entrance. Anything past that towards Double Springs Road cannot sustain the traffic that they are trying to put out there. It cannot sustain it. I am urging you to please stay in support of that livable community, that Smart Growth plan. Thank you. Ostner: Do we have any other citizens? Marr: I'm Don Marr, 410 W. Holly. Thank you for letting me speak. I know it is not a common practice for the City Council to address the Planning Commission but I wanted to ask your assistance. In an effort for the Council, at least from my perspective, as we look at things that you vote on and we read the minutes of your meetings and we see 6-0 votes, 9-0 votes, etc., one of the things with a lot of these annexations coming forward that I want to ask you to pay particular attention to, at least from my perspective, is on page 14.7 of your packet. 1 just picked the largest annexation, which was the 160 acre one that has been tabled tonight. This would apply to all of them. You have the guiding principals of the General Plan 2020 and in that there are two things that stand out that I would like to really ask that you do strong due diligence with as a Commission. One of those is an annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals. I don't know that in reading the reports that the Police report, the Fire report meet that requirement as the philosophical Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 72 principal of the 2020 Plan. The last one is on that same list from the 2020 Plan it is called 11.6.t which is Conduct a fiscal impact assessment on large annexations. It was interesting to me as I read through your packet in preparation for what we might see two weeks from now that if 160 acres, if you go to page 14.6 on that particular item, it says conduct a fiscal impact assessment on large annexations and the finding is n/a, not applicable. I don't know at what point it becomes significant enough to distinguish fiscal analysis. That is our biggest challenge at the Council level. Do we have the infrastructure in place to handle adding these additional pieces of land. I have had various Commissioners, I've heard you say it's the City Council's responsibility to look at the financial picture. It is a finding that you look at as a result of your packet and it is valuable to me as an alderman to know that it got debated much earlier in the process, that it wasn't one of the last issues that we looked at and to see what 8 or 9 other people's perspective was on it, particularly since you are a very diverse group of Commissioners. If you would do that at least, me asking you as an alderman and as a citizen, I think it will assist us in making better decisions. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Do we have any other comments tonight? Are there any other announcements? Pate: Just a reminder, I do believe we need to vote on all six items to table. Clark: Staff, this follows up on what Alderman Marr just mentioned. As 1 look at all of this now tabled annexation, it is a lot of acreage. Every time I look through this packet the Police say there is no adverse impact, etc., etc. Has there ever been an example of a proposed annexation that the Police or the Fire have said no, we can't do that? Pate: 1 believe so, yes. Specifically I can only thing of one incident reading through historical packets from 2001 and 2002. Clark: My historical index is not in my packet. Pate: Sure. I believe there was a property to the west of the springwoods, Wilson Springs area that was actually tabled for almost a year based on Fire Department comments and Waste Water impact. There was a property that was specifically tabled for those reasons. I can't list off the top of my head if there were others. Clark: Do you have any idea how long ago that was? Pate: I can get that information to you for sure. Clark: How many acres were we talking about tonight alone? a Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 73 Anthes: 269.3 acres in this section. Clark: I'm troubled. I will follow up exactly on what Alderman Marr, who used to be my alderman, along with great Alderman Cook, have to understand where we draw the line and say no because we don't have the infrastructure. Hat troubles me, especially when t read some of the other comments of other aldermen when our decisions ultimately reach their desks and they say we don't have it. That troubles me and I'm not sure that I'm getting all of the information that I need to get and I'm new here so I don't know sometimes what all to ask for until I hear other comments. That does bother me and I'm really glad that we are tabling this tonight quite honestly because I want more time to look at it and to hear differing opinions and to listen to the constituents. I had no idea about the school board stuff. That was an education tonight. The infrastructure issues do trouble me considerably. Vaught: I do have questions that might be a City Attorney question on what we can take into consideration as far as the school board issues. From what 1 understand I don't know how much of that really impacts the decision that we make because they are an independent body of ours. That is one thing that 1 would like an explanation on for the people here. The development impact on the area is definitely a consideration for us and all this stuff with the school is interesting, I just don't know how that plays into our overall consideration of things. Also, I don't know how there is a way to even quantify, there are two sides of development. There is a bad side because it creates demand but there is a good side because everyone of those homes when we annex them are going to pay a sewer tap fee, the impact fees we use to fund the building of our new sewer plant and to fund building of the new roads in the area. I don't know how we can develop better tools to be able to weigh all of those options. There is a give and take with everything. That is what I don't know what we even need to be asking for myself being relatively new as well. Clark: Would that be the fiscal impact of this? Vaught: I don't know, I've never seen a fiscal impact assessment. Anthes: I want to thank the applicant for requesting to table these items tonight because I have several questions that I need to ask of the City Attorney who could not be present this evening. For the record, I would like the staff to take note of what I would like and maybe you can request this information. I am reading over and over the General Plan 2020 with regards to annexation and it is sort of distressingly vague. I'm looking here and I've added up these three requests for annexation that we are considering tabling are 269.31 acres. The entire year of 2000 to August, Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 74 2001 we approved four annexations that totaled 393.54 acres. That is not a tremendous amount more. I'm looking at what we require and we have a couple of things that may or may not apply here. One is 11.6.f which says annex environmentally sensitive areas which could be impacted by development and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas. When I look at our maps it looks like we have an extreme amount of floodplain, flood way and streams and creeks in the areas of these properties, but I have no way to quantify whether or not there is an environmental impact because we don't have an environmental assessment impact report. The other things are two items that Alderman Marr referred to and that is requesting annexation studies and fiscal impact assessments. We particularly say a fiscal impact assessment on large annexations but we have no definition on what large is. 270 acres seems large to me but I have no way to say what is and what isn't large. The other thing is what I don't see in the General Plan 2020 is who is supposed to conduct and therefore, pay for, these assessment reports that we might need in order to make these judgments. That is what I would like to know from the City Attorney. I would like to also voice my concern over the amount of acreage and the decisions that we are going to make two weeks from tonight probably since we are going to come back to these issues. I agree that Chapter 11 out of our General Plan 2020 seems really like a mechanical how to annex. It really doesn't tell you any guidance on should we annex or should we annex there or there, what's the difference. I'm referring back to a lot of other knowledge that I've learned in other places. A different chapter of that General Plan 2020 is back in 2000 we made a bunch of projections. I believe this is Chapter 9. The 2020 Plan projected between 2000 and 2020 we would need to build 13,800 units of housing and they estimated about %: of that will be homes, about half will be apartments. That comes to about 690 units per year to build. We could've done that tonight. Another thing, on that 2020 Plan, these are projections that take past development and they shoot a crystal ball in the future, but they estimate roughly about 5,000 acres of land will be needed for that 13,000 residents. We have got 2,800 acres of undeveloped residential land in the city limits, which is half of what this 20 year projection is asking for. This is land inside the city limits with streets, with adjoining sewers, no annexation required and it is already zoned Residential. I asked Jan in Planning to give a quick rundown of what we have done in the first three or four months of 2004. These are rough numbers and hopefully they are over instead of under, Final Plats, Preliminary Plats and PZD's, 381 lots have been approved. We have rezoned to allow for another 796 so that is over I,000 lots that could be developed in 2004 which is almost 199 acres. My point is this: I'm not sure that there is a crowd of 10,000 people standing in line to buy homes or develop or build homes. 1 understand there are opportunities to • Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 75 build terrific neighborhoods. That's great, we need good neighborhoods in this town. I'm not sure where is the best place for them. Clark: Can I follow up on that? The thing that I'm also keeping in mind with these new annexation requests is the knowledge that Planning is going to start annexing islands that exist currently in the city. That is something that goes along with the plans that are in place already. I'm really concerned about annexation that goes outside that. 1 think you make some really good arguments Alan in the numbers are there. Opportunity, just because you have the opportunity, as my mother taught me as a young child, doesn't mean you need to do it all the time. 1 guess that's how I'm annexing new property. I'm really glad we are tabling this. Can we make a motion to table all at once or do we need to table them individually? Pate: Individually. Ostner: Ok, ANX 04-04.00. MOTION: Anthes: At the request of the developer I would like to move to table ANX 04- 04.00. Clark: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Ms. Anthes and a second by Ms. Clark, is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 04-04.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. MOTION: Clark: At the request of the developer I would like to move to table RZN04- 10.00. Vaught: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Ms. Clark and a second by Mr. Vaught. Is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-10.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 76 Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. MOTION: Clark: At the request of the developer I would like to move to table ANX 04- 01.00. Allen: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Ms. Clark and a second by Ms. Allen, is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. MOTION: Anthes: At the request of the developer I would like to move to table RZN 04- 11.00. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Ms. Anthes and a second by Mr. Trumbo, is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-11.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. MOTION: Allen: 1 would like to move to table ANX 04-02.00. Anthes: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Ms. Allen and a second by Ms. Anthes, is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 04-04.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. Planning Commission April26, 2004 Page 77 MOTION: Allen: I move to table RZN 04-09.00 Anthes: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Ms. Allen and a second by Ms. Anthes is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 04-04.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. Ostner: That is the last item in our agenda. Do we have any further announcements? Announcements Meeting adjourned: 9:40 p.m. J [el 0 WN meY Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 31 ANX 04-04.00: Annexation (TIPTON/SLOAN, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, adjoining the SE comer of the Legacy Point subdivision. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.31 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-10.00: Rezoning (TIPTON/SLOAN, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, Adjoining the SE comer of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 29.31 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ANX 04-04.00 for Tipton and Sloan. Morgan: This item was tabled at the Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2004. The subject property contains approximately 29.31 acres of vacant property. It is located south of Wedington Drive, east of Double Springs Road. The property is adjacent to the city limits to the north and a portion of it's western boundary is the Legacy Pointe Subdivision. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed annexation. Findings within the staff report support this recommendation. The applicant is also proposing to rezone this property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The applicant has offered a Bill of Assurance limiting density to 2.9 units per acre for the future phase of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The General Plan 2020 does designate this site as residential. Staff, therefore, is recommending approval of RZN 04-10.00 for Tipton, Sloan. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Smith: My name is Raymond Smith. I submitted the annexation request on behalf of the Tipton's and Mr. Sloan of Sloan Properties. This 29.31 acres is located adjacent to Legacy Pointe Subdivision that has already been approved and is being constructed. The 29.31 acres is located to the southeast of Phase II of Legacy Pointe. Mr. Sloan will be able to answer any questions that you may have in regard to specifics on this particular one. Sloan: Hi, my name is Charlie Sloan. I am the owner and developer of this project. This will be Phase IV of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. It is the extension of Persimmon, which is at the south end of our property. The drawing that I handed you shows about 84 or 85 lots. We will probably end up with around 75 or 78 by the time that we work out detention. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 32 There are some lots in here that we don't want. We want a certain size and these don't quite meet that size. Our covenants will be just like it was at Legacy Pointe. We will use that as our base. These might have a little bit higher square footage minimum on these lots than what was proposed. That is on the first phase to just give you a general layout concept of what we are trying to do. The second page that I gave you shows the extension that we have been working on trying to extend Persimmon over to 541h Street to make this connection from Double Springs over to 541h. The other item coming up with the Haye's is the property just to the east of my property, which Persimmon goes through. The other part, neither one of us own that piece of property but 1 have talked with that land owner and he has indicated that they would be willing to work with us on this to keep Persimmon as a 70' right of way street for a collector street. The proposal is too, that we have a city park in Legacy Pointe right now that is about four acres. The neighbor to the north to me has property that he has indicated he would be willing to sale to us. That was the original plan when we did the park for Legacy Pointe in that area to go ahead and buy another three or four acres along that Owl Creek. The trail system will go in there and will give us some good flat land for soccer fields or something like for additional so we will end up with a seven acre city park out there. That's all I have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I would like to open it up to the public. Please introduce yourself and give us your comment. Davison: Good evening. My name is Sharon Davison. I would first, like to thank you all for being here and thank you all for letting me speak tonight. I do have a quick request to make. If you hear me out on this one time at the mic. I think it would be nice for all of to not have the agony of me coming back each time. I will try to be brief and I promise I won't mention a person's name unless I have a quick quote from our newspapers. This is just a reference to show the connectivity, the concern and the problems. I have been out of town so I have been behind on the newspaper. This is just a four day span. I will just have a couple of quick comments there and I do have specific comments related to this annexation and rezoning as we have discussed. I will quickly try to tie it up with two quick staff questions and then I will make a closing comment. I do want to make it clear that especially on these particular annexations that are coming up to you tonight. I don't consider these in the same type as some developers that have come in from out of town have done. I do not begrudge Dot Tipton's family. Their father made a good investment as a farmer years ago on that property. They deserve to have things come to them from that. We have Marinonis everywhere. They obviously deserve to have these things happen. I'm not familiar with Mr. Sloan or Mr. McBryde. The mansion there I can't blame anyone from changing and adjusting that. They are getting surrounded. Just quickly, before I make my specific Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 33 comments on the rezoning aspect and to point out the validity of the seriousness of the issues here. Again, the Times newspaper does give some good coverage on some decisions if we can't watch TV and keep up with everything. It is sort of disheartening to see that the biggest scandal in our town is the HUD scandal with how much coverage it is getting by our newspapers. Hopefully the Coody land deal will eventually get the coverage that it should be getting. We have seen the comments that all relate to development to the point of who is pushing the rezonings and who is making the deals and how come our city staff, and that is where the timing is coming from, respectfully asking you to wait, whoa, hold on. There is proof that our staff resources are being drained. You are going to be drained dry accommodating urban sprawl growth out west which is in our planned zone but that doesn't mean we have to have it all right now. Here in the paper for the whole picture of what is going on before you. The District Officials Seek to Discuss School Message. Fayetteville School District officials feel that they can efforts to replace the Jefferson Elementary School with a new central elementary school. According to District Administrators, several messages about school real estate decisions are being circulated by a few individuals who oppose plans to close Jefferson. Yes, I personally oppose plans to close Jefferson. That does not negate what I have to legitimately say. These are statements from our School Board. Ostner: Ms. Davison, I'm sorry but this project is not related. Davison: It is all related. Ostner: If you could keep your comments, we are considering an annexation of the Tipton Sloan piece of property. Davison: Ok. $125 million sewer project on schedule with the Mayor and a smiling picture. He can smile and shake hands. These connections are here. About what we are being asked to do, yes this is related to the pressure that is put on our infrastructure, our services, our people who are in town to protect folks that are here. Let's get on a little more topic here. Again, how our city is being run. Conklin said the affect these impact fees will have on the costs of homes will all depend on the developer. Even if the developer passes the costs along to the buyers they wouldn't be substantial enough to affect building affordable housing. The water and sewer impact fees already have been exempted for agencies such as Habitat For Humanity. There would be a possibility. Do you understand what I'm getting at? We haven't even addressed these issues because we are so far behind. The hillside taskforce, 1 sat here as Mr. Marr asked about that. He was told, sorry, we are too busy to deal with it now. These are people who have not only lived here for years. They are people on the corner of Olive and Spring who have generations going back in this town who are Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 34 being forced to accommodate someone because the old friendly Planning Commission did allow Greg House to push these things through. It got so bad... Ostner: Ms. Davison, I'm sorry. You must stay on point. Davison: It is on point because the main point is you are depriving the citizens that are in the core of your city. When you grant these rezonings you take from the people who have paid the way so these guys can pave the way to their dollars. They know the people who are being abused by neglect and sold out by the administrators. Our sewer isn't even going to be online until 2006. 1 remember an ad campaign that was put on our voters about improvement tax. Why? Pumping sewer. We have all forgotten, we are still pumping sewer across the mountain. He said it is on schedule but we are behind. This is related Sir. It is draining our resources. Once again, I've asked for my sidewalk to be fixed from one unscrupulous developer. I guess the city's plan is to wait until Greg House tears it all up and then we will put in a new one. That is going on at Spring. I have come in for over three years asking for that developer's destruction of city infrastructure. We couldn't even get that to happen. Annexation may be appropriate but when you annex we are willing to welcome you into our growth area and we trust extending a relationship. It is not unreasonable for us to say if you are wanting to wish, this is rezoning, this is the push, this is the gotta do it all at once, gotta do it now, no you don't. If the wish is to profit financially by development and subdivision, you need to wait your turn. That's all we are asking. Don't continue to overload our system. That's all we're asking. That is not unreasonable. There is strength amongst you to not to have to succumb to the rights of a developer. Topography, things such as these folks come in asking for favors. How much more clear can it get? When they are asking for a rezoning they are asking for a favor. You are going to give the favor at the cost and at the expense of other folks. One last little thing, our own council member is saying that we have problems. Residents who have already invested in city infrastructure aren't given less consideration than many residents as what we should have says Lioneld Jordan. Jordan says as residents move into newly constructed neighborhoods travel throughout the city increasing congestion. As long as the city only has 2.5 million to spend on roads per year the city will stay behind on growth. Where are we going to take that money from? When the hiring freeze stopped who were the first people hired? Six road crew members. Who is paying for that? We pay for it because we can't afford to buy our own library is how we are paying for it. The 2020 Plan does not mean tomorrow for a developer's right to develop. It means 2020. 1 don't think it is unreasonable to say we will annex this property but until our sewer is online in 2006 and we are not getting sued by Oklahoma and making sure that we can keep pumping it over the mountain I don't think that is Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 35 unreasonable. Here are my two questions that I don't expect to be answered by staff tonight, I have learned that. Why was the very important hillside taskforce delayed, put on a back burner, told that it was not important. I would like to know eventually an answer to that. Safety, I would like it published the rural accident report for the Wedington, Betty Jo area, which is where all of this is. Who is going to build a new exit off of 1-540. There will have to be a new exit. There is no way no matter how they can do all of that traffic that 61h Street will accommodate what is going all the way out to Double Springs. Who is going to pay for the overpass for Persimmon once that goes? Let's not talk about that need. Those people can suffer that drive and worry about getting killed pulling out on Wedington because they've got to take a chance to get out there. That is also where the school district wants to put our kids. It is truly amazing. Attainable housing is not being pursued aggressively by the city. The city should provide some type of system. That's how progressive we are. Everything is not a conspiracy folks. I'm afraid a lot of you may not be near aware as the ones I know as a reality in my life. I'm not saying that's what is going on here. This is another level. TIF, Mountain Inn TIF, what is the whole south side of town TIF. It is a term similar to the military industrial complex in it's power of what is going on in our town right now. All we are asking is please, give us time to take a breath. That's all we are asking. Just give us a breath that are in here and you don't just jump through their hoops to give favors. At our expense to what degree? We are also accommodating other people who are swooping in for the profit and profit and dollars which some folks here seem to think if it is appropriate for one side it was for all. In closing, I do say what's going on here between the city, the school district, the developers, there is a lot going on. Here is the deal for you. Just ask them to slow down. If we at the city are not supporting urban sprawl, you've got to be kidding. Vote to annex if appropriate, vote no on all rezonings until Fall, 2006 when we might have a sewer on line. Thank you all. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Davison. Are there other members of the public who would wish to comment on this item, the annexation for Tipton/Sloan? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. To start off, I believe our constituent did have a couple of direct questions. On the issue of the hillside taskforce, I can answer that. It was delayed because 2/3 of our membership left the Commission. We have not reappointed but we are going to reappoint tonight and get that taskforce started again. There are many things that the City Administration is doing. I'm not sure about the answer of the backburrier, I wasn't at that conversation. On the taskforce we are going to carry on and do our due diligence as the Council has instructed us. The accident reports for the Wedington, Betty Jo area I'm also interested in. I was going to bring that up in some of these discussions. I believe the comment of course the Persimmon by duct or crossing I-540 is relevant to Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 36 the discussion of the increased traffic. 1 believe we will get to that directly. Commissioners? Allen: Since this is the beginning of many annexations that we are getting ready to look at I will just pitch out this comment. Several months ago the Planning Commission and the City Council met jointly to discuss annexations and out of that meeting the Mayor appointed a committee of Planning Commissioners and City Council members to look at infrastructure problems, traffic and so on. I feel uncomfortable about proceeding with some of these annexations without a report from that committee. I know that yesterday when I went out to look at all of these annexations that traffic is certainly a consideration. I'm not saying that we shouldn't annex, I'm just saying that I would feel more comfortable hearing reports from that committee before we make these decisions. Ostner: I would have to agree. I am very interested in what the task force is looking into. I haven't attended their meetings but from what I read in the paper they are gathering great information. Could our two or three members fill us in on what is going on? Myers: We are still in the information gathering phase. We are meeting with representatives from the Police and the Fire and Water and Sewer to find out exactly what annexing means for the city as it is constituted now. I don't think we are very close to making a recommendation to Council. I would guess we would have to meet at least another four to five weeks before we are in a position to make a recommendation. If you feel strongly about not moving on any of these annexations until you have a report from that committee then you are talking August or September. Warrick: With regard to the reason that these are back before you. The City Council has not instituted a moratorium. They were asked. They specifically decided that was not their desire at this point in time. Many of these items were tabled in late April. The applicant requested that they come off the table and be heard. There are some items that are also newer that are on this agenda as well. It is a matter of when people submit to the office, when they get through the county process, which is required if you are annexing into the city or making a request to annex into the city. It wasn't a situation that we even necessarily wanted to see six different annexation and rezoning pairs at the same meeting. It is a situation that the developers were ready to move forward and request that you take action on this. You are making a recommendation to the City Council and they will, of course, be required to confirm any recommendations or make their own decision with regard to final action with regard to annexations and rezonings. That is why these are here. We do not have direction from the City Council to hold up any applications that are coming through the review process. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 37 Graves: I also serve on that taskforce and I agree with what Ms. Myers has said. I don't believe that there is going to be a report forth coming out of that taskforce as quickly as maybe the taskforce was charged with. That is not for lack of diligence on the part of the taskforce. It is just there is a lot of information that has been requested and as that information comes in it leads to requests for other information. That process may take a little longer than everybody would like. In the meantime, I believe I was the one that specifically asked the question at the joint meeting whether there was going to be a moratorium in the meantime. It seemed across the board that there wasn't a sentiment for anything like that including people on both sides of the issue on the City Council. This board, not being charged with policy making as such, it wouldn't be appropriate in my opinion for the Planning Commission to determine that there is some sort of de facto moratorium and that we are going to try to table all of these things. I also think that with respect to infrastructure concerns, although that is something you look at with annexation and all of these are accompanied by rezonings, I do know that with the taskforce one area that seems to be of a high priority with the members of the task force, again, on both sides of the issue, regardless of where they eventually fall with respect to annexing property in different areas around the city. One area that seems to be a priority to everyone is the area that we are looking at tonight around where the new treatment plant is going to be. I will be in favor of annexation of these properties. I know that Persimmon is certainly a high priority road as well and all of these border that particular road. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Graves. Clark: In the 2020 Guidelines it says conduct a fiscal impact assessment on "large annexations". What is the definition of large? Williams: I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. You would think if you put all of the annexations together that are facing you tonight that would certainly be a large annexation. I guess I would leave the interpretation of that to the Planning Department which actually drafted that particular policy. It wasn't part of the original plan that went through all of the hearings and everything else. This was added later by the Planning staff because they wanted to get some sort of annexation policy in effect. I would yield to Dawn Warrick, probably one of the authors of this. Warrick: This is what Planning presented as a policy to the Planning Commission. It was recommended and forwarded to the Council for adoption. Large annexations, in looking back over the historical annexations for the City of Fayetteville, we have seen annexations from less than an acre to more than 1,300 acres. In fact, I believe we had an 11,000 acre annexation in the Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 38 1960's so they vary greatly. The annexation that the Council is considering with regard to annexing unincorporated islands that are currently surrounded by city limits is approximately 1,300 acres. I was not one who drafted that particular policy. However, my interpretation of that is that it would probably vary. In this particular case we saw several different applications that happened to come in and through various reasons, ended up on the same agenda. When we started looking at these annexations they were not all on the same agenda. They were in different rounds of review. Through items being tabled and different applications being submitted at different times we ended up with approximately 400 acres on tonight's agenda. When we look at that policy it is obviously subjective and some determinations have to be made as to what is large. We have not, since we adopted that policy back in 2002 seen this number of individual annexations come through at the same general time. We have seen this type of single annexation for properties of similar sizes at various times throughout the past several years. Again, it has just been at the same time. My expectation when we talk about doing a fiscal impact analysis on a large annexation I would expect that if the city were to initiate an annexation of several hundred acres or even thousands of acres of property, that we would need to prepare that for the Council. Clark: Not individual pieces that are smaller? I'm struggling. I don't think it is fair to look at this and necessarily judge it as a whole but gosh it is going to have impact. Where do we draw the line? I just need clarification. Have we ever done a fiscal impact assessment? Warrick: No. Myers: That is one of the issues that the taskforce is struggling with right now Trumbo: Staff, if we don't annex this property can they still develop it to our Fayetteville city standards? Warrick: This property is immediately adjoining the Fayetteville city limits and so the street standards would be to the Fayetteville street standards. They would not however, be required to provide detention, tree preservation or parkland. Of course, they would be very likely residential lots developed on septic systems because we do not extend sewer service beyond the city limits. Trumbo: What about taxes? Would the City of Fayetteville receive the property taxes through the schools? Warrick: Not property taxes. Sales taxes. The property tax to the schools is based more on the school district and not municipal boundaries. Any sales tax Planning Commission • June 28, 2004 Page 39 generated would, of course, go to the breakouts for the various communities on sales tax. Trumbo: I'm for annexation. The amounts don't bother me but I deal with lots of acres everyday and I see it happening all over Northwest Arkansas. I'm comfortable with it and I feel that if we don't this property is going to be developed without our input, without our regulations and zoning and we also miss out on tax dollars which pay for things that the city needs. It pays for the infrastructure as well. I'm not for a moratorium or holding off on this. I just want to be clear that not all of us feel that way. Ostner: Thank you for those comments Mr. Trumbo. I would like to respond. I tend to disagree that these will be developed without us. Property in the county is simply not being developed at the rate that the City of Fayetteville is experiencing. Frankly, there is more profit to be made when you develop city lots. There is more incentive from the landowner to get into the city. He can offer more when he sales lots. I am not saying I'm against annexation. I wish in a perfect world, we could annex a lot of land, assuming everyone is happy with it, annex a lot of land and plan where and when, as Ms. Davison referred to, where and when we would like to develop areas. That is probably impossible but I believe it ought to be the goal that annexations and rezonings should be looked at in a completely different light. We are forced by our ordinance to look at them side by side. On every annexation request that we receive we also receive a rezoning request that a developer wants and needs to rezone that property to develop it once it is brought inside the city. It makes it difficult for Planning to go on because we wait until the market or the developer chooses to act on a certain area. I'm understanding Ms. Allen's reluctance to annex in the middle of the current state of things. In the newspaper this weekend there was an article that Northwest Arkansas is annexing at an incredible rate. The master plan was delivered to us tonight on our desk for review. TIFs are a big issue. I believe TIFs are important and there is a possibility of a drain of influence or attention. What are we tending to as a city? Are we tending to the borders, are we tending to our downtown, what are we looking at? I think we have a lot of things on our plate as a city per day. That is really the extent of my comment. Clark: I have struggled with annexation and this one is no exception. However, I have a question for staff. I'm trying to figure out how all of these universes come together to a perfect world. If we annex and it now belongs to the city and then we go about zoning and rezone it as all of these petitioners have requested tonight. When they submit their Large Scale Developments if the sewer treatment plant is not on line, if the infrastructure is not ready to accommodate that growth that is the proper time as I understand it, to say no. Is that correct? Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 40 Warrick: You have the ability to say no at several different points Clark: Those are some key issues though? Warrick: Absolutely. You will be addressing at the time of rezoning consideration the appropriate density. For Planning purposes, what is compatible, what is consistent with the General Plan, what is appropriate with regard to land use and density at that location. At the time of development, in this case we are looking very likely at a single family subdivision that will be submitting a Preliminary Plat if the property is annexed in the city. We will be looking at the infrastructure based on that development and the impacts caused by that development and what needs to be addressed and what is a roughly proportionate condition of approval with regard to impact of that development. Clark: Theoretically speaking, not necessarily about any of these, if the infrastructure was not sufficient, if the waste water treatment plant was not on line, that would be a reason to not approve a proposed development? Warrick: Yes. MOTION: Clark: That is what I thought I understood. For the record, general comments about annexation. Annexation does not scare me. Zoning scares me a lot. Annexation, we have growth boundaries right now that we have said we are going to grow out to. We are land locked. We go to those boundaries, other cities surround us and the county surrounds us. Having that boundary gives us an idea of how far we can grow and probably will grow. What we put on that annexed land however, is totally dependent upon the infrastructure. Zoning is critical. That is where I'm more concerned with the issue. When we have new developments we serve impact fees upon them. Those impact fees then help support the inner city that I do not think needs to be abandoned and must be cultivated and encouraged to re -grow or grow differently. Developers have to put a lot of money into developing infrastructure like streets, etc. in whatever they are proposing so that doesn't come out of tax payers pockets, it comes out of developer's packets. They are paying impact fees that can go and help the rest of the city. To me, annexation, if we don't do it now, we are going to face what could possibly happen if it is developed on it's own with county standards and then if we annex that property we have to pay to redo all of that. Septic tanks scare the heck out of me in terms of environmental impact. If it is annexed we control it. I am going to support ANX 04- 04.00 and move for approval. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 41 Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Anthes: I understand that we have to look at all of these individually that we are looking at tonight and what we have to work with are our guiding policies that are in the General Plan 2020. 1 have some questions about some of the items on there with respect to this piece of property. It is the furthest reaching of the ones that we are looking at tonight in terms of distance from our city center. I have a hard time looking at our land use map which doesn't appear to tie directly to the population growth projections that the city will likely double in population within the next 15 years. Nor does it to my satisfaction identify neighborhood commercial centers to serve that increased population. Therefore, I feel like we have a General Plan that is not truly planned in terms of physical infrastructure and therefore, I don't know what is strategic or not in terms of annexations as tied to the long range plan. However, we do have some guiding policies. I have a few questions. On page 5.6 of our report the third finding says 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. One of our things that we should look at is that public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. Has staff received those reports from those divisions and does staff believe that the city can efficiently provide those services in this area? Warrick: Those reports are on page 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 of your packet. All of those divisions questioned did respond affirmatively that services could be provided to this area. Anthes: Those services would be received in the same level of service as areas already within the city limits? Warrick: That is what is indicated in these responses. Anthes: I'm sorry for the redundancy. I just wanted to make sure that we talk through these things for the citizens that are here. We look at this particular piece of property is different from others in that we have a specific finding about annexing environmentally sensitive areas and this particular property found that was not applicable and that there was not an environmentally sensitive area. Warrick: This is basically an old farm field. It is near Owl Creek but not on Owl Creek. We did not find that there were hillsides of any type on this particular property so we found that that finding was not applicable to this site. Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 42 Anthes: There is no floodplain or floodway on this site? Warrick: No, not on this site. Anthes: When I look at this and think about large annexations, 30 acres in the scope of what we have been looking at recently is not necessarily one of the largest annexations. However, I would like clarification of that in the future. I would ask the City Council to strongly endorse planning that helps us identify growth neighborhood centers and takes a good look at how our zoning responds to those things in light of the population growth projections that we are seeing in the news. Warrick: Our General Plan is a general plan, it is a guiding policy. We are directed by that plan to update it every five years and we are gearing up for a 2005 update of that plan. I think that a lot of your comments are very pertinent to the type of information that this Planning Commission and the Council as well as staff desire to see as amendments implemented into that plan. I'm interested in pursuing some of that as w move into that update. Ostner: In the General Plan under Plans and Policies, 9.8.i Establish performance zoning design standards to mitigate adverse impacts of contrasting land uses with residential land uses. This has not been adopted as an ordinance as of yet but it is quite a tool that we can really use in the future. Developing and implementing a tree performance type zoning system citywide would require a consultant and extensive additional studies and amendments to the zoning/development code. I'm agreeing with Ms. Anthes and I appreciate Ms. Warrick's comments. Warrick: With regard to the performance zoning one thing that we have done and it is noted in the policy, about the ordinance regarding limited neighborhood commercial uses in a residential district. That ordinance was repealed when the City Council adopted Planned Zoning Districts, which is in part, our response to that policy directive. Planned Zoning Districts are performance zoning. That is a part of what we collectively have done to address that particular directive. Anthes: I cannot find a specific compelling finding of fact on this particular piece of property as I do on some of the others that we might hear later this evening. The urgency for me on this particular parcel is not there. It is not tied into specific developments that we are seeing currently closer to our city center nor is it an environmentally sensitive area. Therefore, I will not support this annexation. Graves: I will support the motion that is on the table. Addressing some of the factors that are present for this particular annexation under our General Planning Commission • • Jerre 28, 2004 Page 43 Plan. I would first like to note that they are guiding policies. I'm not certain that with a guiding policy that every element has to be present every time. We would of course like to have a fiscal impact analysis on every one of these but I'm not sure it is economically feasible for the city to do an economic feasibility study on every 30 acre parcel that might come in. I think that the method that is utilized when applying for these is on a per development basis or per tract basis, you are likely not going to see a fiscal impact study regardless of how the plan is amended sometime next year and regardless of what everyone would like to see. That is probably more amenable to a situation where maybe an ordinance is passed and a large contingent of the population is voting on a larger annexation. A number of factors are present here under our guiding policies. Those include the presence of a planned residential use of this property under the General Plan. The fact that there are urbanized zones nearby on Persimmon Street on the northern edge although it is not developed immediately to the north. We did just approve a particular tract on the northern edge at the Genevieve and Tackett area. That area is developing and as you go further east there is a large number of urbanized areas there that are nearby. This is becoming an urbanized area. We also have, although not everyone here is privy to the information, because they haven't been at the task force meetings. This is an area that is already served by water and sewer service very nearby, although it is not extended onto these tracts. It is pretty immediately available without expenditure by the city. These are also areas that our fire and police are already servicing because on the northern edge it is already in the city. They are already having to patrol and serve those particular areas. As far as looking at city services right there without increasing the expenditures that the city would have to make to provide service to those areas. Also, this plan I would note hasn't been amended since the impact fees were implemented. Although, the impact fees do not fully address financial or fiscal impact or we don't know whether they do because we don't have fiscal impact studies. It certainly ameliorates it somewhat. I'm in support of annexing this property. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Graves. Shackelford: One final comment. We have talked about a lot of issues regarding rezoning and annexation tonight. Obviously, there are a lot of different opinions in the general public, on this board and on City Council. I think that is why this annexation subcommittee was formed. I too serve on that subcommittee. 1 don't think that any of us here are in a position to speak for that committee. It is way too early in the process to go that way. I look at these as just basic annexations. We are challenged and bound and directed by the ordinances as they exist today for reviewing these. We serve at the discretion and at the will for the City Council. The City Council very specifically discussed whether or not they wanted a Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 44 moratorium on these annexations and rezonings. That decision I don't think was supported by either side. I think that their request of us is that they go ahead and view these on a case by case basis. It takes City Council authorization to change those ordinances and until there are changes that come forth from either City Council by recommendation of this subcommittee or otherwise, we have to approach these as we did prior to this. While there is a lot of information that is being gathered, I think we have to operate under the same circumstances that we have in the past, which is on a case by case basis. I think staff has done a good job with their findings of fact on this. I think that this annexation is in line with what was approved in the past and what the City Council has basically, by not directing a moratorium, expressed an interest in going forward. We have to remember that we are the first step in this process. These are recommendations to the City Council and again, they are going to have final say on this. They are the ones that have encouraged us to keep these moving forward. I would encourage on this and other upcoming items tonight that we would consider due process and keep these things moving forward. Ostner: I just have one other comment. We have talked a lot about ideas and philosophical conversations about annexation with our city. The big difference to me is annexations and these rezonings are about how much and when. I think we as a panel would agree that our city is growing. I don't think any of us want to stop it but how much do we grow and when? Do we grow now? Does this property get developed now or should it wait? There is a lot of undeveloped land between this property and our city center. There is a lot of undeveloped land between this property and I-540. For me it is more of a logistical issue of how much and when. It is at the furthest reach of the annexations that we are looking at tonight. There are many other projects with much greater acreage that are a lot closer. In my mind when city services and residents have to drive by vacant areas to get to where they are going, that is sprawl. Sprawl is bad. Sprawl is expensive. It increases drive times, it taxes the city. I'm in favor of annexation and I will probably vote for this tonight. However, on the rezoning and land use I'm not certain I will vote for it. Allen: 1 wish I had a note from home to not have to vote on any of the annexations because I very much would like to have the report from this committee before we make the vote. However, I agree with Commissioner Clark about it not being the annexation, it is the zoning that is the primary concern. I will vote in favor of this annexation. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Allen. Is there further discussion? Can you call the roll please? Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 45 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-04.00 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to one. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-10.00 for Tipton/Sloan. We have heard the staff report. Myers: Since this parcel is actually being developed as an extension of an already existing subdivision or development I don't have trouble at this particular time with this particular parcel in terms of rezoning it to RSF-4. I plan to vote for this rezoning. Ostner: On that same note I appreciate the drawing which is not usually offered at this point. I'm pleased that there are no back fences facing street right of ways. Backs of houses should touch backs of houses. That is important. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this issue? McGuire -Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I'm here tonight because I feel like this whole meeting is historic however it comes out. This whole time period that we are going through and the effort that you are making to struggle with this question of the growth of Fayetteville is really important. If it is true that you are actually considering prying apart the automatic annexation and rezoning that would be very exciting in itself. If that is what is happening I'm excited and encouraged. Ostner: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this item? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: To address that comment. I think that we are required by city code to address land use when an annexation comes in. Annexations come in automatically R-A so we typically want to zone to something else because most areas that we annex aren't going to be agricultural. That is why we always look at them at the same time. I think it is important to look at land use when annexations come in but not necessarily accepting what the developers want. I think that is the issue. I am for this. I think the Bill of Assurance stated 2.9 units per acre. That is definitely not the most dense it could be. This area of town is going in that direction. This is an area that is soon going to have more and more development going on with the location of proposals out in this area and also with the Boys and Girls Club. I think it is an important area of Fayetteville. To me it is also important to have these developments in this area that extend these . roadways and make improvements to roads. We discussed tonight another one that borders 541h and that could be very pertinent. It is a tool that we have used to fund our growth in this town. It goes both ways. We are at a Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 46 historic time in Fayetteville where we are growing on our edges and we are growing in the middle. As you read the papers as many of you have, you see the downtown master plan and the development that we already have. It is a challenge and drain on staff. I really appreciate their work in trying to keep up with this. 1 will be in support of this, especially with the Bill of Assurance limiting it to 2.9 units per acre. MOTION: Shackelford: I concur with what Commissioner Vaught said. I think that this rezoning to RSF-4 is a lot more in line with what is happening out there than the R- A zoning would be. I think that density wise it fits in with the development. Obviously, this is basically an expansion of an existing development in that area. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-10.00 to the City Council. Graves: Second. Anthes: Contrary to what we see, R-A or RSF-4 zoning are not the only two instruments of zoning available to us. I'm having a hard time understanding whether this should be this density, less dense or more dense without knowledge of our long range plans for our commercial centers and time that to population growth and our directives about sprawl or smart growth. Without those policies in place it is very hard to tell whether we are building to the correct density at this distance from our city center or not. I understand that this is an optimal density for developers developing single family residential units. They get a lot width and street frontage that works pretty well and I can appreciate that. I really want to see us look more carefully at specific locations and understand them in terms of bringing services to those areas and not just blanketing the perimeter of our city with a blanket of RSF-4 without mixed use being brought into that equation. Thank you. Clark: I would like to echo Commissioner Anthes' sentiments. I voted for annexation but I am not going to vote for rezoning. You might as well say blanket comments here as well. Until 1 know some of the answers to the infrastructure questions, to the financial impact questions I don't have enough knowledge to say if RSF-4 is proper density out here. If you follow the reason that it is connecting to another subdivision well then we might as well rezone everything else because it is a chain step right on down to the city. I am not going to do that. I encourage the taskforce and am in support of the taskforce. I know you all are working very hard and you are going to consider a lot of information. When I see some of that information maybe I will feel comfortable making these votes for rezoning. Annex it, great. It belongs to us and then we can zone it. When you zone it you have to answer some very substantive questions and I Planning Commission • • June 28, 2004 Page 47 don't have enough information to do that. I will be voting against the rezoning. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-10.00 was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Ostner and Clark voting no. Ise $ I s�F� �\_• e ��'\ �'{� ��-`$^akS�l � .#�oias�,�`ae iA ��I IJYC .�' ai�t$�aF�; 8 oEg. �. ✓=E��a9/§'�s�/ 686e� Y Y Y s i .e� 4 JORGENSEN It ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS Y N � PO L� --y N '7�J'09'E 179' 1 N '30'E 8.4T 11 . r 64'x7w. 90.6J1 - 7J.16 -73.16' go V� .00. 99. N m Io + I I 21'B .JETBACSa UE— M n ( ;b— M M6LLE� .-J. J l— — Im V 5 79 7• —9 ^� I 7_ 00'Od o + yp Du 4 1 �_ 1 .I I .00'OYI 25' BLOG. CIL6 UE w 7S' M. a AWA E i F Iu l a+ � � w � , F W+� F � q+� ' + �I ��p+1 �� q+ a+ ��1/ m+ �. � +a ' €• Q+? R p+� I I 10 I N o u W \o A �_ ie O) 1- o_ 'jai `? 1 - ai. O I + - ai N d �•�? A I g . .o0'an M I I ` M M M M oo7s•o9_Iv .— N L� ---- — —m ---= -- - - - oo3i� 7�sa e 7?60' 79.EP� 39—ao1 (' - o•o n�Po• \ o' '333r � zir 7z.ea• iz.eo• 71 KP9.Chim F a +�(• F +o w + F + II- Io + u + F + F + w �,, o o V o V o o q V V o A I + I m a 8�A g'�' 8' I• N 8 + $ o a'° 4 8� 8z a'gam` _ E J bb C. Ia •'a .0� \ M o I b� M o M Z m 1 s'E�Baa e E_�� YS' BLDO. \CK 6 IAE Fd FF F L s9D•MJ� ro9�1• [— — — --- 15_o9wJ — f0 79.58' 55' 79.35' �9. fi9.5'�79.55' ]�.aa X L Mo Y5 B�. _ .EE - -F .1~ -�- Y5'B CA 6 � L •" N o N N � ,• q\ ` m -- �J L}— 79.60' 9.60' 79. 0' 7 .50' 9.J0' 79.50 90.5 SOOY1 1299.ze' z 'S'P.E d 7JyJP'm -ZAL ' X 120.00. r — •y NOR7N / 1Y0.00• I20.00• g�1� I• + X� V !0 Lill I n 120.00, P 1p I k nLl I W (x 1 I' Li X / 1 nI --- 1 I 0 X / 1= �yyyy O �f4 �n=T O � � Aeij � mObi045i 7y � . va � �JaYim L C1 o• w y rA 4�A w i s z A f{� ro o<� c �Ooa4 m at v $n e�a^E 8' pEI fg� u o n ti b o n p g a V � • oa � o o$ O o 0 o e bti z! a o � ti b OWVYF a 2 pm ki ATF 0 R�y2yNIA 4n yi Fx h o a o2 mz$ �g3 .� H E 1 ut �`Apw 4 P R U 4N 4�i1^ a �'MH%� • u^ 9 <m.o w7tn a co'a • sAwr; � � � a®'iie�,00 $o� lix io lml.* ll�iam JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 'Y ATE BE175fD CNCfJ(® BY: pPAPN BY.' BJt y 04 L9101P110YYBANM POI NTE PHASE 4 1 i AT 4INAR' PL1 u • IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. CC 2003-ate ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS o r" ORDER SETTING HEARING " o o r7 Now on this Zfday of November, 2003, is present to the Court a Petitioner o z Annexation of Certain Lands to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,. filed in,6nty`f J tV Court of Washington County, Arkansas on November/j&2003, by the Petitioner tobert B. Tipton and Minnie Beth Tipton, husband and wife. IT IS THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-40-602, a hearing on said Petition sha ll be held in the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas, on the day of 003, at 10:30 o'clock a.m., and the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to tissue a notice of said hearing as set herein shall be published in the manner and for the full length of time as required by law CO TY 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 6823409 Elections 682-5070 Building & Grounds 6823532 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 1 st Class City 2nd Class City Incorporated Town County: Washington City: Fayetteville Ordinance No. - Co. Order No Plat Election Island Ordinance No. Plat Election 4602 CC—2003-27 -X Co. Order No. I have forwarded this information to the Arkansas Municipal League. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 1-800-482-1127 or 682-3451. Sincerely, Leanna Godley 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 • Fax 501.682-3510 e-mail: sos@aristotle.net • www.sos.arkansas.gov Barristers Plate, Suite 11 70 North College Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-6101 RRMOND 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 rsmith7011Qsbcglobal.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. ith Encls. RECEIVED SEP 21 208 CITY OF FAYErrEVILLE CITY CLERKS OFFICE FILED IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTA O'UNTYAUUASAS KARU41 COIABS s'RITCHARD IN THE MATTER OF CO. & PRO3WE CLERK ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO WASHI"•!CTuN CO. ARK. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CASE NO. CC-2003-027 ORDER CONFIRMING ANNEXATION NOW on this A5 day of September, 2004, comes on for hearing and consideration the Petition for Confirmation of Annexation filed by the Petitioners, Robert B. Tipton and Minnie Beth Tipton, husband and wife, represented by their 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 Amended Order of Annexation was filed on the 29`h day of March, 2004, in above styled and numbered case by which certain real estate was annexed to and made a part of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. Said real estate is further described at Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2. No objections have been filed by any interested persoin with the authorities of the City of Fayetteville, or to the Petitioners, and no exceptions to the Amended Order of Annexation have 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. 4602, "An Ordinance Confirming the Annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, of Certain Property owned by Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton Located East of Double Springs Road Adjoining the Southeast Corner of the Legacy Pointe Subdivision Containing Approximately 29.31 Acres", approved and passed by the City Council on 17`h day of August, 2004, and recorded on the 9`h day of September, 2004, at 2004-00037311 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 ordiance attached hereto as Exhibit `B". IT IS THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF TEAS COURT that the Amended Order of Annexation entered on the 291h day of March, 2004, that annexed the herein described territory to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby approved and confirmed in all aspects. 4 iEVRY HUNTON, - Judge EXHIBIT "A" A part of the NW'/4 of the NW'/4 of Section 14, Township 16 North, Range 31 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of said 40 acre tract, said point being an existing iron pipe; thence S 87°39'18"E along the North line of said 40 acre tract 989.80 feet to a set %2" rebar; thence S 02°37'05"W 1289.84 feet to an existing rebar; thence N 87°38'05"W 990.30 feet to a set '/2 iron rebar on the West line of said 40 acre tract, said point being N02038'05"E 34.24 feet North of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract; thence N02038'25"E 1289.40 feet to the point of beginning, containing 29.31 acres, more or less. r� o 3 ORDINANCE NO. 4602 TO AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING TARNHE ANNEXATIONF TAIN CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, MINNIE BETH THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ROBERT AND_GS TIPTONLO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LEGACY D L a� 63 ADJOIN pOINTE SUBDIVISION CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 29.31 ACRES BE IT ORDAINED ASBY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILL ffi Section 1: That the Cite Cdcribed in Exhibituncil hereby s' A" attached hereto and made rms the armaxation to the ia part Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property hereof. Section 2: The official map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is Section 3: g Residential Agricultural to the subject hereby amended to assi n the zoning designation of R A, property. d to Ward No. Four. Section 4: That the above -described property is hereby assigne PASSED and APPROVED this 17t' day of August, 2004. APPROVED: By: GVY,9000.10L•s ATTEST: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII =�; ILLE: s ,FAYETIE� >-; Doc ID: 007853870002 T02e REL By: Clerk =�'• q Pam' = FeeaAmta S11/00/Paae It Of2228'18 PM CI SONDRA SMITH, tY ;9s• RKANS oJ,.� Washinaton county. AR °.;.;NG��O�N,�.•��� Fi1e2004-00037311 Ci'y C�k's Ofc Sf"-71�7695 P.5 j f1)d- EXHIBIT "A" ANX 04-04.00 A PART OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING IRON PIPE; THENCE S87039' 18"E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, 989.80 FEET TO A SET %," REBAR; THENCE S02037'05"W2 1289.84 FEET TO AN EXISTING REBAR; THENCE N87°38'05"W 990.30 FEET TO A SET %: IRON REBAR ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING N02038105"E, 34.24 FEET NORTH OF THE SW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE NO2°38'25"E, 1289.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 29.31 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. FAYETTEXALLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEWLE, ARKANSAS City Clerk Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8323 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Dawn Warrick Planning Division From: Clarice Buffalohead-PearmanZ* City Clerk Division Date: August 23, 2004 Re: Ordinance No. 4602 Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, August 17, 2004, confirming the annexation of property located east of Double Springs Road adjoining the southeast comer of the Legacy Pointe Subdivision containing 29.31 acres and owned by Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton. 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, 1T Ed Connell, Engineering �0 • • WSAI •ki • • -. y 7 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, do solemnly swear that I am Leg 1 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: t&l?�2nz 4&a was inserted in the regular editions on PO# e -m / /4 "" Publication Charge: $ Subscribed and sworn to before me this a4 day of Q u4 2004. Notary Public My Commission Expires: old k " Please do not pay from Affidavit. An invoice will be sent. Official Seal SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO Notary Public -Arkansas ) WASHINGTON COUNT` T My Commission Expires 0- 2n-2 :? ORDINANCE NO. 4602 CITYORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TG aye evl le ' ERT OF. OWNED By ROB, TAND AS, OF CERTAIN do )PERTY OWNED T OF DO BLE MINISPRINGS BEER AD ! LOCATED EAST OFT DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD DINING THE SUBDIVISION SOUTHEASTCORNEROF THE LEGACY ARKANSAS VOTE SUBDIVISION CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11 ACRES IT ORDAINED BY THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: fan is That the GUY Counpl hereby confirms the annexation to the City Of Fayetteville. Arkansas, of pfoPerty dasadbed in DMilcit'A' attached hereto and made a pert hereof. ion 2: The official map of the City of Fayar lte, Arkensas, is hereby amarwed to reflect the change icled in Section 1 above. on 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, AMbnsas is hereby amended to assign :wing designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the subject property. ion 4: That the above -described Property is hereby assigned to Ward No, Four. EEO AM APPROVED this 17M day of August, 2004. WilBfr"A" ANX 04-04.00 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 18 NORTH, RANGE 31 JGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOU IING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EMSTINC 1ENCE S87-39'1 WE, ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, 989.80 FEE 2' REBAR; THENCE 302°37-05-W, 1289.84 FEET TO AN EXISTING REBAR; TF '05"W 990:30 FEET TO A SET 1/2' IRON REBAR ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 SAID POINT BEING NO2'38'05"E, 34.24 FEET NORTH OF THE SW CORNER OF SAID 40 THENCE NO2°38'25-E, 1289,40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING MORE OR LESS. 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE 6 P.O. BOX 1607 111 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 111 (501) 442-1700